PioneerI for one have never been able to work out why the RAAF never adapted a long-range, all-weather fighter/interceptor -the likes of the Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck or an indigenous long-range, all-weather interceptor variant of the Canberra, to both patrol and intercept threats way out to sea (utilizing the air-sea gap)!
Especially when one considers how paranoid the Australian Government and military was of the likes of Indonesian Tu-16 Badgers!
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerThe Avon-engined Mirage would have been a major benefit, not only in terms of the reliability, but also in terms of commonality with the Avon Sabres and Canberras.
I like the way you think!!!
the only type I would have loved to see in Aussie service would have been the Saab Draken! It already used the Avon, had an excellent radar, and excellent performance.
You read my mind!
The Draken was also the first European-built all-weather fighter.
The poor Draken has been somewhat overlooked by many
The only problem I see with the Swedish Draken though – is if the French gave us a hard time of the possible use of the Mirage III in Vietnam – I would hate to think of the issues we would have had with the Draken!
I’ve heard that this was a major factor with the RAAF when looking at the Saab Viggen as one of the possible Mirage III replacements.
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerSome good points made on top of the original Mirage 3, F-4E, F-111C, F-18 question!
The C-130 is and has been the workhorse of the RAAF.
I have to agree that the Canberra needs to be recognized!
I to loved the idea of the then leased F-4E’s being purchased outright after the arrival of the delayed F-111’s – but id did not happen – so its very short service career in the RAAF would tend to exclude it from the equation in my opinion of the big question.
I would have said the Mirage IIIEO if it we had the balls to develop the more promising and capable Avon-powered variant that we considered early (and that the French specifically installed in one of its Mirage III’s, thinking after the effort that CAC went to so as to develop the CAC Avon-powered Sabre!)
To bad a missed opportunity!!
The F-111 was without doubt the yard stick of advanced strike capability in the world at the time. But unfortunately its true potential was curtailed due to politicians – who would not indorse the boom-type refueling capability it needed to utilize its true potential.
As for the F/A-18A/B’s they to were a true leap forward in technology and capability (as a kid in the 1980’s – ‘I for what it mattered’ endorsed the F/A-18 Hornet purchase, predominantly due to its two-engine ‘over-water’ reliability and its ‘medium-range’ AA engagement capability with its Sparrow MRAAM’s.
But I can not but help think(with hindsight!!) that if we had waited that little bit longer, the GD F-16 may have been the better choice – with its improved F100-engine reliability, better agility, and latter ability to use Sparrow AAM’s and later Aim-120 AMRAAM, also the fact that we could have purchased more F-16’s for the price of the F/A-18’s!!!)
Add to the fact that (and its just me!!) that we could have done without the added weight and complication of the carrier-compatibility built into the Hornet (if anything – I always thought the F-18L was a missed opportunity, which the RAAF should have pushed for with Northrop!!!!!)
Oh and lets not overlook the Lockheed P-3 Orion!!
After all that I have not given a true answer have I?:D
Well that’s my 20-cents worth
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerNo, AIM-4s from F-102s.
What if any success did these have???
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerPioneer,
Your scaring me with logic and sensibility !!
Just think for a minute though…. since most of the large scale procurements made by/ or on behalf of Defence seem to always waste millions of taxpayer money and take years to reach IOC….
Think how bad it is as the unit/ squardon level when it comes to buying or requesting the every day items it needs to operate….
My friend, I have been in the ADF for near on 22-years now!
I both hear and read you loud and clear (I think)!
I could tell you some stories…………………………………..
At present the ADF struggles with recruiting (and more important retention!)
And yet the ‘Brass’ keeps buying bigger, more expensive ‘bling’ big ticket items, like kids in a lolly shop.
I have been OS more times than I would like in the past 7-years.
I am tired of PM’s, Shadow opposition leaders and defence ministers flying in out of the blue in body armour, telling us what a great job we are doing!
Every time we work with the U.S or Brits, the Brass get a little more excited about what they have and what they would like us to have.
At present the ADF is committed in ‘Army heavy’ conflicts – and will be for many years to come.
Whilst the Navy track down refugees using frigates and the likes for political gain and appeasement of red necks!
How many full strength battalions do we have?
How long can 4RAR/2Cmdo/ SASR keep up the pace?
While we fight this ‘War on Terrorism’, whilst having wet dreams of ABM armed frigates and 60+ton SPH, the Pacific / Indian region is leaving us for dead in terms of conventional warfare fighting capability!
And yet we are yet to experience the true ramification of a Post-Afghanistan/Iraq War turn down of Government commitment – let alone the true effects of PTSD, which will come.
Sorry but I am diverging from the prime topic
End of message – Out
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerFirst customer for KC-30A in the WORLD.
A capability which should have been purchased a decade ago – even before the retirement of the RAAF’s half-assed Boeing 707 conversions – let alone retirement!!
First customer for Wedegtail AEW&C in the WORLD.
Yes and like most times in the case of ADF history – over cost, over time (as per the F-111, M60 GPMG, Collins Class SSK……………) – again another capability which should have and could been filled a decade or more before!
When its tracking targets to the North and vectoring RAAF fighters via data link I will be happy!
2nd international customer for P-8A.
Lets see it in RAAF operational service before we get to excited!
First international customer for Super Hornet.
And why is it that it has taken so long for both Boeing, the U.S Government and military to convince another Air Force / Government to purchase the Super Hornet – after how many years of marketing and promotion?
Only Country in Asia/Oceania to join F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program as a Partner nation and invest money in the program as a level 3 partner.
Yes and again lets wait to see how this design goes once it is in RAAF operational service before we begin to pat ourselves on the back!
After all it was only tax payers money!
Only nation in SEA to operate HF based, extended range over the horizon radar system.
After how many decades, cost blow outs, company withdrawals and poor management, and truly how much true operational capability?
First international customer for Juan Carlos LHD, named Canberra Class LHD in Australian service.
Good point, and a good choice by the RAN!
But I wonder how we are going to go manning them, or to use them to their true capability – let alone the RAN/Governments wiliness to take such a large and expensive ship into harms way?
After all the ADF has not had the stomach, the balls or the will to use its para’s (3RAR) in their intended role since they were formed
First nation in Asia/Oceania to deploy Excalibur artillery PGM and Excalibur portable fire control unit.
Again no problems here!
As an infantryman I welcome the capability of the ‘Excalibur’ round!
But will it be purchased in the numbers required or will it be a another ‘Bling’ item like the Cooperhead rounds?
You can bring me water to quench my thirst – but do not tell me I can not drink it!
1st international customer for M777A2 155mm howitzer.
No arguments here Mr. S – but at least we were wise enough to await this weapon to mature and its bugs ironed out in U.S service before committing us balls and all!
It’s the ridiculous 155mm SPH program which really scares me!!!!!!!
1st international customer for Tiger armed recon helo.
Again not without its problems and time delays!
The biggest issue I have with the Tiger, is the inter-operability with the likes of our main and traditional allies – the U.S and UK
Nah you’re right. ADF has never set ANY trends…
A trends is only viable if it works and that you can get 100% out of the system!
Half the list you have provided is like my kids Christmas list – nice, but can I afford it? Can they use it effectively?
Or is it like the RC cars and boats I have brought in the past – they will always need expenditure in the way of batteries…………oh at least the kids RC toys come with a 12-month warranty, which allows it to be returned to the place of purchase with no questions asked if it does not perform as was quoted by the manufacture!
Where is the likes of the much over looked replacement for the RBS-70 and Rapier SAM, I ask, which are needed yesterday?
Were is the sense in removing artillery from the Reserve Orbat?
Were is the sense of pillaging the Reserve Orbat of APC – to be replaced by
6×6 Landrovers
Were is the automatic grenade launchers for the standard army?
Were is the true ATGM capability of the standard army?
Hell I am scared to death as to what is to come of the Collins Class SSK replacements…….
You can have all these ‘bling’ toys till the cows come home – but when they cost so much, run into development cost and time overruns or can not be used to there full capacity or potential I question much of the logic, when we are now limited in training time, ammunition and budget restraints for basic training!
‘Just my 20-cents worth’
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerConfirmed weapons are AIM-9X, ATFLIR, AGM-154C-1, JASSM, buddy stores along with JHMCS and NVG. Peter.G
Its got me stuffed………… So what happens to the vast amount of time, ‘money’ and technical maintenance training of all the effort put into the purchasing of the Aim-132 ASRAAM?
Hell look at the waist of time, money (and lack of capability!) and in the end no cigar – the RAAF achieved in its attempts to field a stand-off attack weapon for the its F-111 fleet.
With the ever changing technology and ‘Bling’ factor of ever more modern types and capability of weapons being developed – did the RAAF truly want to field the likes of the ‘Popeye’ (AGM-142 ‘Have Nap’) in the end?
Or did it change its mind after all its time and effort?????
At the end of the day it is clear to me that the RAAF never truly looked hard and in depth into all the options with its purchase of the Super Hornet.
I am convinced that it was more a political decision of the last Australian Federal Government to purchase the Super Hornet.
Some people would argue interservice compatability with the United States!
But this does not truly gel with me.
To think that the EF-18 Growler may be kept in use to support the eventual introduction of the F-35 seems a little odd to me!
Why when using the so-called stealth qualities of the F-35 to penetrate an enemies aerospace, would you counter act this with noise suppression Jamming?
To me – As for tanker / airborne refueling as a force multipliers – to support the Super Hornets – its will not take a determined enemy with a touch of genius to work out very quickly that by splashing a couple of tanks which the main strike force is critically relying on is a far more intuiting and productive target to splash than a multiple array of Super Hornets!
After all almost every neighbor to Australia has been using tankers / Airborne refueling in their orbat for over a decade+ – whilst our politicians deliberated wether it would be seen as provocative…………………. (but hey that’s just my thoughts!!!)
One thing is for certain for a long time now, the ADF has been following trends, instead of set them for its own unique requirements!!!!
‘My M18 is live and the M57 ready in hand’!
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerI am some what suprised that the USN never elected to use a variant of its ‘own little baby’ the RIM-116 ‘Rolling Airframe Missile’ (RAM)!
Its smaller and lighter!
But then again the Aim-9 Sidewinder was a US Navy missile to begin with!
I guess the RAM does not have the range of the Sidewinder!
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerHey Sferrin
Very interesting find on the SIAM (Self-Initiated Anti-Aircraft Missile) program!
Especialy the SUBADS (Submarine Air-Defense System) side of the program
I have not heard or seen this before!!
I think it some what ironic that in the heat and tensions of the Cold War that the U.S Navy did not follow through on this needed and promising program – and yet today with the demise of the Soviet/Warsaw Pact power and numerical numbers no longer there – they now decide to develop such a system!
Thanks
Regards
Pioneer
Pioneerit can be carried in an unmodified configuration and fired from a submarine’s vertical launch tube
We’ve not had to modify the AIM-9X. The capsule protects it from the environment so you can use it off-the-shelf.”
This is a capability that is long, long, long overdue and I would say neglected by the U.S. Navy
It will be very interesting to see if this program can be kept on time and within budget – or even kept in want by the U.S. Navy!
I also can not work out why it is that the likes of such a weapon system would not be kept secret?
I think the US Military and US arms industry are more concerned about share prices than national security – when they promote to the world such systems or capability – which encourages other potential adversary country’s to either develop their own system or countermeasures!
Let’s see how long it takes for the PRC/PLAN (or even Russia!) to ‘acquire’ this technology – which mysteriously looks like and smells like a copy of the U.S system????
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerI’m sorry but the Armidale Class should never have been!
In reality they offer very little advantage and capability over that of the boats they replace – the Fremantle Class!
The Australian Government (either major party!!!!) can not get it in their head that at the end of the day the ‘patrol boat’ first and foremost is a fighting vessel and must be able to operate in an offensive and a defensive manner.
To do this it must have the weapons and sensors to do this!
The Fremantle and Armidale Class are Coast Guard type vessels and should be manned by a Coast Guard organization (or at least Customs!)
Transfer and commission Armidale Class directly into Coast Guard ‘now’ and they should get 10-15-years of good valued service from them!
As a member of the ADF I must say I am both tired and annoyed that so much time and resources are spent by the RAN (and ADF as a whole!) intercepting illegal boats, searching for dickhead solo or rich yachtsman who get into trouble!
All this whilst the RAN struggles to man and operate costly submarines that are rusting in harbor!
The Fremantle Class should have been replaced by an OPV right from the start!
As per most Western Navy’s they are so obsessed with putting all their money into big, expensive and shiny ships like destroyers, frigates and sub’s – but never patrol boats or mine warfare vessels!
I have always respected and been enviable with the Soviet/Russian (and for that matter the Swedish) respect, understanding and commitment to its patrol boat / MCM programs and the importance they command in their Order of Battle!
We were very stupid not to have gone it alone with the ‘joint OPV’, after Malaysia cracked the sulks and dropped us like a hot potato!
As for the helicopter design to be operated from these vessels (if they ever comes to fruition!!!), like the OPV themselves – they need to be combat capable – in the roles of ASW, ASV, recon and surveillance and SAR.
I agree with many that the RAN needs to minimize the amount of helicopter types within its Order of Battle!
I think both the Seahawk and the NH-90 are both to large, heavy and expensive for the OPV – and to insist on either of these types of Helo’s will drive the size, displacement and most importantly the cost of the OPV up!
I think the time tested and combat tried and trusted Lynx (off the shelf! – for god sake do not let the brass have a wet dream over doing what they did with the Seasprite to the Lynx!!!!!!!!!!!)
I will not be crass and tell people were they can stick their Squirrel or Jet Ranger’s!
These are for training and TV stations!
Simply take Royal Navy ‘standard’ Lynx (with changes like conversion of Stingray LWT to MK46/MK50 LWT) and paint a red Kangaroo on its sides! (None of these second-hand, bargain basement specials!)
Use its existing ability to use Sea Skua ASM (without even the RAN brass thinking about ‘adding this’ and ‘modifying that’ to allow the fitting and firing of Penguin ASM’s
Ensure it has a NVG and FLIR systems!
Keep its dipping sonar system.
And there the RAN has it a fool proof, combat and time proven light and combat helicopter that still has no equivalent!
And most importantly it works!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This OPV should have the ‘minimum’ of:
1 x 57mm DP gun mount.
4 x 12.7mm HMG’s
4 x 7.62mm MAG-58 GPMG’s
2 x single cell Harpoon SSM launchers (this is the bare minimum – with up to 2 x twin launcher being easily fitted in time of crisis!!!)
2 x Twin MK32 torpedo tubes
2 x MK 36 Super Rapid Bloom Off board Countermeasures (SRBOC) systems
2 x Nulka missile decoy launches
1 x Multipurpose combat helicopter
The next big question should they be Australian designed and built?
Or should they be an off-the-shelf design?
I’m thinking a minimum of twelve in the class (but will always be happy with more – only after MCM is greatly improved!!!!)
I can not answer this. But one would like to think that in time of crisis we should be able to build this type of vessel quickly and in numbers!
Regards
Pioneer
PioneerGiven the exyensive and growing use of composite materials particularly on aircraft, how easy or difficult is it to repair battle damage to the material? Would you be able to improvise temporary “patches” or would this require more exttensive repair?
A great and relevant question I have often asked my self!!
Will be interested to learn some facts!
Thanks for the topic
Regards
Pioneer
Pioneer[QUOTE=PMN1;1464133]
The US had a similar idea for the C-135 called Project Aerie with upto 24 AAN-M-10 Eagle missiles [QUOTE]
Would kill for an artist work or 3-view drawing of this!
I’ve been looking for years with no luck:confused:
Regards
Pioneer
Pioneeri think it will be decades before the boat goes afloat and being obsolete before being in active duty….:D:rolleyes:
Never under estimate your enemy!
Rule Number 1 of warfare!!!!!!!!!
I think you have been a sleep for the past decade if you think it will take decades before this carrier is active/operational.
China has the will, the money and their espionage very down pat to achieve almost anything it sets its mind on.
I like the analogy that the ship is more likely to be used to gain operational experience!
Also it will be a very useful propaganda and flag showing ship to show off what the PLAN has achieved in technical and military terms – after all the Russian Navy’s only carrier has been used specifically for this purpose for almost its entire life so far – with very little true combat capability or staying power if things came to push!
As for the issue of being obsolete before being in active duty – well there are many more much older carriers out at see which have more than once proven that one should never underrate the so-called obsolete carriers!
After all I believe any carrier is better than no carrier!!!
Regards
Pioneer
Pioneeri think it will be decades before the boat goes afloat and being obsolete before being in active duty….:D:rolleyes:
Never under estimate your enemy!
Rule Number 1 of warfare!!!!!!!!!
I think you have been a sleep for the past decade if you think it will take decades before this carrier is active/operational.
China has the will, the money and their espionage very down pat to achieve almost anything it sets its mind on.
I like the analogy that the ship is more likely to be used to gain operational experience!
Also it will be a very useful propaganda and flag showing ship to show off what the PLAN has achieved in technical and military terms – after all the Russian Navy’s only carrier has been used specifically for this purpose for almost its entire life so far – with very little true combat capability or staying power if things came to push!
As for the issue of being obsolete before being in active duty – well there are many more much older carriers out at see which have more than once proven that one should never underrate the so-called obsolete carriers!
After all I believe any carrier is better than no carrier!!!
Regards
Pioneer
Sign In
