Well, maybe not…………….remember the whole point here is a stop-gap! First you only need a relatively small number. Second, who says they have to be exactly up to F-15E/K standards? Why not just give them a small life extention? Possibly, upgrade the Radars to a similar standard as the APG-63 AESA or fit them with the same APG-73 Radar as current RAAF Hornets or early Super Hornets? They could also be easily equipped with CFT’s. This would still give them alot a capability at a very reasonable cost…..

The RAAF only needs to get from today to 2015! (maybe before?)

So now we are no longer comparing the SH to an F-15E/K but some undefined SLEPed F-15C. Given recent RAAF experience with such things I doubt its going to be a popular idea. Pre-loved SH’s at least fulfill the role from the start and are still relatively young.

Daniel

“Stop gap” is code for “we’ll get them to buy this then they’ll be stuck with it”. See the USN and the “Super” Hornet.

Yep. Hence the reason I hope to see second hand ex USN models with the original radar etc. The aircraft would have gretaer commonality with the HUGgies and protects the RAAF from being stuck long term with the aircraft. Not that this seems likely given the suggested amount involved.

Daniel

Since there are very details about any actual plans for this deal I think its still fair to speculate on what it might actually include. I wonder if the RAAF would actually go for new builds with the AESA etc or for some cheaper ex USN aircraft with the original radar, the same radar our HUGgies have now. It is only supposed to be an interim type after all. Personally it would seem a smart move to reduce the risk of pollies in 10 years time deciding we should just go for an all SH fleet or some other such.

Daniel

Consider how much of a gap exists between the N001E and the Type-1473, and the RCS side of flanker compared to the much smaller J-10, I guess the J-10 has a definitive advantage in BVR engagement and enjoyed much better situational awareness which is what the PLA daily article seemed to imply.

Well thats fine but a late model F-16 would be in the same situation then.

Daniel

For anybody who’s interested in doing a bit of calculating of the dimensions of that LPD (shouldn’t it be LSD “landing ship dock” if its main role is to dock and transport 4 LCACs? LPD is “amphibious transport, dock” carries fewer LCAC and more troops/cargo),

I thought LPD was Landing ship, platform, dock

Daniel

If folks really want to run a Au v PRC scenario perhaps you could look here

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20989465-5001561,00.html

of course you’ll have to ignore the US.

Daniel

There it was gone!
I’ve just been to MS Virtual Earth (live.local.com) to see the satellite views of Grazzanise (former F-104 base, nr. Naples), which I visited the other year.
You can see the base with it’s long runway here, but then zoom in any further and there it was, gone!
It appears to have been crudely ‘airbrushed’ out, with roads fading into fields, and ‘cloned’ bits of field etc. You can still see the base in reasonable high res (complete with derelict 104’s) on google earth here.
Strange! Anyone noticed any other bases that have been removed in a similar manner, or know why it’s happened?

I’ve noticed that military installations are become less rewarding. When I first got a hold of NASA’s World Wind San Diego had three CVs, a couple of Amphibs and assorted DDGs and FFGs. These days most vessels seem to be either genuine ly absent or removed. Similar things with various RAAF bases that I’ve checked out. Maybe I’ve just been looking after an unfortunate update but there does seem to be a pattern of less detail in those sensitive areas. I guess it makes sense but it sucks nonetheless.

Daniel

I assumed buster was talking about a WVR engagement. Besides, as Silvia said, F-111s wouldn’t act as single penetrators but as part of a larger strike package including fighter escorts.

By short legged Hornets. So the range of the Pigs is not able to be utilised because they are reliant on Hornets to protect them. Of course the Bugs could be tanked but then you need more escorts to cover the tankers and you end up using one third of operational force to mount a single strike. Thats okay for an isolated punitive action but not a warfighting situation. Better off shipping a few Tomahawks on the Collins for punitive stuff.

As for AEW&C proliferation lets there’s Taiwan, Singapore and Japan who already have the capability, India, China, Pakistan and South Korea who will soon have it operational and Malaysia and Thailand who are making inquiries on the subject.