ELPAnd is it not going to be an upgraded version of the SH? That is on offer in case of F35 delays, I mean.
Well everything coming off the line now is AESA APG-79. But of course we would have to see more details to see what all would be included if there is a deal.
ELPPegon…
While the Su-34 might be a good fill-in technically, there is a lot more than political leanings working against it. While the per-aircraft cost is less, every part in it would be totally new to the Aussie supply chain, as is the operation/maintenance/repair procedures and support equipment.The cost of establishing a support infrastructure from the ground up with completely “foreign” parts, etc. for only 24 aircraft would raise the price well above the total cost involved with the F/A-18F deal.
Add in the similarity of the RAAF’s F/A-18C/D and the -F types (yes, only ~35% is interchangeable, but all of the systems etc. work the same way, with the same operation/maintenance/repair procedures, and most of the same support equipment), and the fact that Boeing already has a support infrastructure in place to complement the RAAF’s (the RAAF would have to pay for Sukhoi to do the same, either seperately or as part of the “package”), and the cost factor is well in the favor of the UberBug.
Bug Lover…
This is about the RAAF wanting 24 F/A-18Fs to “temporarily replace” their F-111s, not any plans of the USN. Different history, different plans, different requirements.See the first post on this thread:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=65916
RAAF A/B’s not C/D’s
Be interesting to see where this Super Hornet F idea will go.
ELPThe article is mostly a joke. Whatshername has almost no clue of USAF ops. While USAF has budget issues…It can and still will be able to, accomplish most missions put to it. Also for a supposed expert, the author has no idea of anything to do with the most important weapon in the USAF: It’s quality people. Maybe she can write another article when she can buy or rent a clue.
I have seen much more informative pieces from any number of thoughts from the forum members here.
ELPMore details here:
Looks like NG is trying to upsell a product that is $40 million more per airframe.
ELPI agree with your conclusion. Kopp makes out that the only aircraft with the capability to combat the latest Su Variants and NG Russian aircraft comprehensively and with relative ease will be the F-22A Raptor; which is true in one sense, as it can and will, but that does not mean the Eurocanards are outclassed by their Russian counterparts as Kopp makes out. In fact the Eurocanards(more so Typhoon and Rafale) when upgraded to their full potential will be more then a match for any Flanker derivative.
Bringing the DERA study into it, the notional Flanker threat was much greater then what the Flanker family has evolved into today. Now despite Jousts limited credibility, it does reflect in my opinion a relatively good comparison for BVR performance.
1)F-22
2)Eurofighter
2)Rafale
3)F-15(latest Variants) Su-XX on par Meteor equiped Gripen.
Well, in the end it’s all up to the Aussie taxpayer. Hopefully this will end their very long string ( almost tradition ) of high risk/unproven/unwise purchases:
-Buying used helos that have to be refirbed and the refirb fails
-ECM system for legacy Hornets…. vendor can’t deliver on the promise
-LITENING Pod selected for legacy Hornets before USMC finishes testing on their legacy Hornets and there ends up being issues that have to be worked out.
-Selecting an untested fighter ( F-111 look at history ) and now JSF.
And that is the short list of the Aussie procurement soap opera.
ELPInflated resume/bio… no where can I find proof that Kopp is a rated F-18E/F pilot and or even a rated fast jet combat pilot. Yet his bio… states he has “flown” the F-18F. The photo in his bio:
http://www.ausairpower.net/editor.html
makes it hard to tell the seat position. Riding along in an F-18F in the back seat and maybe taking the stick for a moment ( he is rated in small aerobatics ) doesn’t mean you know all of the combat performance of an F-18E/F when you imply that you have “flown” said aircraft. :rolleyes:
Anyway here is an interesting two page article from The Age:
Flying Into Trouble
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/flying-into-trouble/2006/12/29/1166895477918.html
At the end of this article it also states he has “flown” the Super Hornet.
I do NOT like people that inflate their resume/bio.
On the topic of the article he has some good points about longevity of the F-111.
However the big SU threat is inflated. Decide for yourself.
ELPAbizaid wasn’t especially useful. So no loss there. A Navy guy in change? Why not? With our moronic administration and State Department running the show, it really doesn’t matter. Those morons still think 21 or 22k troops will change the tide in Operation: USELESS DIRT. Whistling past the grave yard is more like it. Iraq isn’t going to get better. This just in: There is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny.
ELPWe have a 33 year old Mi-8 and it is still going strong. Talk about short service life.
Surprising. I would have thought that all of the BFM that thing does would have sent it to refirb several times by now due to fatigue. 😀
ELPYes well of course. PAF and India both have clean professionally run refirb/depot operations. Yeah you can refirb a MiG-21, however the question would be: How far do you want to take that, given all the expense for x y and z task.
Granted now in our case we are going almost all low observable fighters. However, it would be nice to have a legacy single seat that was in effect disposable after 1500-2000 hours.
ELPCONSIDERING THINGS ARE GOING TERRIBLY WRONG IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN , 12-15 YEARS IS A BIT OPTOMISTIC DONT YOU THINK..MORE OF A 12-15 MONTHS BY THE LOOKS OF THINGS:D
My friend, I really have no practical answer to your original post. A good healthy air force can exist if all the other basics of the nation are taken care of: Basic reliable domestic security, a good portion of the citizens employed, a general optimism from most of the population…etc… etc… Not to offend but that current Iraqi government doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in this happening anytime soon. The various factions need to bury the hachet and agree not to kill each other on a day to day basis. That all by itself may take a miracle. And I don’t think anything the U.S. does will help anything improve.
So back to the air force. It really doesn’t matter. Anything that works, provides security and maybe in this case a Japan Self Defense Force type of thing would work so as not to make neighbors worry about Iraq in the future. Something in a solid constitution that states only defensive weapons would exist. That is about as far as my limited thinking takes me.
ELPDon’t be too hard on MiG-19 and MiG-21 designs. They were designs of an era long gone by. Yeah they had a low hour limit. However they were simple and cheap.
F-16s were advertised for a long airframe life and look at all the refirb work done on even the latets blocks ( like 40/42s ) to push them to 6000 + hours.
F-18s had interesting wear down ( well carrier life can do that ). Super Hornet even had some big issues with the barrel part of the fuselage( refirb after the first 500hours of life 😉 ) and a few other things that were not expected.
I see the refirb work done on F-15s first hand. Any advertised long airframe service life for modern fighters comes with extensive periodic rebuilds. When an F-15 shows up here for depot repair, the fittings for the vertical stabs are shot and the rest of the aircraft is like gumby.
At the rate we spend money on things for sustainment, we should just build throw away fighter airframes. After 1500-2000 hours strip all the avionics and other salvageable items and scrap the airframe. Look at the F-16 how we just kept buying newer and newer versions and how A models were retired rapidly due to wear and Block 2x, 3x, 4x jets had so many refirb issues. Now with PGMs we don’t need all the large numbers of airframes anyway.
A fighter airframe advertised as a high hour service life sounds good on paper, but it doesn’t get that without lots of periodic refirb and in addition to that numerous surprises in it’s service life of various wear/fatigue/corrosion (pick one or all ).
ELPWhen did the F-106 have a bad climbnig rate? It is the USAF’s primary interceptor, the equivalent to the PVO interceptor for the Soviet Union. The F-106 held records in speed and climb which only the F-15 broke.
I agree on the turn rates. A large delta like the F-106 should have a very fast instantanous turn rate but slows to a crawl in sustained turn rates.
To levsha
You’re not going to win a turn fight with a MiG-17, and Duke’s victory over a top notch MiG-17 pilot comes partly from using the superior power of the F-4 in vertical maneuvers.
If anything, when you are facing with fighters that turn better, F-4 pilots are thought to use their speed and vertical maneuver offset the turning advantage of their opponents. That may work against the MiG-17, but not entirely against the later model MiG-21 which has gobs more power, and certainly not against the MiG-23 which has the power and speed advantage. At this point, you need tactics and team coordination, and hopefully, as it often turns out, a lousier pilot on the other plane.
One thing I have always puzzled about the F-4 Phantom, what possess them to use dihedral wings, when every fighter design, and I mean every single fighter design since the fifties, use flat and anhedral wing designs to get faster roll rates. Dihedral wings only increase stability, which does not really improve maneuverbility.
Well…. one could also imply that the MiG-17 that went against Duke/Driscoll bingo fueled and was trying to disengage. Otherwise it was a pretty desperate fight.
ELPWhat is more amusing is how whatshisname got into Australia in the first place. The guys history should have prevented him from gaining citizenship however a lot of negative facts were ignored. The guy is a threat. Deport him back to where he came from.
ELPWhat is more amusing is how whatshisname got into Australia in the first place. The guys history should have prevented him from gaining citizenship however a lot of negative facts were ignored. The guy is a threat. Deport him back to where he came from.
ELPFAR Technologies Ltd. (“FAR”) http://www.fartechnologies.com/ presents innovative concepts and technologies in the military aviation arena,
Among them is the Air-Born Re-Arm system and:
1) Adaptation of weapon station for carriage of additional fuel drop tanks.
2) Converting Fuel Drop Tanks into mass dispensers.
3) Steerable Guided Gun Pod.
4) Smart Smoke Pod for Training.
5) Real time Dogfight (BFM) Guiding SystemWarmly recommended!
This reads more like a spam post for various products. :rolleyes:
Sign In
