“The radar still does not comply with the full contracted specification designated by the RAAF, but defence experts are now far more confident it is a sound architecture to build on.”

Of course it’s the first defence project anywhere not to meet 100% of stated requirements initially…. :diablo:

Excuse me but what is MP ?

“Member of Parliament” possibly

I know all about the Blackjack’s lineage and how it came from Myasischev (I’ll bet they were PISSED when it was given to Tuploev) but to think it simply coincidence is pushing it beyond belief.

Buran really was. The US Shuttle was widely derided as basically being a redneck, inefficient solution to the problem that was so compromised as to be almost not worth doing. For the Russians to slavishly copy the approach makes no sense. Additionally, I seem to recall reading (where I can’t recall) that Russia did examine a lot of approaches and then concluded “the example is right in front of us, why waste a lot of money duplicating the research?” They didn’t have the US’s experience with large solid motors so they went with liquid fueled strap-ons and decided on throw-away main engines rather than expensive reusables like the SSME. Once that decision was made it made no sense to keep them on the orbiter.

Re the Tu-144 it’s pretty much common knowledge that Russia got a complete set of Concorde drawings.

As for the Mig and Su as I understand it TsAGI came up with the basic properties and the two manufacturers incorporated the research into their own designs.

You might as well say the an Airbus A310 is a copy of a B767, or that the A340 is a copy of a 707.

Well Jason Simonds.
I can’t blame you for choosing SH over F-15+ or anything else concidering all the logistic/economic benefits, it simply tilt the scale in favor of SH, not least the free meals from USN.

But, (as you could assume) 20% range advantage for F-15 is quite something.
F-15 also has greater speed but i have been reading worrysome reports on cracks and fatigue, so there is probably some speed limit imposed on them now, making them more or less equal.
F-18 also has the reputation of being the most reliable aircraft in US service.

Secondly, to my knowledge, everything not needed for combat beside a couple of sidewinders is removed from SH and replaced with a large load of EW equipment to transform it into Growler, so i don’t think it makes economic sense to do that at home, it’ll be better to just order a couple of them from USA.
No better then convert an F-15+ into a EW aircraft in other words, beside the US experience doing it with F-18.
You still benefit from the commonality with Hornet tho.

So the F-111 support industry, having seen their cash cow exit stage right, is yearning for the next best thing; a unique to Australia F-15 variant?:diablo:

I’m not sure it has ever been offered on an F-15. That’s a tad out of my knowledge area. If it hasn’t, it’s going to be fairly expensive, designing and installing a new probe for the aircraft. Particularly with the orphan fleet you would then inherent… Is it really worth it, for a fleet of only 24x aircraft?

But with the RAAF opting for the boom using F-35A, and of course the USAF retaining that method for all its aircraft including the upcoming F-35A (unlike the F-35B and C), it seems a little early to write off that method as inherently inferior to hose and drogue. Wouldn’t the new advanced booms developed by EADS and Boeing go along way to negating the perceived deficiencies of that system when used to refuel small aircraft.

The reference seems clear that it is the “90+% Wedgetail” that he is calling “Mark 2″… as opposed to the planned 100% Mark 1.

Still sounds like getting from the delivered 90% to the 90+% Mk2 is going to involve $.

[QUOTE=Pioneer;1356064]

Why the overlap between SH and F-35 missions? What is your component of NORAD for intercepting bombers over the heads of your Inuit populations? Certainly neither one of them was meant for the role, they are both built as strike aircraft.

I here what you are saying my friend

We in Australia are still scratching our heads over the ‘purchase’ of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, as a so-called stop-gap measure replacement for the F-111 ‘Pig’, until the arrival of the continuously delayed and ever more expensive (and down graded!) F-35.

The question I can not get answered is why the RAAF /Australian government didn’t just lease them?????:confused:
Secondly where was the Request for Proposal?????:(
Where was the important and thorough evaluation of other designs?????:rolleyes:
If this wasn’t bad enough – now there is serious talk and consideration to the purchasing of EF-18G Growlers to support these Super Hornets.:eek:
Some expensive stop-gap measure (wish I had shares in Boeing or the brown paper bags the Australian Liberal Party must have received!):dev2:
Man the infrastructure and training that is going to be needed to support these ‘stop-gap’ aircraft is ridicules, and near bordering on corruption at the highest levels of government.

Hell the Super Hornet doesn’t even have half the legs (range) or payload to be deemed as an effective strike-interdiction aircraft! – From an Australian perspective!!!

No if given my choice, I would have pushed for ‘leasing’ F-15E’s Strike Eagles
Ok they are an older design, than that of the Super Hornet, but they have longer legs and payload ratio than that of the Super Hornet any day!:D

And as for the Super Hornet itself – I would urge anyone to read ‘The Pentagon Paradox: the Development of the F-18 Hornet.’ (ISBN: 1557507759, Publisher: US Naval Institute Press (October 1993), Author James P. Stevenson
This has all the data, testimonies of the US Navy, McDonnell Douglas and Congress, which clearly shows that the Super Hornet was and is a failure in terms of development, performance and cost effectiveness as to what and why it was conceived.
In fact official inquires into the Super Hornet were to show that it only offered marginal improvements on that of the F/A-18C.

P.S. failing this and U.S. lobbyists manage to convince the Canadian’s to purchase their ‘great all singing, all dancing Super Hornet’, then the RCAF should at bare minimum insist on stripping them of all their carrier-based and operational needed equipment, to make them the slightest lighter and improve their power-to-weight ratio (PWR) if they are to meet Russia’s truly advanced, powerful and effective long-range air superiority fighter – the Su-27/32/33 ‘Flanker’ series over that freezing cold water – eating your Super Hornets alive, and the ones they don’t down will go down, due to ‘Bingo’ status

Regards
Pioneer

A lot of us here can also see that the RAAF purchased an aircraft with state of the art avionics that’s truly multi-role, which has as much stealth as is possible in a 4th generation aircraft, which has a large, cost effective support infrastructure behind it, and which can be cost effectively and easily locked into future USN upgrades. In short, and ideal stepping stone between its current 3rd and 4th generation fleet and the F-35.