The general outline really is very similar to the T45 isn’t it ?

Only in the most general sense i.e sig reduction slabs and a tall mainmast!. Everything else…yeesh…I’m with Neptune – thats a butt-ugly ship.

Romanian frigate Maresesti only slightly more scary to see on the high seas!

Dubya

The F-15 has a couple of disadvantages:

1.) Old(er) airframe. This means that supply of new spares could whittle down especially if the USA starts replacing it’s F-15E’s with another platform. Remember that any aircraft acquired now will probably be flying close to 30-40 years if current trends are taken into account.

2.) Greater need for aircrew. You still need navigators and the RAAF struggles to attract recruits capable of becomnig fast jet crew (at least from the last source I read).

Not quite so Dubya, obviously there are the the Korean aircraft, the Singaporeans, Saudi and even Israeli aircraft etc, etc there will be a customer base for spares and upgrades for the evolved 15E design for decades yet….could even be that those spares and upgrades are Israeli generated not American etc. There could be no confusion that this would turn into another sole-user situation like with the F-111 lets face it!.

About the aircrew….well there is a training route for nav’s currently through the system for the -111’s and they will always get pilot-wannabe failures who’ll take a nav seat to get a job in fastjets….happens in the RAF all the time according to an SAC mate who was stationed at Cranwell for a few years!.

D’clacy

Jonesy wrote “There is no platform, realistically, available to the Aussies which can replace the F-111’s mission like-for-like”
The closest thing to it without doubt is the Su-34, but being Russian the RAAF probably wont consider it.

That being the reason for the word ‘realistically’ being included.:)

Swerve

Also, the price is very high. Talk of $100 million F-22s coming off the production line doesn’t mean you can buy them for anything like that. The USAF says each F-22 they buy now is costing them $130 mn flyaway, excluding all fixed costs. It costs a lot to put a new type into service. cf. Austria – paid 61 mn Euros for each Typhoon, plus 40 mn for training, support equipment & other ancillary costs, & that was despite being able to share some Luftwaffe facilities. The unit price for F-22s to a foreign buyer would be over $200mn.

Couldn’t argue with that position for a second. The whole thing is entirely theoretical of course but, if the unit flyaway cost to the USAF IS circa $100 million the Aussies are likely to to ask some deep and meaningful questions as to why theirs would cost twice the amount!. Dont know bout you but I think they’d object to the US making a 100% markup on each cab!.

=======================================

In all cases the cost/capability advantage of the split purchase over the single JSF one in strategic warfighting terms is very stark. Two concepts come in to force when you’re looking at a purchase of this nature – Virtual Attrition and Threat Reduction Exercises.

For an aggressor to contemplate a military intervention against Australia or her interests he would perform a threat reduction exercise identifying capability limitations and exploitable weaknesses. For Australia the defensive problem, that an aggressor would HAVE to exploit, is her size. There’s a lot of ground (not to mention air and sea!) to cover defensively. If the aggressor can, therefore, identify where the RAAF’s assets ARE then they will be able to determine where they are NOT!.

Now stealth/LO is an issue here but range is far more important – simply as it increases the depth to which the aggressor has to cover with his surveillance. That means that either a comprehensive surviveable reconnaisance capability has to be deployed to maintain the threat reduction exercise or sufficient warfighting capability has to be focussed to locally overpower the targets defensive potential – when that defense potential is F-22’s backed with modded -15SG’s (perhaps with Meteor and ASRAAM) cued by OTH radar and comprehensive AWAC support you are looking at a great deal of firepower to saturate.

The level of expenditure required to acquire the recon assets to develop a tactical picture of an Australian Orbat and disposition or deploy such overwhelming force that any realistic defence potential would be ineffectual is termed the Virtual Attrition capability of the defensive force. Simply if an aggressor cannot breach that virtual attrition factor, and knows it, then no intervention is likely and the systems have done their job just by existing.

Personally, from the strategic standpoint, I can’t see how a strictly tactical-ranged light-strike fighter like JSF can be a good all-round solution to the RAAF’s requirements.

However people always fear the rampaging yellow hordes. Yet no-one questions the Anglo-American hordes rampaging through the middle east.

Funny. It looked to me like almost everyone questioned the Anglo-American hordes ‘rampaging’ (sure you didnt mean ‘crusading’ and fully match the stereotype?) through the Persian Gulf. Including a very large number of Anglo-Americans.

There is also the declared statement by the PRC Gov to use all means including military force to stop Taiwan should they declare independence. In a court of law I think that comes under the heading of ‘demanding with menaces’!.

To switch back to the topic which variant of JSF where the RAAF looking at?. Presumably, given the listed requirement and strategic situation, the C-variant with its bigger wing and enhanced range would appear to be the optimal choice?.

The requirement is, judging from a quick squint at Scramble, to replace 3 front line Hornet ‘FGA’ sqdns, 2 F-111 strike sqdns, a substantial OCU/att-res and there is $16bn in the pot to achieve this?.

Where is the problem with kicking an obvious less-than tailored solution like JSF into touch and setting up a hi-lo split with Raptor and some rangey strike-optimised none-stealth type?. Even giving the Raptors a $200 mill per copy sticker-price (twice the current flyaway if some sources are to be believed) a 36-plane order leaves approx 50% of the budget untouched and fills 2-3 squadrons and an OCU/Res for the type. Going with an Aussie Super-StrikeEagle variant to satisfy the strike element and provide augmentation to the Raptors would seem sensible and, seeings the Koreans picked up 40 of their variant for $3.6bn, there would seem to be little issue with the Aussies getting a decent deal. There is your remaining 2-3 sqdns.

So the equation could look like 36 F-22’s plus 40 F-15OZ’s for ballpark $11bn against perhaps 100 F-35_’s for equally ballpark $10bn-ish. That, to me, is a real easy choice – the range and supercruise performance of Raptor are perfect for extended patrols off the northern coast and the ordnance delivery capability of a theoretical ‘OzEagle’ for antiship or CASOM work is the perfect compliment. Plus you then get into the ‘lo-end’ types secondary air-air capability being useful and commonality with at least two major regional air-arms.

What does the JSF bring to the table here again?

This from a national whose country, on the 12th May, 1994, declared Lacrosse as its official summer national sport!!!. 🙂

Case for the defence rests your honour!

Dont be fooled Grey – Eriksson very definitely has a Plan A. It is this:

1, Get all the suitable candidates listed for the squad.
2, Discard any that I havent already picked 98 times previously.
3, Add in Hargreaves and Campbell despite the fact they dont meet criteria ‘1’ – cos they’re such nice guys you know.
4, Try and get Scholes back so I can have another go with the midfield diamond.
5, Put Wayne Rooney in the slot behind – oh almost anyone really because two inspired minutes from him and then 88 minutes with everyone behind the ball usually does the trick
6, Off home to screw Nancy/Ulrika/whoever happens to be there at the time.

There is also a Plan B it seems. This is absolutely identical to Plan A but modify’s point 5 a bit:

5, Put that lanky Crouch lad up front, pray for no strong gusts of wind, and get everyone to Route1 everything to him – see if he can think of anything to do with it. If that fails hope for a Beckham spot kick and get everyone else behind the ball for 88 minutes.

With the squad we’ve got, quoting some wag from a BBC forum, Ulrika Jonssen should be able to get us to the Semi’s. Think we can ask Sven for her number!!!

Just watched the poor england display too. Dont agree with the criticism for the ‘own goal’ – that was all about the delivery and Beckhams was laser-guided anyone getting anything on that ball and it was in the net…as proven.

Big concern is that Eriksson is still witless when it comes to tactics and substitutions – I remember being near apoplexy when he put Vassel on when Rooney got injured in Portugal – how could a professional manager put on a pure goalpoacher when Rooney had been the only source of linkplay from the midfield in that tournament????

I found myself in the same state today when Downing came on for Owen!. What was the man thinking??. I can understand, with his timid mindset, defending a 1-0 might be a valid option but the best way to defend is to keep the ball pinging around the opposition 6 yard box and get THEM to sit deep.

f Rooney is really back fit we’ve got a chance at serious progression – cos Sven wont have to actually do much. If Rooney isnt right we’ll be lucky to make it out of the quarters.

It’s just before the England v Brazil match. Ronaldinho goes into the Brazilian changing room to find all his teammates looking a bit glum.

What’s up?” he asks.

“Well, we’re having trouble getting motivated for this game. We know it’s important but it’s only England. They’re sh*te and we can’t be >bothered.”

Ronaldinho looks at them and says, “Well, I reckon I can beat them by myself… you lads go down the pub.”

So Ronaldinho goes out to play England by himself and the rest of the Brazilian team go off for a few jars.

After a few pints they wonder how the game is going, so they get the landlord to put the teletext on. A big cheer goes up as the screen reads “Brazil 1 – England 0 (Ronaldinho 10 minutes)”. He is beating England all
by himself!

A few pints later and the game is forgotten until someone remembers, “It must be full time now, let’s see how he got on.” They put the teletext on.

“Result from the Stadium ‘Brazil 1 (Ronaldinho 10 minutes) – England 1 (Lampard 89 minutes).”

They can’t believe it, he has single-handedly got a draw against England!!

They rush back to the Stadium to congratulate Ronaldinho. They find him in the dressing room, still in his gear, sitting with his head in his hands.

He refuses to look at them. “I’ve let you down, I’ve let you down.”

“Don’t be daft, you got a draw against England, all by yourself. And they only scored at the very, very end!”

“No, no, I have, I’ve let you down…I got sent off after 12 minutes.”

1. If the Agostas are already fitted with combat systems capable of firing Harpoons as well as Exocets then what is the problem in applying the same solution in the new french sub?

– Fitting of a new panel in the warfare centre should be about it!.

2. Is going for a single hull sub a viable option for Pakistan navy?

– Cant think of all that many, Western, double hulled SSK’s?. Single hull is no problem.

3. Are Merlin/U-214 VLS capable?

– Not as currently designed.

4. Will Pakistan in the future go for more Agosta 90Bs?

– No reason why they shouldn’t. Good basic design and they apparently have the capability to build their own AND export any extra’s they knock together – winner!. Marlin may be sparkly new and ‘one-up’ on the Indian Scorpene’s but in shallow, noisy waters the better crew will win over any slight technological advantage between the boats!. IMO they’d be mad not to stick with the 90’s!.