RiiNo matter what the JSF actually could have been, its inherent design and concept is not suited for 5.5-6th gen Air dominance fighter, optimized for the pacific. Those requirements would be in the FA-XX RFP document that would be released 5-6 years from now.
It wouldn’t be as large as USN will undoubtedly want F/A-XX to be, but a delta-canard powered by dual F414 EPE could do everything JSF does now whilst also offering the performance that the fleet defence role demands. Not to mention the reduced development risk, cost, and the ability to feed directly back into SH…
RiiThe lack of info is is a little odd considering that if India plans to field FGFA within a couple years of Russia’s T-50 they should be well underway with whatever custom gear they plan to bring to the table.
RiiSuper Hornet was the right program at the right time. Going forward it might be nice to have modern F-14s to serve in the fleet defence role, but that wouldn’t have been necessary if the JSF program hadn’t been such a disaster from start to finish. Place the blame where it belongs.
RiiYes, let’s hope it doesn’t get fat like F-35. Even if it does put on weight, twin WS-13s should prevent it from assuming too much of a barrel appearance…
Rii1980s was baby steps for USA – Grenada, Panama and skirmishing with Iran and Libya weren’t exactly large commitments by US standards.
Well even Reagan could hardly order up a crisis fit for a major conflict, although he tried with Able Archer. Regardless of the specifics, the national psychological transformation must precede its manifestation on the global stage, i.e. Desert Storm. And I think the psychological preparedness was there by the mid-80s at the very latest, and the gung-ho action films of that era (Rambo, Predator, Rocky, Die Hard, etc.) and how they contrasted with American cinema of the 70s are a reflection of that. The Youtube clip wasn’t entirely off-topic. 😉
RiiUSA has lost its appetite for more war. It’s like situation after Vietnam – only US operations in whole of 1975-1990 period were relatively small ones (Eagle Claw, Grenada, Panama, skirmishing with Libya and skirmishing with Iran).
I think your timeline is off. The ‘Vietnam Syndrome’ was over by the 80s … I think the Iranian hostage crisis was the national tipping point where America started back on the warpath under Reagan. I think the example of Vietnam has merit, but not in the sense you are suggesting: I think Vietnam demonstrates that America’s current aversion to further conflict is unlikely to last. Indeed, I suspect that by the 2020s we will see a ‘perfect storm’ of fading memories of Afghanistan/Iraq, Republican administration(s) after the American public is exhausted with Democrat governance under Obama and Hillary Clinton, and resurgent nationalism and militarism encouraged by Reagan-esque figures as China displaces the United States as the largest global economy and threatens America’s image of itself. I think it will be an exciting time. 😉
Of course one problem with my thesis of the 2020s as a re-run of the 1980s is that the cinema of that era is back already!
… or at least the actors are. 😉
RiiStill its funny the position that US is in now that UK has rejected attack. UNSC approval was never going to happen on account of China and Russia so US was left with the old Middle East colonial club to avoid appearance of unilateral interventionism (which Obama supposedly rejects) … Germany is out too, so now who do they talk to? The dirty French? America would probably rather act unilaterally than with their support, lol.
Madeleine Albright said that America acts multilaterally when it can and unilaterally when it must … she probably wasn’t quite envisioning this scenario, i.e. ‘because we backed ourselves into a corner and just can’t help ourselves.’
RiiHopefully Cameron will respect Parliament’s wishes and keep the Brits out of any Syrian folly. If it was Tony Blair he’d already be bombing Syria as well as Lebanon, Mauritania and Antarctica for good measure.
Rudd probably wants to get some bombing in so he can appear Prime Ministerial.
RiiIf you already have Super Hornets, you don’t necessarily need Rafales. IMHO, they are the same class of aircraft and the Growler update does seem to offer some interesting options which Rafale cannot provide.
The suggestion was in the context of prior to SH acquisition. In the actual world of 2013 we are of course left with the mess that has resulted from playing America’s deputy, diving into JSF, etc. As for additional flexibility offered by Growler, it comes at the cost of operating two platforms (F-35 + SH) which was a big no-no in the first place as it demands doubled logistical chains and training paths. And if you are going to operate two platforms, F-35 + SH is a dumb mix anyway as they are both in the same class and with similar strengths and deficiencies. Gripen E + F/A-18F/G maybe… but Rafale (or Tiffy) still better.
EDIT: Also Meteor is not replacing MICA but supplementing it. Future Rafale A2A loadout will likely be 2xMeteor, 2xMICA-EM, 2xMICA-IR + EFTs.
RiiC-17 offers a whole new level of capability not possible with C-27J or C-130J-30.
Capability that comes at enormous expense and which isn’t necessary once foolhardy missions like Afghanistan and platforms like Abrams are discarded. And ofc. when it comes to operating within Australia they are very limited in accessible airfields compared to C-130J, which itself offers significantly increased range over previous C-130s.
5 x A330 seems sufficient for maintaining air refueller coverage. More would be better but there’s only so much even rich Australia can afford.
They can also serve cargo and VIP roles (upper deck is standard AFAIK). Should be enough of a value proposition to swing an extra couple airframes with the money freed up from the C-17s, the rest going to reinforce the C-130J/C-27J inventories.
Also Rafale doesn’t fit [….] And especially as pretty much all of Australia’s defence is focused around fighting in conjunction with USA.
This should change. ADF should be focussed on autonomous operation in defence of Australia, with such limited regional capabilities as we can afford. No globetrotting or reliance upon allies.
I agree on UH-60M instead of NH90, more Chinooks, no Abrams and 4th AWD.
I would also take a long look at the Canberra LHDs on account of their expense and Australia’s questionable capacity to robustly support them, e.g. escort requirements.
RiiIt’s no surprise that this is the case: Australia is one of the few western countries with significant population growth over the period and continuing into the future, with economy proceeding apace.
That said, things could be better. Rafale in place of Super Hornet and F-35, more C-130Js + C-27Js (alternatively A400M + C295 combo) and A330s in place of C-17, AAS-72X in place of Tiger, UH-60M over NH90, more Chinooks, fourth AWD, no Abrams, etc.
RiiNot mentioned thus far is the effect of VLO in compressing detection and therefore engagement ranges, reinforced by growing sophistication of passive sensors (and limited possible responses thereto). LRAAMs become ineffective — to the dubious extent that they ever were effective — except against non-VLO subsonic support aircraft. Air combat becomes WVR++. The French appear to have been the most far-sighted here with MICA, and others are catching on with e.g. US putting in request for BVR-IR capability to counter Chinese/Russian 5G.
RiiNazis, Communists, Khmer Rouge, Shining Path, Lords Resistance Army and elements of Baathist parties were also idealists.
The other word is “fanatic.”
Sure, there are downsides to idealism. And there are downsides to a lack of it too — see Australian politics, 2013.
I think Oswald Spengler (early 20th c. Germany) was prescient in this respect:
The end [of abstract ideals] comes not from refutation, but from boredom – which has killed Rousseau long since and will shortly kill Marx. Men finally give up, not this or that theory, but the belief in theory of any kind and with it the sentimental optimism of an eighteenth century [….] Belief in program was the mark and glory of our grandfathers – in our grandsons it will be a proof of provincialism.
And of course the great tragedy of this is that there is always a system. Widespread apathy merely has the effect of embedding the dominant discourse so deep that people can no longer conceive of any alternative way to think.
In any case, worse than both idealism or the lack of it is the kind of idealism that is rolled out when convenient and forgotten when it isn’t. Which is what we’re seeing here with the western response to Syria. 100,000 dead? No problem. Chemical weapons? Here comes the ‘international response’, led largely by the nations with the greatest experience in technological mass slaughter. :rolleyes:
RiiSuper Hornet is a good aircraft and a good growth potential for the future.
Yep, Super Hornet is a good program delivering valuable capabilities for USN. I think the CFTs are an excellent idea. Most of the other proposals are worth investigating too.
But it’s not an aircraft that makes sense for many other clients, and the hackjob airframe is the major reason for that. It wouldn’t even have made sense for Australia if we weren’t coming off the F-35 debacle and needing a gap-filler ASAP.
RiiI’m sure you’ll respect them even more when they come back to Sydney or Melbourne and then try to blow up some “fellow” Australians in exchange for some invisible virgins.
I’d respect ’em, sure. Takes a lot more courage and initiative to do such a thing than to live the suburban middle-class life, or to join the ADF. Of course they have to be stopped, but it’s rare to find idealism these days that extends beyond mere words to self-sacrifice.
Plus they’re meant to be Australians. Not only is it illegal for Australians to fight overseas (unless part of ADF)
So don’t let ’em back in, I doubt it’ll bother them much.
Sign In
