i’m just wondering, considering the huge size of Australia (and furthermore Canada), why stick to F18? Its range isnt that long.

The acquisition of Super Hornet has nothing to do with its qualities as an aircraft. A stopgap solution was necessary on account of Australia committing to a Power Point aircraft in JSF, and that stopgap was Super Hornet for the following reasons:

— cheapest aircraft available
— relatively smooth transition from existing Hornet platform
— could be delivered quickly, drawn from USN production line (thanks to ‘strength’ of Australia’s relationship with US)
— an American aircraft, where selecting a non-American aircraft might’ve been seen as rebuff to Washington
— aircraft currently in production for use by US Navy, ensuring Australia able to benefit from vast and ongoing American investment in platform (unlike adv. F-15s and -16s) thereby reducing future costs.

Notice that the actual comparative qualities of the aircraft relative to F-15E, Rafale, etc. (except price) figure not at all in this process. Subsequently, the ongoing failings of the F-35 program necessitate further decisions and those decisions weigh in favour of additional Super Hornet commitment (making ‘temporary’ acquisition permanent and acquiring more) for much the same reasons as those listed above: cheapest way out of the evolving mess, path of least resistance, requiring only bureaucratic virtues rather than genuine vision and leadership.

Take-home message is that Australia’s growing investment in Super Hornet can be traced directly back to the original JSF decision, not only in that it is the failings of the JSF and the Australian political and defence bureaucracy in selecting it that led inexorably to the acquisition of a stopgap and now permanent secondary platform, but that the selection of Super Hornet for that role (as opposed to e.g. F-15E) reflects the continued operation of those same failings! It’s all one ongoing tale of fail, which is why it is hilarious that some here attempt to paint Super Hornet as a uniquely Labor government initiative aimed at undermining the glorious vision of the previous Liberal government. The pot and the kettle have got nothing on this. :p

Very romantic image. 🙂

[*]that “buying into” the F-35 program was not a wise decision given the outcomes. ie the industrial participation objectives of “buying into the program”, and the value of contracts awarded to Aus industry.

Industrial participation has strategic implications for nations that have or are attempting to develop the ability to field their own aircraft. Eurofighter-esque programs allow participating nations to retain the skills base to build their own aircraft whilst reducing the burden of maintaining those skills. The situation for Australia is completely different: left to our devices we couldn’t field a Cessna, and our participation in F-35 isn’t going to change that.

The ability to build e.g. the world’s finest landing gear is strategically irrelevant: you can’t fight a war with landing gears. The practice of awarding contracts based on superior Australian industrial participation should be excoriated by the defence community, not embraced. The defence of the nation is not a jobs program. :rolleyes:

if there was really anything deeply suspect the incoming Labor government would have used that to their advantage when they came into office.

Not when the Labor government suffers from the same rot and is receiving advice from the same corrupted defence bureaucracy. Labor continued Australia’s intervention in Afghanistan also, but this is not an affirmation of the wisdom of that mission so much as it is of Labor’s cowardice.

Indeed Labor did make some poitically motivated noise prior to the 2007 election about pursuing the F-22. Courtesy of Wikileaks we know that there was nothing behind that — that the American ambassador who queried Labor on this was told ‘nah, don’t worry about it.’

I doubt Australia will acquire anymore than 48-60 F-35s as opposed to 100 planned. And even 48-60 might be a stretch if it’s delayed any further.

American sequester will reduce F-35 build rates, pushing the window for affordability several years to the right and having much the same effect as a further delay.

It’s not mass that’s the problem, for sure. I think F-15E (w/CFTs) looks better than F-15C, and F-14 has a similar muscular/heavyset appeal, as does F-4. But F-35 isn’t like that: like late-model F-16 it looks as though it ate too much at the table and needs to go and have a lie down.

I would’ve paired Ferrari with Typhoon. Agree that Rafale is more elegant European make. F-4/14/15(E) are American muscle cars.

Flanker has similar BMI to F-15A/C but makes it work, maybe on account of more organic appearance? No car analogies here: Flanker is ‘apex predator’, bird-like neck extended searching for prey. F-22 has something of this also with bird-like nose, but F-22 is actively in pursuit of prey whereas Flanker is just chillin’ over his territory.

Gripen is compact Japanese car eating foreign markets alive.

F-35 … small delivery van? :p

They say that beauty is on the inside and F-35 is no exception. Would the thousands of engineers at Lockheed Martin have designed an ugly aircraft? Would the Pentagon have spent tens of billions of dollars funding an ugly aircraft? Would allied governments around the world have chosen an ugly aircraft? The fact of the matter is that those who have been permitted to see beneath the skin to the true beauty of F-35 have embrace the aircraft wholeheartedly; those who criticise her just don’t know her intimately enough.

//every hopsalot post ever