NZ is spending near on 1 Billion dollars for 8 NH-90s to replace 14 UH-1Hs!!!!
The goverments say that as the NH-90 is bigger can haul more etc 8 can do the job of 14….BULL****!!
Im an ex gun-slinging grunt and the NZ Defence Force struggles with only having 14 Hueys at its disposal,im sure that for the amount we are spending on the NH-90 we couldve had more Hueys,im completly pro American and Australian but we only brought the NH-90 to keep the Ozzies happy.
We struggle to keep our brand new LAVs going,..again a case of going out and buying the most expensive when the old M113 APC with a full upgrade program would do a better job along with the army already farmilar with the baseline M113.
Time will tell if the upgraded Hueys etc will perform but my money is on the Huey and Cobra having the last laugh

I’m not sure if the NH-90 will be the same as the aussie MRH-90,there has been nothing about them being built in Brisbane. Are your LAV’s the same as our ASLAV’s?

As for the apache/longbow doing a 16sec sweep sounds good only when other side doesn’t have latest air defence which could detect the MMW of their longbow.

both Apache/Cobra both need to expose themselfs to take a look or target
with optical sights.

close pic for AH-1Z Super Cobra shown the magnificent new design with longer stub wings,but I can’t understand why the engineers kept the old gun M197 3-barreled 20mm with 750 rounds only,I like the M230 30mm cannon with 1200 rounds as the AH-64
but thanks to Lockheed Martin for new target sight system (Hawk eye) day/night, 360 in azimuth,and +45/-120in elevation, with 14km detection range(while the old one of AH-1W 5km detection range), and weight of this turret 105kg

At 14km you get time to fire rocket/missile from stand off ranges,no reel need to get close. does any one know what the most common engagement for both apaches 30mm / cobra’s 20mm?

Not many IFV’s are designed to with anything more than 14.5mm or 155mm shell splinters.

Maybe a bit off-topic, but how difficult would that be (for a country like Australia)? I have no idea how feasible it is

Pretty bloody unfeasible. Most of our problems seem to have come from insisting on a 100% solution for Australian requirements. Take the Seasprites as an example. Both the Kiwi’s and we chose the SH-2 as the basis for our new helo’s. The Kiwi’s had a simpler requirement from a combat system POV. Ours was supposed to be virtually an all singing all dancing wunderweapon. The Kiwis have had their birds flying and operating reliably now for years doing almost everything we wanted from our birds. And after 10 years and $1.3 billion striving for the 100% solution what do we have? Nothing. Designing and building our own from scratch is the ultimate in 100% solution folly. The reason for buying F-100’s and Super Hornets etc is that we seem to be finally understanding that settling for the much cheaper 95% solution that we can have now is much better financially and operationally than pissing all that time and money chaseing that final 5% that will probably be rarely ever used anyway.
.

We already do build ships look at Austral (LCS-2) & Incat(HSV-1) for a start.

As for the sea sprites they were 30 year old machines to begin with. which would be like putting new F22 avionics in the F111.

As for buying 95% just look at the ARH-tiger it’s behind schedule.

I still think these (F-100 & super hornets) programs were quickly pasted by the howard goverment so they could say that any new goverment which canned one or both was waisting tax payers money. If how ever they had stay in power they could say that they are moving quickly with these programs.

Whats the range of theDD(x), does any one know?

If one must slap a category on a warship why not something appropriate to what it actually does, since as is obvious here no one can seem to agree what a frigate or a destroyer really is? Why not do what the Russian’s do? In the Russian Navy a Project 1155 “Udaloy” is a Large Anti-submarine Ship. A Project 1124 “Grisha” is a Small Anti-submarine Ship. No confusion there. Not sexy to be sure but nobody is going to argue about whether the name is appropriate.

so what do they call a ship that does AAW,ASW & GP.

It is interesting to see that the USN is setting the trend on braking the mold of this silly frigate/destroyer business with the LCS – Littoral Combat Ship. Certainly that is a more appropriate designation than the traditional Frigate considering what this class of ships is expected to do for a living.

just a large coastal patrol boat with fancy name

just read yesterday’s courier-mail (25/3/08) say’s that australia should have 400 combat aircraft, cruise missiles, 30 subs etc. don’t know who wrote it.but could be part of new white paper.i don’t have paper here, read it at work. don’t like the paper any way.

BTW, its good to see another OZ poster in the forum

I’m ozzie too.:cool:

Mate, these ships (AWD) cost USD 1.5++ billion each. You realize you are offering ~18 billion budget for 12 ships, don’t you?

Such ships which fall into category somewhere in between destroyer and frigate, are far more capable of doing the task of let’s say 2 FFG’s of 80′ and 90’s tech. They can stay at sea longer, cruise further, engage more targets; but on the other hand cost more to build, procure, maintain and operate (and even to decommission).

hey we’re looking at buy 24 FA-18 Super hornets for 8++Billion.might actually get some ships that can do something.unlike the ANZAC’s which were built for but not with.(just look at where they put the harpoons.)

we have already lost three AWD’s and 2 FFG’s only to get 3 new AWD’s 7 years at the earliest, with the new Rudd goverment now looking at cut backs, I wonder what else will go in that time.

Destroyers:
Arleigh Burke: 9200 tons
Type 45: 8000 tons
Spruance: 8000 tons

this puts them in the same class as the Ticonderoga class cruiser, which is based on the Spurance class Destroyers.

during WW2 destroyers were only about 2500tons+.

The next question is what does the Aussie navy do now?

I doubt that Lynx is on the cards…maybe some more S70 or NH90

most likely NH-90 as this will reduce the number of types being operated.
The MRH-90 is replacing the Seakings, hueys:) and blackhawks(latter). by the time the NH-90 comes on line it’ll be time to retire the seahawks around 2018

but who knows what the Labour party will do.( they did have a saying back when last in power (late 1980’s to early 1990’s) 😡 built for but not with. 😡 so time will tell.

Firefox..:rolleyes:

This thread seems to be heading off the specific fighter what-if into a more general direction. But I agree, the A-6F would have been a fantastic strike aircraft. Did any every fly?

i know one was built not sure if it did fly. don’t forget the A-12

would like to see f111 with sh style intakes, 6 instead of4 swivel under wing hard points, F119 engines with 2D nozzles. :rolleyes:

Generally agree. I just would consider that the higher fuel capacity of the A330 may be wasted when there are not enough customers in the air. The KC-767 can refuel more than a dozen fighter jets in a 5 hour mission, when the KC-30 can do 25% more.

what about a kc777?. i think the KC767 will win just to justify reopening the 767 production line four the E-10 which uses the 767-400 airframe(though i think the 777-200LR airframe would be more suited.

Give us

3×20 F-35a with internal gun ( remember Vietam where fighters had no guns. they soon found that a big mistake.) larger wing of the F-35c(Australia is a very large counrty with vast empty spaces.also has vast areas of blue.)

1×20 F-35b for use as cas and off the new Canberra class LHD ships

1×24 ( 16 fa-18e for tanking and operating with the 8 EA-18g’s)

would prefer 2x 20 f-22
3x 20 f-35a(same as above)
1x 20 F-35b
1x 30 f-35c ( to operate of a ctol carrier which we won’t see again. which would be nice to see.)
1×20 ucav’s