Multirole-

Mirage IV may have been pretty large, but there is no reason it could not have been a standoff range interceptor. That is if the French had come up with a radar and missiles for it.

On that note, in time of war the RAAF would have used the F-111 as an interceptor

i have to say that this concept of putting together a so-called “ultimate ’60’s fighter” is hugely intriguing.

definitely going to mull this one over tonight and come back tomorrow with my hybrid.

His technical knowledge is generally excellent, if you are interested in hardware and growth paths then he is well worth listening too. It is when it comes to his “sky is falling” predictions he seems to think everyone wants to invade Australia and that Australia can only be saved by F-22s or a complete overhaul of the F-111s with bits developed for the Tomcat to make a sort of Super upgraded Tomcat version of the F-111.

Even if it didn’t bankrupt Australia the effect will be of course that Australias neighbours will think Australia is up to something… buying all those long range strike aircraft etc… the result will likely be they rearm accordingly… which will confirm to Australia they were under threat all along all in a circle of waste called an arms race… the US and Russian manufacturers might make money out of it but I doubt the people of Australia or their neighbours will benefit much.

As a curiosity have you read his website? he does make many valid points in his articles, ESPECIALLY on the F-111, the cost estimates he projected for his version of modernised F-111’s was A$2 Billion chaeper than the Super Hornet program we have been saddled with, Also as we have had long range strike capability for the better part of 40 years i fail to see how overhauling the F-111 fleet would genuinely upset anyone.

With 2 dozen Skyhawks it was a joke anyway. Any force powerful enough to come to NZ to invade wouldn’t be bothered by 2 dozen skyhawks for long. They were also expensive toys that had no purpose. If they are no good for stopping an invasion, they were no good for any of the peacekeeper missions we might be supporting… even in East Timor I doubt a dozen skyhawks would be of any use. In Iraq or Afghanistan they would be even less use.

For the price of our skyhawks and aermacchis (spelling) we could have bought 3-4 Il-76MF medium transport planes. They would be actually useful to our army and airforce. When they are not being used for military cargo they could earn some money on the side and get some flight practise too.
Unlike our C-130s, which are only tactical transports and are only strategic transports with pitiful little loads… they are called strategic transports by the little countries that buy them because they are cheaper, but are not much use in the strategic role. Have been told that our Hercs are not fully pressurised and have to fly through storms instead of over them like a jet. They are slow and noisy and are not that reliable. An Il-76MF on the other hand is much faster, with pressurisation can fly higher and much further with much more payload.

But I am not in charge so the money saved from the Skyhawks and airmachhis has been spent on the armed forces we do use… our army… we have new LAV-IIIs and Javelin ATGMs and a few other bits and pieces too.

Oh i do agree that the Skyhawk force was of little real deterrent value to any potential invader in numbers alone, dont forget theyre still considered to be a reasonably potent little attack jet, and i believe that around half those Skyhawks were ex-RAN examples.

I dont think its an Aero gauge setup by the look of it, i believe there was something similar to that in the Sherman Tank though.

the capilliary attached to it looks to my eyes to be a coolant temp sensor, is it hollow at the tip or solid?

talking of hours, the first F-104 delivered to the German airforce was used for ground instruction and only has 19 hours in total, even thought its the oldest one they have! i had heard that towards the end of the lightnings time in service the pilots regularly took them to their limits to use up the remaining hours. was this true?

Yes indeed it is true, once it was made known that the Lightning would be retired around 18 months or so from the actual due date, the crews were largely let off the hook with regard to fatigue conservation as it was no longer nessecary, i do recall an 11 Sqd pilot saying that once it was set in stone that the Lightning was going away nearly every mission flown was ACM, both because there was the intent to use up the remaining fatigue life on the aircraft but also “just because we could”.

he he, geoff’s starting to get a southern US twang to his voice, hes out there so often:p getting wet. ha good one, thats guaranteed I rekon. I hope those southern bells like “Eau de Jet a1”:rolleyes:

Hi peter, Ive heard that before somewhere about 422, but 422 has loads of hours left, she only had 2200 on her when she retired at Boscombe down, and never led much of hard life with the OCU’s, before boscombe.

any idea what her FI consumed is?

i also remember reading somewhere about 422 being time expired, a convenient excuse to pension it off maybe? just out of interest what is the houred life of a Lightning approximately?

i think Mike has got the best of the lot down in Sth Af though, i recall something about XP693 having only 1,800 hours on it.

No it is not insulting in any manner (and i have shown the utmost respect for RAAF , and RAN and the army in the past and even defended them on many occasions). I have said the same about the USAF if you follow my posts , regarding them gelling together their own assets because the GELLING part is not easy to implement , costs a lot and needs a lot of DIVERSION from TRADITIONAL THINKING that some of the beurc. and air force officials are custom to .

Well said on the subject of gelling a new force, and thanks for sticking up for us here down under!

I think the P-8 buy (or otherwise) will come after they make firm descision on wether to aquire more SH;s or F-35 etc etc , because the timeline is different for its replacement cycle . The fighter force is priority no.1 for now I guess but Australia clearly seems to be interested .

Ah but a change of Government brings a change in plans, and a good thing too for as a defence minister, Brendan Nelson was barely above incompetent.

The Orion replacement programme has as far as i know been put on hold for five years while the new defence minister, Joel Fitzgibbons, attempts to sort out the mad dog’s breakfast he has inherited, all priority at present is going to the Hornet replacement programme, as the fleet is currently predicted to run out of fatigue life around 2014, and with Mr Fitzgibbons presently actively chasing the US DoD for access to purchase the F-22, it largely leaving other programmes such as the Orion replacement out in the cold for now, and as a result interest in Poseidon has dropped off accordingly.

Not comparing them two , just comparing statistical data of engine failure of twin engined F-18 and single engine F-16 . We learn from Historic analysis of competing fighter types . USN used this very data to conclude that the single engined F-35 will do just fine in carrier borne enviroment .

In my view that comparison is somewhat flawed on the basis that there is just not enough real world so to speak operational performance data on the F-35’s powerplant yet to say wether the statistics are valid for comparison.

As far as UNIQUE RAAF requirment , i agree if they feel their situation is so unique they should either develop their own specific version or buy 2 engined fighters , maybe 4.5 gen like rafale or EF or 5th gen F-22A and buy so in less no because the cost of the raptor is most likely going to be close to double as that of the F-35 (procurment plus lifetime) . If you want 5th gen like qualities like Stealth you have only 3 options , F-22 , F35 or Pakfa. Aussies can choose wether stealth is what they want or not , but if they do want stealth i think the F-35 will be the most cost effective for them even figuring out higher maintaince costs their UNIQUE REQUIRMENTS might put on them .

F-35 and F-22 are only stealth so long as the carry no external ordnance, another detraction is the F-35’s massive IR signature.

Another bone of contention within Australian forces is that the F-35 is primarily designed as a strike fighter, not an air auperiority machine, and many feel it lacks the nessecary capabilities and edge over potential threat nations CURRENT fighter contingents to warrant its selection, one force model favoured for the RAAF is a single squadron and OCU of F-22’s for air superiority tasking and 2 squadrons and an OCU of F-35’s for multirole duties.