what makes you think their wont be a twin in the future, as there are already plans

Yes they may have notional plans, but if there anything like the plans they have now, then don’t expect real planning for a twin seater any time in the next decade.

Remember who your dealing with these people expected a $35m fighter in 2010, they presently have no plans for a twin.
Plus with the extra testing/funding required for a twin has no chance in the present JSF climate.

I don’t expect that to change for several years.

The Ucav’s you mentioned earlier would be virtually autonomous, and not get the benefit of a WSO who can do the strategy without being distracted by flying and staying alive, this would mean an offboard operator on the wegetails or ground based.

Cheers

kopp wants to keep it forever, i’m quite happy to scrap it, its long over due its normally the aussie idea to have superior force in our region and not need to use it, the f111 was a center point of this for many years and i take an opposite view to you there isnt much we agree on, is there

I do think the F111 was ‘superior’ to what the region had in range and bomb load, however the actual superiority measured in deterrence value/actual combat effectiveness was very very small, however arm those F-111 with tactical nukes and the whole thing changes of course to a very very effective deterrence.

6 subs with cruise missiles would do a better job, or a dozen large UAV’s, the JSF will be saddled with the fact its neither a long range bomber or a fast fighter!!!, its arguable there are better in each role available now, and of course there will be in the near future.

I don’t think I’m going too far to say the UAV will neatly cut out 80% of the JSF’s role in the next decade, The cruise missile already does 60%.

BTW I think we could agree on Carlo. 😉

Cheers

except that eurofighter did bid for air 6000 and disclosed its secrets, as to cost, i think DoD know about it. it was never going to be yr 2000 35 mil as per your example, what was EF yr 2000 cost and its now cost ?
if you think EF is a better plane for Australia, its obvious you have nothing to do with procurement

As I said this is the first time i can remember that aussies were going for just one plane for its total fighter/strike needs, granted the 18f as a filler till about 2025 and also when the uav’s are estimated to be comming online

Perhaps they knew it was never going to cost US35m, perhaps they knew it was going to be so late they would have to purchase billions of $ of Super hornets in the mean time, perhaps they will now have to have several different types in the inventory.

perhaps the cost of a Typhoon and a F-35 are now at ~parity…:D, with no sign of the F-35 getting any cheaper.

Perhaps they made a mistake. 😀 and are the people involved are too embarrassed to change horses mid race because that would be a career limiting move. :diablo:

and finally here’s the big one – Perhaps using the Australian competition isn’t such a good idea when saying “perhaps they knew something”..

Cheers

i think its already on the cards…

IIRC There is a program being negotiated now to have barracuda UAV fly with Typhoons in the near future.

They would fit the bill as far as cheap and stealthier.

Future enhancement would be Taranis types.

Cheers

Japanese was a possibility they even printed currency to circulate in Aus before the planned invasion. And you have to say only with U.S Presence in Aus especially when Gen MacArthur took control of the Australian military did the invasion threat diminish.

Without having too much of a dig, McCarthyism changed the way things were perceived in the US, anything that appeared unamerican or disloyal was subject to a witch hunt.

This led to the history books/Hollywood films/encyclopaedias being rather one sided, there is a danger of taking these sources too seriously.

If you look into subjects deeper then you may be surprised, for instance Corregidor isn’t as widely publicised as Iowa Jima.

Cheers

Also. Ironic, when America “was born” (if you want to put it that way) they had two choices for their language, English or German, obviously they speak English, or try to anyway but its quite funny how they say “if it weren’t for us you’d be speaking German”…Some funny things in life ain’t there. 😀 :diablo:

Anyways…

I’m sure that in few years or so there will be Mr Ferrin telling us we’d all be speaking IraqiAfghani if it wasn’t for the US..:dev2:

History has a way of repeating itself, and that’s what I have been trying to get across here, much to the irritation of the antidarwinians:rolleyes:.

Are you as witless as your post suggests? What does the AIM-9M and your dodgy claim that the Germans came up with the 9M because they had access to 9L source code in 1983 have anything at all to do with the Yanks giving the UK use of the AIM-9L for the Falklands without the UK needing the source code? As for the satellite imagery I guess Ivan could have provided it.

Err I wasn’t try to prove any link… I was merely answering your assertion that (and I quote) “I don’t think the UK received source codes for the AIM9L[/B], Phalanx or the satellites that provided imagery during the Falkland campaign.”

The Germans quite clearly did from a 1975 Agreement and they improved it to the AIM-9L(I)-1 which is the equivalent of the Aim9M, which the US was pretty miffed about.

So I wouldn’t be so sure about the UK not previously receiving source code.

All I asked for was a citation for satellite imagery from any source, and all I received was a witless comment.