Could one of you smart clever people just explain to me why the F18G was developed and deployed if the APG79 aesa in the F18E/F is so good at ecm as you guys are stating?

The EA-18G is designed to cover ALL bands, not just the X band frequency that the APG-79 uses.

Not all radar threats are X band. S, J, L, UHF, KA etc all need to be taken care of…

Against another X band fire control radar, the APG-79 is described as having extremely long ranged, “tactically significant” effects.

A few RAAF/F/A-18/Super Hornet / JASSM shots.

I think we should keep it as ceterus paribus and higher speed means having better kinetic energy that can turned into advantage. If possibel you can create longer missile range and if you use it to bug out the opponent will need more time to get near you. If we start adding hight, engine performance, wing shape then there is no end of discussion.

Significantly higher speed yes, marginally higher speed…

The difference in the scenario presented is so marginal that it will not make a TACTICALLY significant difference.

There are of course so many other differences that such a comment is simplistic, but it can and should be corrected.

I have no doubt Gripen can fly supersonically with an almost clean airframe without using afterburner. Most modern fighter jets can.

However is that of any benefit other than to marketeers? I would argue not.

What aircraft do you think is or was Australia’s most important plane and why.

The CT-4B.

Because no RAAF (or even broader ADF) pilot could fly ANYTHING without it…

If an F-22 Raptor scored a gun hit, as the exercise was measured, then it was less than 5k’s from the ship when it notionally fired it’s gun.

If the Dutch frigate only “scored” with ESSM AFTER the gun hit took place, I don’t think this is such a great victory… 🙂

As to detecting the F-22 at 150 miles, either it was flying VERY high and not trying to hide or someone’s information isn’t correct.

Or you can believe that fantasy is real. Ooh look, there goes a hobbit just now…

What are the relative benefits and drawbacks of having a fighter/attack aircraft with side-by-side seating (ala F-111 and Su-34) vs. one with tandem seats ( almost everything else)?

Tandem – less draggy airframe, better visibility.

Side by side – better communication between pilot and navigator/WSO.

I am sure he will lose his sleep after he learns that some nobody from Keypublishing forums tries to save face by bashing him.

Concentrate on the contents and disprove it, step by step. Let us show what you are made of before you put your foot in your mouth, again, what do you say to that? 🙂

Bill was already shown to be wrong in the comments section on Ares. At least he had the good grace to admit it…

A capability which should have been purchased a decade ago – even before the retirement of the RAAF’s half-assed Boeing 707 conversions – let alone retirement!!

It wasn’t available then. That’s WHY we were the first customer…

Yes and like most times in the case of ADF history – over cost, over time (as per the F-111, M60 GPMG, Collins Class SSK……………) – again another capability which should have and could been filled a decade or more before!
When its tracking targets to the North and vectoring RAAF fighters via data link I will be happy!

Only through the provision of inferior capability…

Lets see it in RAAF operational service before we get to excited!

The point I was referring to was “trend setting”…

And why is it that it has taken so long for both Boeing, the U.S Government and military to convince another Air Force / Government to purchase the Super Hornet – after how many years of marketing and promotion?

This has what to do with the discussion at hand? Show me another in-service fighter in the world we can buy with an AESA radar, active towed EW jammer, very low observable features and a strong compatibility with RAAF’s existing Hornet fleet and weapons inventory that could have been delivered in 2 years and 4 months?

You’ll note that the Supers are currently short-listed in multiple aircraft acquisition programs around the world…

You might also notice that exports for current generation Western fighters haven’t been all that massive, compared to the previous generation. (As an example, legacy Hornets achieved about 300x airframes for export customers. F-16’s sold 2000+ airframes for export customers. F-15’s sold about 450x airframes for export customers).

Super Hornet has 1 export customer for 24x airframes.

Rafale has none.

Gripen has 3x export customers that have purchased aircraft and 2x that have leased aircraft for 54x airframes in total.

Eurofighter has 2x export customers for 87x airframes in total.

Yes and again lets wait to see how this design goes once it is in RAAF operational service before we begin to pat ourselves on the back!
After all it was only tax payers money!

We were talking about trends remember? Why change the discussion now to risk management?

After how many decades, cost blow outs, company withdrawals and poor management, and truly how much true operational capability?

You might be surprised… If we ever lose access to SATCOM capability for whatever reason, it’s nice to know we have SOME sort of backup…

Good point, and a good choice by the RAN!
But I wonder how we are going to go manning them, or to use them to their true capability – let alone the RAN/Governments wiliness to take such a large and expensive ship into harms way?
After all the ADF has not had the stomach, the balls or the will to use its para’s (3RAR) in their intended role since they were formed

Or the NEED to use them in their airdrop role. In what operational environment would it have been necessary to tie up all of RAAF’s C-130 Hercules capability so that 3RAR could parachute into the AO? What operational benefit would this achieve, over the means by which 3RAR HAS been operationally deployed throughout the years?

There is an actual reason ADF hasn’t conducted an operational parachute drop since WW2, it simply hasn’t been required. How many times have the British Parachute Regiment conducted operations over it’s lifetime and how many times has it been required to OPERATIONALLY jump in? About as many times as 3RAR, IIRC…

As to the LHD’s, they are replacing Tobruk and Manoora (or Kanimbla, can’t remember which). How often have they been deployed???

First nation in Asia/Oceania to deploy Excalibur artillery PGM and Excalibur portable fire control unit.
Again no problems here!
As an infantryman I welcome the capability of the ‘Excalibur’ round!
But will it be purchased in the numbers required or will it be a another ‘Bling’ item like the Cooperhead rounds?
You can bring me water to quench my thirst – but do not tell me I can not drink it!

250+ rounds and roughly 30x Excalibur portable fire control systems, in the very first order, but as I’ve pointed out before, Australia purchases it’s weapons in batches and exact stockholdings of munitions is classified for very good reasons, so it’s a bit pointless attempting to ponder the issue, but 250+ rounds, seems a pretty good start point to me. Especially given RRAA hasn’t fired a single round in anger from it’s own guns since Vietnam…

No arguments here Mr. S – but at least we were wise enough to await this weapon to mature and its bugs ironed out in U.S service before committing us balls and all!
It’s the ridiculous 155mm SPH program which really scares me!!!!!!!

I haven’t followed the artillery program replacement all that closely, but it seems to me that the 2 contenders are off the shelf guns, with Australia specific equipment fitted to meet the request for tender. (RWS systems, fire control systems etc). What is so scary here (besides the delay in ordering them)?

Again not without its problems and time delays!
The biggest issue I have with the Tiger, is the inter-operability with the likes of our main and traditional allies – the U.S and UK

It’s a brand new system. If you want ADF to remain a generation behind all the time, I’m sure we could take on systems that have all the bugs ironed out…

Interoperability with the Tiger will be fine. It’s comms and networking systems will work just fine with any UK or US platform. Of course we will have to support a different air system, should we deploy it OS, but that shouldn’t prove too difficult.

A trends is only viable if it works and that you can get 100% out of the system!
Half the list you have provided is like my kids Christmas list – nice, but can I afford it? Can they use it effectively?
Or is it like the RC cars and boats I have brought in the past – they will always need expenditure in the way of batteries…………oh at least the kids RC toys come with a 12-month warranty, which allows it to be returned to the place of purchase with no questions asked if it does not perform as was quoted by the manufacture!

There is a trend in all these things, you’re just not prepared to see it. ADF is purchasing leading edge quality over “proven” legacy equipment. If acquiring earlier generation military equipment is your idea of trend setting, then I’m afraid I have to wonder exactly what you meant by the phrase…

Where is the likes of the much over looked replacement for the RBS-70 and Rapier SAM, I ask, which are needed yesterday?

Really. When was the last time ADF forces were subject to air attack? As I recall, the Rapier battery was replaced by an additional RBS-70 fire unit battery and ALL RBS-70 fire units have been upgraded with the new clip-on nitesight, new Bolide missile system, integrated into a new vehicle deployment system (based on the Landrover 6×6 Perentie vehicle fleet) and linked in with brand new air surveillance/fire control radar system. All in all a significant expansion of the size of our RBS-70 capability and a significantly more lethal and deployable capability than we had with Rapier and RBS-70.

On top of which ADF’s wider integrated air defence system has received significant enhancement in recent years, it’s air defence fighters have been significantly improved and RAN’s surface based air defence capability is being significantly improved. All of these provide significant air defence options for ADF forces, though they admittedly are not as sexy as having a Patriot missile battery or whatever system suits your fancy. As an example of our developing capabilities an AWD and 2x upgraded ANZAC’s could provide 24/7 air defence coverage over ALL of Timor, with weapon and sensor systems that dwarf the capability that Army could provide, even if it did acquire Patriot or something like it.

You might also have noted recently that the Defmin has placed a high priority on acquiring an active C-RAM capability for ADF forces. What this might translate into remains to be seen, but he and the Government are pushing strongly for it, so it is likely that we’ll see such a capability soon. Other more traditional measures, (indirect fire capability and enhanced surveillance systems, passive hardening – OHP and ballistic armour for troops, vehicles etc) are being upgraded at the same time.

Were is the sense in removing artillery from the Reserve Orbat?

They are not. They are removing obsolete guns from the orbat. The batteries will remain, but will be equipped with mortars.

You think 105mm guns have a legitimate place on a battlefield in this day and age? 120mm mortars outrange them and provide better lethality and mobility…

Army has a replacement mortar project…

Were is the sense of pillaging the Reserve Orbat of APC – to be replaced by
6×6 Landrovers

Landrovers are a temporary solution. JLTV’s are the future solution, which mirrors what was going to happen to ARES’s M113’s 10 years ago anyway. It was just called Project Mulgara back then. Now it’s JLTV…

Were is the automatic grenade launchers for the standard army?

I am positive I’ve seen Bushmasters and ASLAV’s fitted with Mk 19 AGL’s in Afghanistan…

Army has a project to acquire a new generation of AGL’s.

Were is the true ATGM capability of the standard army?

Javelin ATGW doesn’t count?

Hellfire doesn’t count?

You can have all these ‘bling’ toys till the cows come home – but when they cost so much, run into development cost and time overruns or can not be used to there full capacity or potential I question much of the logic, when we are now limited in training time, ammunition and budget restraints for basic training!

Welcome to life in the ADF. 15 years ago, we didn’t even have the “bling”. Nothing deployable, no training time or ammunition and constant budget restraints.

No night aiming devices beyond the rods and cones in our eyes, no PRR only 77 sets. The whinging goes on. The qualitative difference between ADF now and ADF 10 years ago is unbelievable…