F22 Raptor V's F35 Joint Strike Fighter
I was predicting in 1999 to all and sundry that would and would not listen that JSF would turn out to be a mistake.
The F18 upgrade and centre barrel replacement should have both been canned and an F15E order placed. Upon delivery replace the F111's first (which would probably have been completed by now).
Unfrotunately the Australian military's penchant for 'cutting edge' is going to bite it on the proverbial as far as fast jet capability is concerned from 2012 or so.
The F15E is the capability we really wanted when we got the F18, unfortunately it was developed a few years to late for us then. An F15E ordered in the late 1990's would have been an extrememly useful piece of kit - and the software and upgrade support achievable through the USAF system would have left the USN system for dead.
The F15E in the USAF (having done the exchange) is the workhorse. The true extent of its capabilities and its sheer effectiveness however are actually kept 'on the hush' because the powers that be do not want to risk funding for F22 and to a lesser extent F35.
The F18 upgrade and centre barrel replacement should have both been canned and an F15E order placed. Upon delivery replace the F111's first (which would probably have been completed by now).
Unfrotunately the Australian military's penchant for 'cutting edge' is going to bite it on the proverbial as far as fast jet capability is concerned from 2012 or so.
The F15E is the capability we really wanted when we got the F18, unfortunately it was developed a few years to late for us then. An F15E ordered in the late 1990's would have been an extrememly useful piece of kit - and the software and upgrade support achievable through the USAF system would have left the USN system for dead.
The F15E in the USAF (having done the exchange) is the workhorse. The true extent of its capabilities and its sheer effectiveness however are actually kept 'on the hush' because the powers that be do not want to risk funding for F22 and to a lesser extent F35.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Funk
F22 massive waste of money (i read they called it F and not F/A cause it cant heandle a2g ordance).
Pre-loved Super Hornets would be the best, most cost effective option if they would be made available. I don't think there's much chance of that any time soon. Even if they were available, there's a greater poolitical will to spend huge amounts of money on expensive and unproven US programs like JSF and Son of Star Wars instead of hospitals, schools and other vital infrastructure.
The only pre-loved fighters that will be going around, are going to be "A" model F16's & F18's.
Foolish politicians, a public love affair with the F111, and a delusional air force brass, that believed they were to be getting a 100 fighter fleet, have left us in this inevitable mess.
If you can fight an air campaign against Indonesia, you are in good preparation for a myriad of possible future scenarios in Asia and alongside the US. A small interim F15E capability, coupled with tankers and new AWACS, the most affordable way to maintain RAAF regional supremacy and alliance committments to the USA.
Foolish politicians, a public love affair with the F111, and a delusional air force brass, that believed they were to be getting a 100 fighter fleet, have left us in this inevitable mess.
If you can fight an air campaign against Indonesia, you are in good preparation for a myriad of possible future scenarios in Asia and alongside the US. A small interim F15E capability, coupled with tankers and new AWACS, the most affordable way to maintain RAAF regional supremacy and alliance committments to the USA.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ADELAIDE
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An article posted in Flight international recently regarding software glitches with the new AESA APG-79 radars to be installed in the super hornets is interesting. As the article points out, “All earlier generation radar systems pass through similar processes including the effort to achieve system stability."
I just wonder how many glitches and system reliabilities will need to be sorted out in the all new F-35.
http://81.144.183.107/Articles/2006/...e+faults+.html
I just wonder how many glitches and system reliabilities will need to be sorted out in the all new F-35.
http://81.144.183.107/Articles/2006/...e+faults+.html
Milt from the forum makes his point! But Milt, with all due respect, won't sending young men to war in F111's circa 2020, be the historical equivalent of sending Mustangs up against Migs in Korea?
F-111's retirement 'unwise'
Sean Parnell
February 13, 2006
THE Defence Department has come under fire over the planned early retirement of Australia's fleet of F-111 fighter jets as part of a multi-billion-dollar replacement program that even the department admits is risky.
Amid uncertainty over the timing and cost of replacement F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, a parliamentary committee has been told the gradual decommissioning of the 21 remaining F-111s is unwise.
Retired group captain Milton Cottee, a former RAAF squadron commander, warned the demise of the F-111s would increase the threat posed by Australia's neighbours.
"There is now little doubt that Australia will have a significant deterioration in our defensive/offensive posture with serious gaps during which some belligerent may well be tempted to become aggressive," Mr Cottee told the inquiry in a submission.
Having been a project manager for the acquisition of Australia's F-111Cs, Mr Cottee said he knew their capabilities and believed the fleet should be kept in service until 2020.
Defence wants to withdraw the F-111s by 2010 and upgrade its fleet of 55 F/A-18s as it brings on line up to 100 F-35s, which are likely to cost almost $15 billion. They will not be operational before 2012.
The department, in its submission to the committee's inquiry into Australia's regional air superiority, said the "early retirement" of the F-111s in 2010 was largely dependent upon the upgrades to the F/A-18 fleet.
While the department stood by its decision to buy F-35s that have not yet been built, let alone flown, it conceded that the jet replacement program was "complex" because Australia had to keep its air power at a comparable level to other countries in the region and manage the risks cost-effectively.
"While Defence has confidence that the JSF will mature to meet the air force's future air combat capability requirements, it is clear that cost, schedule and capability risks associated with introduction of the JSF decrease the later we acquire the aircraft," the department said.
"It is also clear that cost, schedule and capability risks associated with the F/A-18 and F-111 increase the longer we keep the aircraft in service."
The Howard Government is likely to amend the jet replacement program if any of Australia's neighbours significantly increase their air power, or if the F-35 continues to run behind schedule and over budget.
The US is forging ahead with the F-35 project and the Quadrennial Defence Review, released by the Pentagon last week, has eased fears the project would be scaled back.
F-111's retirement 'unwise'
Sean Parnell
February 13, 2006
THE Defence Department has come under fire over the planned early retirement of Australia's fleet of F-111 fighter jets as part of a multi-billion-dollar replacement program that even the department admits is risky.
Amid uncertainty over the timing and cost of replacement F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, a parliamentary committee has been told the gradual decommissioning of the 21 remaining F-111s is unwise.
Retired group captain Milton Cottee, a former RAAF squadron commander, warned the demise of the F-111s would increase the threat posed by Australia's neighbours.
"There is now little doubt that Australia will have a significant deterioration in our defensive/offensive posture with serious gaps during which some belligerent may well be tempted to become aggressive," Mr Cottee told the inquiry in a submission.
Having been a project manager for the acquisition of Australia's F-111Cs, Mr Cottee said he knew their capabilities and believed the fleet should be kept in service until 2020.
Defence wants to withdraw the F-111s by 2010 and upgrade its fleet of 55 F/A-18s as it brings on line up to 100 F-35s, which are likely to cost almost $15 billion. They will not be operational before 2012.
The department, in its submission to the committee's inquiry into Australia's regional air superiority, said the "early retirement" of the F-111s in 2010 was largely dependent upon the upgrades to the F/A-18 fleet.
While the department stood by its decision to buy F-35s that have not yet been built, let alone flown, it conceded that the jet replacement program was "complex" because Australia had to keep its air power at a comparable level to other countries in the region and manage the risks cost-effectively.
"While Defence has confidence that the JSF will mature to meet the air force's future air combat capability requirements, it is clear that cost, schedule and capability risks associated with introduction of the JSF decrease the later we acquire the aircraft," the department said.
"It is also clear that cost, schedule and capability risks associated with the F/A-18 and F-111 increase the longer we keep the aircraft in service."
The Howard Government is likely to amend the jet replacement program if any of Australia's neighbours significantly increase their air power, or if the F-35 continues to run behind schedule and over budget.
The US is forging ahead with the F-35 project and the Quadrennial Defence Review, released by the Pentagon last week, has eased fears the project would be scaled back.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ADELAIDE
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight International reports that the USAF has proposed cutting 25% of its combat fleet to pay for the F-22 and F-35 fleets!
http://81.144.183.107/Articles/2006/...price+for.html
My limited understanding of all things American is that the USAF via the pentagon put their budget request forward to the president whom then passes it onto the congress and the senate. I believe either of these two bodies or the President can radically restructure or even reject budget proposals. If this is the case it will be very interesting to see if it passes. As the article hints at, 25% less aeroplanes will no doubt mean fewer bases. This of course will not be a popular thing to sell for a local congresman or senator considering the jobs and economic activity tied up in bases.
In the Australian context this is I guess good news, however their are alot of hurdles for the F-35 to cross yet.
http://81.144.183.107/Articles/2006/...price+for.html
My limited understanding of all things American is that the USAF via the pentagon put their budget request forward to the president whom then passes it onto the congress and the senate. I believe either of these two bodies or the President can radically restructure or even reject budget proposals. If this is the case it will be very interesting to see if it passes. As the article hints at, 25% less aeroplanes will no doubt mean fewer bases. This of course will not be a popular thing to sell for a local congresman or senator considering the jobs and economic activity tied up in bases.
In the Australian context this is I guess good news, however their are alot of hurdles for the F-35 to cross yet.
