Raaf

roddy1960 · 24-09-2016, 10:25 AM

G'day all..The other day I was talking to a former teacher who joined the RAAF in the mid 1990's and who recently retired. We got talking about Australia's position on the purchase of it's front line jets. There's been a lot of debate going on over our commitment to buying around 70 or so F-35 Lightning ll's to replace the FA 18 Legacy Hornets .

Due to a mass of problems the RAAF , a few years back bought 24 of the updated Boeing built FA 18 F Superhornets as a stop gap fighter to fill in the delays The retired RAAF/ former workmate teacher was telling us that the RAAF bigwigs are actually seriously worried that the F35 might turn out to be a massive mistake and the multi role Superhornet might have been a smarter decision..

The Canadians are in the same exact situation.. Australia have also purchased twelve Superhornets on top of the other 24 as the weapons jamming version signified as Growlers I believe.

just wondering if any AFF members have experience or opinions on this matter as the deadline to retire the ageing fleet of 75 Legacy Hornets approaches.
For those not really familiar with this , here's a vid from a while back on this topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1LNmfZL7Ec In this second video , same Aussie RAAF officer features but the details on the Superhornet are explained further. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f85q...Q#t=210.717572.
What do you boys and girls think for our Asia Pacific region ?
Cheers Rod..

Stefan · 24-09-2016, 10:50 AM

******Checking forum banner to see if I accidentally stumbled on to Fighter Jets Forum..........Nope i'm definitely on Ford Forums.

**Silver Ghia** · 24-09-2016, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan

******Checking forum banner to see if I accidentally stumbled on to Fighter Jets Forum..........Nope i'm definitely on Ford Forums.

yeah, we'll wait for a mod to slip it across to the Bar.

The Yeti · 24-09-2016, 11:00 AM

While fighter jets aren't my thing, one thing I like about the ford forum is we are diverse enough as people to talk about more than just fords.

**DJR-351** · 24-09-2016, 11:29 AM

A couple of ongoing F-35 threads in the Bar............

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...highlight=F-35

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...&highlight=F35

Itsme · 24-09-2016, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roddy1960

The retired RAAF/ former workmate teacher was telling us that the RAAF bigwigs are actually seriously worried that the F35 might turn out to be a massive mistake and the multi role Superhornet might have been a smarter decision..

This type of comment was said years ago when Australia signed up for the F111's but they turned out doing a magnificent role for the RAAF.

Very rare the Australian Military get it wrong on military hardware.

Camrods · 24-09-2016, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trublu

This type of comment was said years ago when Australia signed up for the F111's but they turned out doing a magnificent role for the RAAF.

Very rare the Australian Military get it wrong on military hardware.

COUGH COUGH Collins-class submarine COUGH COUGH

Itsme · 24-09-2016, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camrods

COUGH COUGH Collins-class submarine COUGH COUGH

If you compare these subs with their predecessors on operational performance, costs I think you will find they were not that bad as portrayed in the media, go talk to any ex or current submariner for their opinion.

roddy1960 · 24-09-2016, 04:54 PM

G'day , Sorry about that all...I posted the thread in the wrong place ..my mistake..I realize now it should have been in the Bar instead..
... Anyway..I hope it's of interest to someone..Cheers Rod..

b0son · 24-09-2016, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trublu

Very rare the Australian Military get it wrong on military hardware.

There's always a first time.

Its the F35 JSF ... Joint Strike Fighter. Joint as in meant to be used in conjunction with other aircraft. In this case, the F22. Yet the F22 is not legally able to be exported under US law, nor is it even in production.

So how effective can a joint fighter that on its own 'cant turn, cant climb, cant run' be?

**DJR-351** · 24-09-2016, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camrods

COUGH COUGH Collins-class submarine COUGH COUGH

.......and let's not forget the $1.4bn Seasprite Helicopter fiasco

roddy1960 · 24-09-2016, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0son

There's always a first time.

Its the F35 JSF ... Joint Strike Fighter. Joint as in meant to be used in conjunction with other aircraft. In this case, the F22. Yet the F22 is not legally able to be exported under US law, nor is it even in production.

So how effective can a joint fighter that on its own 'cant turn, cant climb, cant run' be?

G'day , Quite correct and they've already stopped building the F22 as well.
There is also a design fault with them too. On a Sixty Minutes story a couple of years or so back it was revealed that way too many F22 pilots black out due to some issue with the plane and the guys in the interview too a huge risk speaking out..Here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sWbVdEKaY0 . The F22 in fighter terms wasn't a real longevity one like say the F 15 or F 16 was/is .. or indeed the FA 18..The USAF don't even rate the FA 18 , only the US Navy/ Marines do..
Cheers Rod..

Itsme · 24-09-2016, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0son

There's always a first time.

Its the F35 JSF ... Joint Strike Fighter. Joint as in meant to be used in conjunction with other aircraft. In this case, the F22. Yet the F22 is not legally able to be exported under US law, nor is it even in production.

So how effective can a joint fighter that on its own 'cant turn, cant climb, cant run' be?

JSF35 fighter might prove to be dud but your interpretation of JSF is wrong.
The fighter is meant to replace a wide range of existing fighter, strike & ground attack aircraft.

Quote:

The JSF program was the result of the merger of the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (CALF) and Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) projects. The merged project continued under the JAST name until the engineering, manufacturing and development (EMD) phase, during which the project became the Joint Strike Fighter.

**GasoLane** · 24-09-2016, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roddy1960

G'day , Quite correct and they've already stopped building the F22 as well.
There is also a design fault with them too. On a Sixty Minutes story a couple of years or so back it was revealed that way too many F22 pilots black out due to some issue with the plane and the guys in the interview too a huge risk speaking out..

You lost me when I got to those words.

383hq · 24-09-2016, 08:39 PM

The Australian taxpayer is paying $770,000 just for each pilots' JSF helmet.

Each pilot gets one, they won't want to damage it - it's needed to fly the plane, Not sure if it's disinformation, but have heard only one place in the US can fit/match/tune the helmet to each pilot. This process is not measured in minutes, but days. Drop it, and allegedly you can't just borrow the next helmet on the shelf.....

Be terrible for a billion trillion zillion dollar plane to not get used on the enemy because of such simple, but overlooked failure modes

Sometimes added complexity doesn't help in getting the job done when needed

b0son · 24-09-2016, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trublu

JSF35 fighter might prove to be dud but your interpretation of JSF is wrong.
The fighter is meant to replace a wide range of existing fighter, strike & ground attack aircraft.

I've read several articles and they state quite clearly that the F35's shortcomings in close-combat were to be addressed by using them in conjunction with more capable air craft such as the F22. The fact that the F35 has received pretty damning criticism for its poor maneuverability seems to confirm this. Are we going to continue using our FA18s in this role?

Itsme · 24-09-2016, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0son

I've read several articles and they state quite clearly that the F35's shortcomings in close-combat were to be addressed by using them in conjunction with more capable air craft such as the F22. The fact that the F35 has received pretty damning criticism for its poor maneuverability seems to confirm this. Are we going to continue using our FA18s in this role?

Might as well, reason is by the time we get our new military hardware it will be already out dated before we use it.

roddy1960 · 25-09-2016, 09:47 AM

G'day all , I see that the USA 'claim' to have fixed the oxygen contamination issue now. If so that's good , if not really then that's a crock ..
The US Military now say the F35 is performing 'better than anticipated'..What sort of statement is that ?
Too bad if secretly what was anticipated was lower than a snakes belly with the compromises a plane might need to make to be 'stealthy'. One redeeming feature of one variant of the F35 is the vertical capability for aircraft carrier ops. No advantage for Australia , until (if ever) we have a carrier or two and the infrastructure to run them.

Military info is all smoke and mirrors so in essence they try and make you believe what they want you to believe.
Our recently retired RAAF officer wasn't directly involved in Superhornets . He was involved mostly with teaching new inductions of pilots as I understand but he was often at training with the guys and girls that were based at fighter squadrons and they have a lot of faith in the Superhornet . According to him these people think that what Australia will end up doing is cut back a bit on the 60 or so F35's they planned on buying . Keep using 24 Superhornets) , a dozen EA 18 Growlers , and also keep flying for a bit longer than expected some of the classic Hornets .

Maybe , just maybe it'd be smart to ask the people who fly and maintain the aircraft what they think . No-one knows better than them in reality. As in all jobs bosses could do well to consult those at the coal face as an important aid in decision making and can't hurt making better informed opinions overall..I'd like to think that the RAAF bigwigs and Defence Dept officialdom do. Who knows ?

Cheers Rod..

Mercury Bullet · 28-09-2016, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJR-351

.......and let's not forget the $1.4bn Seasprite Helicopter fiasco

Haha very shameful little mistake that one was.

As for the F-35, time will tell. At this point no-one outside the inner circle knows how they will perform. Fighter jets these days is all about radar and being able to see the other guy first. The F-35 has a stonking radar that will leave the F/A 18 well behind.

**FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0** · 28-09-2016, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

Haha very shameful little mistake that one was.

As for the F-35, time will tell. At this point no-one outside the inner circle knows how they will perform. Fighter jets these days is all about radar and being able to see the other guy first. The F-35 has a stonking radar that will leave the F/A 18 well behind.

Agreed.

Keep in mind also that most modern 'dogfighting' is well beyond visual range (BVR). To make our advantage greater, we have the Wedgetail which will allow our integrated forces to 'see' (and engage) the enemy further than a fighter-borne radar can.

Moby Vic · 14-10-2016, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0son

There's always a first time.

Its the F35 JSF ... Joint Strike Fighter. Joint as in meant to be used in conjunction with other aircraft. In this case, the F22. Yet the F22 is not legally able to be exported under US law, nor is it even in production.

So how effective can a joint fighter that on its own 'cant turn, cant climb, cant run' be?

Incorrect. Joint means multiple services (Air Force, Navy, and Marines) using different configurations of the same basic architecture as F-35A, F-35B, and F-35C. Joint has never referred to working in conjunction with other systems.

New technology always has teething pains. If the advanced sensor and weapon systems work properly on the F-35, its perceived performance deficiencies are a non-issue.

castellan · 14-10-2016, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trublu

This type of comment was said years ago when Australia signed up for the F111's but they turned out doing a magnificent role for the RAAF.

Very rare the Australian Military get it wrong on military hardware.

Boy !

We are a laughing stock down here in Aus, our ADF are so politically correct in everything nowadays, that it's really disgusting not to mention what a sad joke it has become.

Like we don't want to offend country's near to us, so they were happy we got rid of such an ability for our defence with the F111's, that's just one of the things you may not know, not to mention how much the Aussie Tax payer gives every year for that lot to service there own military, oh no nono it's not for their military,

but it's funny that they spend the same amount given on it.

Russia leads the world by far in the best nowadays that they make the rest of the world look downright foolish and stupid beyond belief.

Russia is not drunk on playing with it's self, like the USA and Australia with putting moronic Political Correctness in charge of everything.

The Australian Government's and ADF leadership are a total disgrace and it's beyond belief the degenerates and morons they truly are.
Just go and look at my good mate Major Bernard Gaynor's blog and find out what degenerate stupid spineless little filthy queer grubs they truly are, such lash out on our own best ADF people, only embrace other grubs who truly loth Australians.

blue sleeper · 14-10-2016, 08:56 PM

I really don't understand the logic of the RAAF high ups, whoever thought it was a good idea to buy so many F-35s for a country this large is nuts! Even more sending the first lot to Williamtown, if someone was to invade from the north they would have to refuel before they got there to be effective...

What they should of done is bought 60 F-35s and based them at Tindal, 36 Super Hornets and based them at Amberley, and then buy 24 F-15 Silent Eagles and base them at Williamtown. But that would make ******* sense.....

castellan · 14-10-2016, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue sleeper

I really don't understand the logic of the RAAF high ups, whoever thought it was a good idea to buy so many F-35s for a country this large is nuts! Even more sending the first lot to Williamtown, if someone was to invade from the north they would have to refuel before they got there to be effective...

What they should of done is bought 60 F-35s and based them at Tindal, 36 Super Hornets and based them at Amberley, and then buy 24 F-15 Silent Eagles and base them at Williamtown. But that would make ******* sense.....

They have no logic, they are pawns both RAAF high up and our Governments.

Cashie · 14-10-2016, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moby Vic

Incorrect. Joint means multiple services (Air Force, Navy, and Marines) using different configurations of the same basic architecture as F-35A, F-35B, and F-35C. Joint has never referred to working in conjunction with other systems.

Isn't it also due to it being jointly developed jointly with the 11 partner nations?

Moby Vic · 14-10-2016, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cashie

Isn't it also due to it being jointly developed jointly with the 11 partner nations?

I suppose you could tack that on, but it's in the name because of the joint forces involved.

The DoD is under the illusion that "joint" programs save money because they can use the same thing for different services, but the different services have different requirements and that always requires customization that adds cost. Joint programs are tremendously complex for that reason.

Bill M · 15-10-2016, 12:03 PM

Showing my age now but I can recall the media controversy when Australia purchased the F-111s.
Many comments from fringe dwelling defense "experts" from warm seats.
Nothing changes really.

Mercury Bullet · 16-10-2016, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue sleeper

I really don't understand the logic of the RAAF high ups, whoever thought it was a good idea to buy so many F-35s for a country this large is nuts! Even more sending the first lot to Williamtown, if someone was to invade from the north they would have to refuel before they got there to be effective...

What they should of done is bought 60 F-35s and based them at Tindal, 36 Super Hornets and based them at Amberley, and then buy 24 F-15 Silent Eagles and base them at Williamtown. But that would make ******* sense.....

No better than today.

The entire southern and western sides of this country are completely unprotected.
If MH-17 decided to attack Perth it would have got here faster from Kuala Lumpur than the Hornets could fly from Sydney or Tindal.
A Hornet cannot fly 1km/h faster than the 707/A330 that has to refuel it.

There is not even an air to air refueller in Western Australia that could fly out to meet them halfway.

blue sleeper · 25-10-2016, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

No better than today.

The entire southern and western sides of this country are completely unprotected.
If MH-17 decided to attack Perth it would have got here faster from Kuala Lumpur than the Hornets could fly from Sydney or Tindal.
A Hornet cannot fly 1km/h faster than the 707/A330 that has to refuel it.

There is not even an air to air refueller in Western Australia that could fly out to meet them halfway.

At least get the flight right before you make a stupid argument......

Mercury Bullet · 26-10-2016, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue sleeper

At least get the flight right before you make a stupid argument......

ok 370...too many of them lately.

As for stupid argument. How many fighters based around Perth?
Or anywhere in WA?