BF2S Forums RAAF FA-18's waste of money?

nukchebi0 wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

Such as?

Not the F-35, though, since we know that won't be here until 2020.

Well in first strike terms... id say the F-15, F-111, B-2, B-1 and possibly the Rafale F3 all perform better. but i cant be bothered looking for facts lol.

F-15E's are no better than the F-18E/F and cannot be used on a carrier. The F-111 can't defend itself. The B-2 and B-1 are not really strike aircraft. I'm not sure about the Rafale F3.

We dont have air craft carriers... all in all my view is that we didnt need them... our FA 18's and F111's could have lasted until we got the F-35's and if they did want to buy some carry over aircraft... i think they should have at least CONSIDERED other proposals instead of doing a backdoor deal which our air force didnt even know about until it was released to the public.

JSF is overated, nothing more than a upgraded F22. The F22 is fine don't get me wrong, but compared to it the ammount of innovation on the JSF is minimal. The VTOL/STOVL concept is nice, but with the consessions made it comes no where near the Harrier. Had they gone withe the Boeing design rather than the Lockheed Martin's, things would have been better: innovative design and a less cumbersome (and thus less prone to breakage or failure) VTOL system. Yet even than the main huge disadvantage for non-US countries remains: the JSF only accepts US made weapons, which makes any other country hugely dependent on the US. In principal I think that to rely solely on one single ally for all of a nations defensive or offensive capabilities is a rather bad thing. Besides, the Eurofighter Typhoon design was aged by the time it was finally available; the JSF is well on it's way on the same route.

The Dassault Raphale pwns all, but every manual, every screen, every warning sign or light and every single button is purely and solely in French and they are to damn chauvinistic to bother to translate it in any other language (yet it beats me why any other country like, say Holland, hasn't bothered to have someone translate it, rather than spend billions on the JSF that still isn't ready).

Lai wrote:

JSF is overated, nothing more than a upgraded F22. The F22 is fine don't get me wrong, but compared to it the ammount of innovation on the JSF is minimal.

That's because the JSF leveraged much of the development work done for the F-22. Compared to the aircraft it will be replacing (F-16, A-10, Harrier, F-18)...it's light years ahead.

Lai wrote:

The VTOL/STOVL concept is nice, but with the consessions made it comes no where near the Harrier. Had they gone withe the Boeing design rather than the Lockheed Martin's, things would have been better: innovative design and a less cumbersome (and thus less prone to breakage or failure) VTOL system.

Don't know how you can say that since testing hasn't even really started on the VTOL/STOVL model. It certainly has more speed and maneuverability than the Harrier...the VTOL/STOVL performance difference (if any) remains to be discovered. The rationale for picking the LM design over the Boeing design had a lot to do with maintainability...plus the Boeing design was ugly as a bowling shoe.

Lai wrote:

Yet even than the main huge disadvantage for non-US countries remains: the JSF only accepts US made weapons, which makes any other country hugely dependent on the US. In principal I think that to rely solely on one single ally for all of a nations defensive or offensive capabilities is a rather bad thing. Besides, the Eurofighter Typhoon design was aged by the time it was finally available; the JSF is well on it's way on the same route.

Right now, the JSF is designed to interface with US-spec weapons, but that doesn't mean it will be limited to that when delivered. It depends on what the Brits and other countries levy as requirements. If they are happy using only US-made weapons (and other than the Python 4 instead of the AIM-9, why wouldn't they?), then what's the problem?

Lai wrote:

The Dassault Raphale pwns all, but every manual, every screen, every warning sign or light and every single button is purely and solely in French and they are to damn chauvinistic to bother to translate it in any other language (yet it beats me why any other country like, say Holland, hasn't bothered to have someone translate it, rather than spend billions on the JSF that still isn't ready).

The Rafale pwns nothing--it is a peer with the Typhoon, Gripen, and other 4th gen fighters. It's more of an albatross than the F-22...and even though France wants to sell it internationally, nobody wants to buy it. Too expensive (even in comparison to the JSF) and...everything being in French is certainly a problem. At least the F-22 doesn't have a peer fielded or in development right now.

nukchebi0 wrote:

I'd heard the F-18E/F was better at the dual-role (air to air in the same mission) than the F-15E.

It really depends on the radar that's installed. Airframe and avionics-wise, it is (at best) just as good, but certainly not better.

Spark wrote:

Very interesting thread.

I've been following this and Australia's other defence spending, and I have to say, it's a gamble. I don't see why the F-111 was inadequate for air-to-ground, but I suppose air superiority is important.

Though maybe they should have bought a dedicated air superiority interceptor instead.

Not an expert though.

Yer it was a gamble... without enough research behind it in my oppinion...
We didnt need anything right now... i think they should have waited a while to see what was done to other competitors and see if the JSF was really gonna take off (excuse the pun)

D6717C wrote:

I don't think it's a waste of money at all. The FA-18 is a tried and proven combat aircraft that is very capable in both the air and ground missions. The F-111 is also a great aircraft, but is quite older and limited in it's uses to bombing only. Plus, is isn't out of the ordinary for a new aircraft like the JSF to have issues causing delivery to be delayed. With the FA-18 Australia has the capability to defend it's airspace as well as support troops on the ground while taking out targets in the ground attack role. Good decision in my opinion.

Hmm its still 6.6 Billion dollars spent (thats alot for australia) that wasnt nessesary... i feel the planes will be outdated to quickly

This is more up the D&ST avenue...

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

D6717C wrote:

I don't think it's a waste of money at all. The FA-18 is a tried and proven combat aircraft that is very capable in both the air and ground missions. The F-111 is also a great aircraft, but is quite older and limited in it's uses to bombing only. Plus, is isn't out of the ordinary for a new aircraft like the JSF to have issues causing delivery to be delayed. With the FA-18 Australia has the capability to defend it's airspace as well as support troops on the ground while taking out targets in the ground attack role. Good decision in my opinion.

Hmm its still 6.6 Billion dollars spent (thats alot for australia) that wasnt nessesary... i feel the planes will be outdated to quickly

I agree that it is quite a bit of money but I don't think they will be outdated quickly. The FA-18 has been upgraded and is near the top of the food chain in multi-role aircraft. You have to look at it's capabilities vs. the F-111 as well.

D6717C wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

D6717C wrote:

I don't think it's a waste of money at all. The FA-18 is a tried and proven combat aircraft that is very capable in both the air and ground missions. The F-111 is also a great aircraft, but is quite older and limited in it's uses to bombing only. Plus, is isn't out of the ordinary for a new aircraft like the JSF to have issues causing delivery to be delayed. With the FA-18 Australia has the capability to defend it's airspace as well as support troops on the ground while taking out targets in the ground attack role. Good decision in my opinion.

Hmm its still 6.6 Billion dollars spent (thats alot for australia) that wasnt nessesary... i feel the planes will be outdated to quickly

I agree that it is quite a bit of money but I don't think they will be outdated quickly. The FA-18 has been upgraded and is near the top of the food chain in multi-role aircraft. You have to look at it's capabilities vs. the F-111 as well.

well the SH definitely beats f-111 in air-air capabilities... but as far as i know the F-111 is far superior in bomibing/air-surface.

we already have quite a number of FA-18's so i think it limits our capabilites alittle... i dunno.

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

D6717C wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

Hmm its still 6.6 Billion dollars spent (thats alot for australia) that wasnt nessesary... i feel the planes will be outdated to quickly

I agree that it is quite a bit of money but I don't think they will be outdated quickly. The FA-18 has been upgraded and is near the top of the food chain in multi-role aircraft. You have to look at it's capabilities vs. the F-111 as well.

well the SH definitely beats f-111 in air-air capabilities... but as far as i know the F-111 is far superior in bomibing/air-surface.

we already have quite a number of FA-18's so i think it limits our capabilites alittle... i dunno.

The one thing that made the F-111 so good at the A/G role was the targeting pod in its belly. Now, nearly every aircraft has an advanced targeting pod available to it that allows gnat's ass targeting. The F-111 was ahead of its time for a long time. With the advances in targeting pods and PGMs, it's in the middle of the pack at best anymore.

And RAIMIUS is spot on, as well.

Spark wrote:

By the way: Australia already has about 50 or so FA-18's. They are due to retire in just seven years.

The RAAF has 71 Hornets at 4SQN's - 3SQN, 75SQN, 77SQN and 2OCU. They recently underwent significant upgrades to ensure another 10-15 years service life.

FEOS wrote:

Lai wrote:

The VTOL/STOVL concept is nice, but with the consessions made it comes no where near the Harrier. Had they gone withe the Boeing design rather than the Lockheed Martin's, things would have been better: innovative design and a less cumbersome (and thus less prone to breakage or failure) VTOL system.

Don't know how you can say that since testing hasn't even really started on the VTOL/STOVL model. It certainly has more speed and maneuverability than the Harrier...the VTOL/STOVL performance difference (if any) remains to be discovered. The rationale for picking the LM design over the Boeing design had a lot to do with maintainability...plus the Boeing design was ugly as a bowling shoe.

Jibbles wrote:

Marines can has VTOL F-35

yayz

Well actually,.. they can't. Which is exactly my point.

The closest the F-35 gets to a VTOL version is a STOVL (Short Take Off and Vertical Landing), unlike the Harrier it can NOT take of vertically. You can test all you want, it doesn't make the F-35 a VTOL craft. I'm sure the F-35 is more practical to launch from a carrier than say a F-14, but it simply isn't up to the kind of tricks that made the Argentinians shit their pants above Falkland (even though they had both the numeral as well as the technical advantage).

The Boeing concept feautures a single engine with multiple (smaller) exhausts that direct thrust downwards if needed: the Harrier-proven design, with the improvement that the Boeing has an extra main exhaust at the rear. The LM concept feautures different smaller engines for the STOVL exhaust-holes next to the main engine for the rear exhaust. In my opinion this is pointless, inefficient and cumbersome.

The Boeing design being ugly (in your opinion) is just a shit argument; I'm a classisist and nothing beats the style of the bright coloured Red Baron, so let's put those on US carriers.* The Boeing design had the air vent at the belly, which has an advantage over the (traditional) LM design with two air vents at each side, in that, when making tight turns, airflow is not (partially) denied to one of the vents. Therefore in dogfights, the Boeing would maintain a maximum airflow at all times compared to the LM having to settle with only half the capacity at crucial moments. The only disadvantage is that a belly-vent, by being lower to the ground, is more prone to scooping up birts and debris on a runway, which I think is a problem which could easily be resolved (for example by extending or adjusting the placement of the landing gear). In any case it seems to me like an acceptable effort to cope with this problem and have such a huge combat advantage in return.

Considering the Raphale, it also has dual air vents, but these are placed "diagonally across" the belly and are a compromis between a belly-vent and two side-vents; good thinking Frenchies!




*Note: this was merely an example, I do not prefer the Red Baron as a replacement craft for any nation, neither technically nor aesthetically.

Any reason why we shouldn't buy Mig 29s and Su30s?

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080218/99490063.html

Looks like a political shit storm to me - like the Australian F/A-18 purchase.