zIFBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.

Learn More · Sign-up Now
Welcome to Shipbucket - Archive Forum!. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:

Shipbucket has a new forum! Please go and register there at once. The InvisionFree forum (the one you are looking at now) will no longer be updated. Posting has been disabled on this forum and it now serves only as an archive. Thanks!



Shipbucket Archive


Shipbucket has a new forum! Please go and register there at once. The InvisionFree forum (the one you are looking at now) will no longer be updated. Posting has been disabled on this forum and it now serves only as an archive. Thanks!



Pages: (2) [1] 2  ( Go to first unread post )

 Why did we buy
Slasherhalo
Posted: Jul 19 2010, 08:27 AM


Slasherhalo


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Member No.: 889
Joined: 22-June 10



Now i know its not very new news but i very confussed as to why the Australian goverment would srcap its force of F-111's and buy F/A-18 Super hornets. I dont understand why we had to buy the Hornets as stop gape aircraft if we still have aircraft that are still after nearly 46 years (Madian Flight 21st of December 1964) at least 10 years ahead of their time. Not only are the Hornets not even on par with the F-111 what annoys me even more is the fact that we only have them for five years before they to are replaced.
Top
Squizzy
Posted: Jul 19 2010, 10:02 AM


Official Zamunda Tourism agent


Group: Members
Posts: 160
Member No.: 482
Joined: 9-April 09



Easiest way to put it Slasherhalo it came down to 2 reasons- 1. Treasury And 2. Operational Streamlining/commonality of equipment and training (or near to it anyway).

The details are very long and too complex to mention it on here that it took several pages and 2-3 editions in both Australian aviation and Australian defence magazine alone about the reasons both for and against it but military aviation analyst Carlos Kopp has a Website that goes on about it and both the F-22/F-35 as well.
Top
Portsmouth Bill
Posted: Jul 19 2010, 11:12 AM


Sea Dog


Group: Moderators
Posts: 1,949
Member No.: 315
Joined: 22-December 08



Strewth :o you are poking a stick into a Bull Ants nest here sport: the retirement of the last F111's in service anywhere, and their replacement by the Super Hornet. Whole websites and books and magazine articles have been devoted to this subject. There is a link below to Carlo Kopp's site; but be warned, people have gone in and never returned.

http://www.ausairpower.net/editor.html

Top
erik_t
Posted: Jul 19 2010, 11:16 AM


Heroic Member


Group: Moderators
Posts: 1,111
Member No.: 288
Joined: 21-December 08



He is an astonishing wealth of information. Much of that information is even correct...
Top
Bombhead
Posted: Jul 19 2010, 11:23 PM


Junior Member


Group: Members
Posts: 220
Member No.: 716
Joined: 26-January 10



That only leaves the Phantom of the original century series and there isn't many of them left. :(
Top
Portsmouth Bill
Posted: Jul 20 2010, 04:12 PM


Sea Dog


Group: Moderators
Posts: 1,949
Member No.: 315
Joined: 22-December 08



One aspect is that with the retirement of the FIII the RAAF loses a great deal of its strike capability; and meanwhile the Indonesian, Singaporean, and Malaysian airforces are being enhanced with more modern aircraft; so the Aussies regional air superiority is being greatly eroded.

Carlo Kopp's contention is that the RAAF must get its hands on the F-22, except the USA aint selling it and its too expensive. And the F-35 (in his opinion) is not up to the job against the big Sukhoi's, being single engined and lacking in all round capability. Still, there's always the Eurofighter :P
Top
Slasherhalo
Posted: Jul 21 2010, 07:52 AM


Slasherhalo


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Member No.: 889
Joined: 22-June 10



I don't think that we should get F-22's ethier if you look at all the specs the only plane that goes anywhere near what the F-111 can do is the latest version of the F-15




Top
primer
Posted: Jul 21 2010, 06:13 PM


Junior Member


Group: Members
Posts: 131
Member No.: 808
Joined: 19-April 10



QUOTE (Slasherhalo @ Jul 19 2010, 08:27 AM)
Now i know its not very new news but i very confussed as to why the Australian goverment would srcap its force of F-111's and buy F/A-18 Super hornets. I dont understand why we had to buy the Hornets as stop gape aircraft if we still have aircraft that are still after nearly 46 years (Madian Flight 21st of December 1964) at least 10 years ahead of their time. Not only are the Hornets not even on par with the F-111 what annoys me even more is the fact that we only have them for five years before they to are replaced.

The F-111's just were getting worn out and expensive to maintain. Against any modern air defence the F-111's wouldn't have stood a chance. The F/A-18 Super Hornets are much more capable than the F-111's. The shorter range of the SH is offset by the new tankers the RAAF is getting and high speed alone won't help you against modern fighters. At least the SH's can defend them self. Not to mention that it can use a whole wider range of weapons than the F-111's.
Top
Slasherhalo
Posted: Jul 22 2010, 12:01 AM


Slasherhalo


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Member No.: 889
Joined: 22-June 10



The F-111 can pretect itself just fine it can carry Aim-9 sidwinders as well as its regular bombload and most people forget that it is also nuclear cable and can carry a wide range of nuclear wepons . It also uses state of the art terrain following radar.
Top
Thiel
Posted: Jul 22 2010, 02:48 AM


Small Craft spammer.


Group: Premium Members
Posts: 804
Member No.: 618
Joined: 21-September 09



QUOTE (Slasherhalo @ Jul 21 2010, 07:01 PM)
The F-111 can pretect itself just fine it can carry Aim-9 sidwinders as well as its regular bombload and most people forget that it is also nuclear cable and can carry a wide range of nuclear wepons . It also uses state of the art terrain following radar.

Well, that's hardly relevant for Australia.
And yes, I'm aware of the abortive Empire bomb
Top
Slasherhalo
Posted: Jul 22 2010, 02:58 AM


Slasherhalo


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Member No.: 889
Joined: 22-June 10



Good point but if we did still have them and did get involved in a nuclear war the UK or the USA could supply us with them. Besides I dont understand why we can't have nuclear weapons we supply 95% of the worlds uranium
Top
Thiel
Posted: Jul 22 2010, 03:07 AM


Small Craft spammer.


Group: Premium Members
Posts: 804
Member No.: 618
Joined: 21-September 09



QUOTE (Slasherhalo @ Jul 21 2010, 09:58 PM)
Good point but if we did still have them and did get involved in a nuclear war the UK or the USA could supply us with them. Besides I dont understand why we can't have nuclear weapons we supply 95% of the worlds uranium

Oh you did try. Back in the fifties, before the US started sharing its Nuclear expertise with the UK, Great Britain was working on developing its own nuclear arsenal, and Australia were to be a major player.
That stopped, however, when the US-UK special relationship was founded.

Since then, Australia has been a major supporter of non-proliferation treaties.
If I remember correctly, they've hosted a lot of talks and stuff, and gotten a treaty or two of the ground.

So basically, it comes down to politics. Australia has decided to say "No, we will not have nuclear weapons." Of course, the economic side of it plays a part as well.
Developing nuclear weapons and the associated launch platforms is not cheap, maintaining them even less so.
Top
Squizzy
Posted: Jul 22 2010, 05:38 AM


Official Zamunda Tourism agent


Group: Members
Posts: 160
Member No.: 482
Joined: 9-April 09



QUOTE (Thiel @ Jul 22 2010, 03:07 AM)
QUOTE (Slasherhalo @ Jul 21 2010, 09:58 PM)
Good point but if we did still have them and did get involved in a nuclear war the UK or the USA could supply us with them. Besides I dont understand why we can't have nuclear weapons we supply 95% of the worlds uranium

Oh you did try. Back in the fifties, before the US started sharing its Nuclear expertise with the UK, Great Britain was working on developing its own nuclear arsenal, and Australia were to be a major player.
That stopped, however, when the US-UK special relationship was founded.

Since then, Australia has been a major supporter of non-proliferation treaties.
If I remember correctly, they've hosted a lot of talks and stuff, and gotten a treaty or two of the ground.

So basically, it comes down to politics. Australia has decided to say "No, we will not have nuclear weapons." Of course, the economic side of it plays a part as well.
Developing nuclear weapons and the associated launch platforms is not cheap, maintaining them even less so.

Forget Nuclear Weapons. With the financial and economic devastation that's been caused by the global recession in the past 2 years to many nations economies world wide. All I can say is "BUILD RECESSION BOMBS"! The effects are simple and instant- It Destroys the nations national economy, businesses and banks, bankrupts the countries treasury/Government and puts it in the poor house.
Top
Slasherhalo
Posted: Jul 22 2010, 05:44 AM


Slasherhalo


Group: Members
Posts: 23
Member No.: 889
Joined: 22-June 10



Then if we've got trouble with funds why buy the SH's, Even thought the matinence for the F-111's is worth a lot of money it's got to be cheaper than buying anthor 24 aircraft that were only going to get rid of 5 years later
Top
primer
Posted: Jul 22 2010, 03:58 PM


Junior Member


Group: Members
Posts: 131
Member No.: 808
Joined: 19-April 10



QUOTE (Slasherhalo @ Jul 22 2010, 12:01 AM)
The F-111 can pretect itself just fine it can carry Aim-9 sidwinders as well as its regular bombload and most people forget that it is also nuclear cable and can carry a wide range of nuclear wepons . It also uses state of the art terrain following radar.

Oh wow, old model Sidewinders... That's not going to help you when you have a Flanker engage you from BVR. Nuclear capable? As is the F/A-18, not that it matters, the Australians don't have Nuclear weapons. It uses a 1960's-1970's terrain following radar, the AESA radar on the SH is much much much more capable. The RAAF is not going to get rid of the SH when the F-35's come. the F-35's will replace the older Hornets and serve along side the SH's just like in the USN.
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | Off Topic | Next Newest »
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic OptionsPages: (2) [1] 2 



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Archive