Why did we buy

Discuss anything not related to shipbucket here.

Why did we buy

Slasherhalo
New Member
Slasherhalo
New Member
Joined: Jun 22 2010, 03:24 AM

Jul 19 2010, 08:27 AM #1

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.
I am such a noob at cod
Quote
Like
Share

Squizzy
Junior Member
Squizzy
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 9 2009, 06:17 PM

Jul 19 2010, 10:02 AM #2

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.


"OF COURSE IT'S A GOOD IDEA VON SMALLHAUSEN.......I THOUGHT OF IT!!!!!!!!"- Richard Gibson "Herr Otto Flick" in "Allo,Allo"
Quote
Like
Share

Portsmouth Bill
Legendary Member
Portsmouth Bill
Legendary Member
Joined: Dec 22 2008, 08:20 AM

Jul 19 2010, 11:12 AM #3

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
Current projects: HMAS Albatross 70% Rest on hold until after holidays: Ongoing Vosper designs, HMAS Melbourne, HMAS Sydney CAV's etc.
Quote
Like
Share

erik_t
Heroic Member
erik_t
Heroic Member
Joined: Dec 21 2008, 07:36 PM

Jul 19 2010, 11:16 AM #4

He is an astonishing wealth of information. Much of that information is even correct...
Quote
Like
Share

Bombhead
Junior Member
Bombhead
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 26 2010, 10:22 PM

Jul 19 2010, 11:23 PM #5

That only leaves the Phantom of the original century series and there isn't many of them left. :(
Quote
Like
Share

Portsmouth Bill
Legendary Member
Portsmouth Bill
Legendary Member
Joined: Dec 22 2008, 08:20 AM

Jul 20 2010, 04:12 PM #6

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
Current projects: HMAS Albatross 70% Rest on hold until after holidays: Ongoing Vosper designs, HMAS Melbourne, HMAS Sydney CAV's etc.
Quote
Like
Share

Slasherhalo
New Member
Slasherhalo
New Member
Joined: Jun 22 2010, 03:24 AM

Jul 21 2010, 07:52 AM #7

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
I am such a noob at cod
Quote
Like
Share

primer
Junior Member
primer
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 19 2010, 08:31 PM

Jul 21 2010, 06:13 PM #8

Slasherhalo @ Jul 19 2010, 08:27 AM wrote: 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.
Quote
Like
Share

Slasherhalo
New Member
Slasherhalo
New Member
Joined: Jun 22 2010, 03:24 AM

Jul 22 2010, 12:01 AM #9

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.
I am such a noob at cod
Quote
Like
Share

Thiel
Elite Member
Thiel
Elite Member
Joined: Sep 21 2009, 11:42 PM

Jul 22 2010, 02:48 AM #10

Slasherhalo @ Jul 21 2010, 07:01 PM wrote: 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
Mike_G[/URL wrote:Doctrine does advise targeting the rear armor, even more recently, when I was trained on the now obsolete Dragon, but that's like saying doctrine advises you to try to pick up only hot women.  A full on armored assault with supporting infantry is a bit like two minutes to closing time. You take any shot you can get, and hope for the best.
Source
Quote
Like
Share

Slasherhalo
New Member
Slasherhalo
New Member
Joined: Jun 22 2010, 03:24 AM

Jul 22 2010, 02:58 AM #11

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
I am such a noob at cod
Quote
Like
Share

Thiel
Elite Member
Thiel
Elite Member
Joined: Sep 21 2009, 11:42 PM

Jul 22 2010, 03:07 AM #12

Slasherhalo @ Jul 21 2010, 09:58 PM wrote: 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.
Mike_G[/URL wrote:Doctrine does advise targeting the rear armor, even more recently, when I was trained on the now obsolete Dragon, but that's like saying doctrine advises you to try to pick up only hot women.  A full on armored assault with supporting infantry is a bit like two minutes to closing time. You take any shot you can get, and hope for the best.
Source
Quote
Like
Share

Squizzy
Junior Member
Squizzy
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 9 2009, 06:17 PM

Jul 22 2010, 05:38 AM #13

Thiel @ Jul 22 2010, 03:07 AM wrote:
Slasherhalo @ Jul 21 2010, 09:58 PM wrote: 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.


"OF COURSE IT'S A GOOD IDEA VON SMALLHAUSEN.......I THOUGHT OF IT!!!!!!!!"- Richard Gibson "Herr Otto Flick" in "Allo,Allo"
Quote
Like
Share

Slasherhalo
New Member
Slasherhalo
New Member
Joined: Jun 22 2010, 03:24 AM

Jul 22 2010, 05:44 AM #14

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
I am such a noob at cod
Quote
Like
Share

primer
Junior Member
primer
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 19 2010, 08:31 PM

Jul 22 2010, 03:58 PM #15

Slasherhalo @ Jul 22 2010, 12:01 AM wrote: 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.
Quote
Like
Share