PDA

View Full Version : Aussies called the F-18 a piece of shit.



gator
06-29-2008, 11:15 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/20071029_hornets/hornets_lo.asx

The Aussies are mad as heck their politician stuck them with the American F-18 SuperHornet and they're saying the American plane can't hold it's own against Russian/Chinese threats they face.

This is what happens when a country goes Left Wing. They start bitching about everything.

The F-18 SuperHornet is fine for the Amrican military but the Aussies are bitching about it.

Maybe they should buy planes from the Russians next time.

After all they will be saving defense dollars by withdrawing combat troops from Iraq so maybe they can get the Rusians to sell them the top of line fighters.

Or maybe the ingrates can just develop their own fighters and stop bitching about ours.

megimoo
06-30-2008, 07:33 AM
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/20071029_hornets/hornets_lo.asx

The Aussies are mad as heck their politician stuck them with the American F-18 SuperHornet and they're saying the American plane can't hold it's own against Russian/Chinese threats they face.

This is what happens when a country goes Left Wing. They start bitching about everything.

The F-18 SuperHornet is fine for the Amrican military but the Aussies are bitching about it.

Maybe they should buy planes from the Russians next time.

After all they will be saving defense dollars by withdrawing combat troops from Iraq so maybe they can get the Rusians to sell them the top of line fighters.

Or maybe the ingrates can just develop their own fighters and stop bitching about ours.
The US Navy had F-14s as the primary fighter, A-6s as the primary attack plane, and F-18s as the tweener. That was great.Each had it's place, then the bean counters came and screwed up everything as they always do !


Australia wants the F-22s but the problem at this time is the US refusal to sell the plane, and its $200 million price tag.

They also would like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to replace their F-111's over time. The 100-plane deal will cost at least $5 billion and will be the F-35A conventional takeoff Air Force version.

So we sold them the F-18's and now they cry because its a lower performance aircraft then the F-22 or the F-35 but still an excellent compromise. They should keep and update their F-111's !

Access to the F-35ís software/firmware source code remains a live issue for the Australians , British, and others. That access is necessary for countries that want to upgrade the aircraft's computers, and/or integrate new weapons, communications, or electronic warfare systems.

Every country that tries to purchase Either the F-22 or the F-35 wants access to the internal micro/nano code of the flight/navigation/fire control computers .The internals of
computer code of both aircraft are considered to be 'state of the art' and secret.They would like the code, they say, to integrate their own missiles to the weapons bay configuration.We will provide a GUI to take care of the problem but they want the actual code,so tough craps on them !

Sonnabend
06-30-2008, 07:53 AM
The Aussies are mad as heck their politician stuck them with the American F-18 SuperHornet and they're saying the American plane can't hold it's own against Russian/Chinese threats they face.

This is what happens when a country goes Left Wing. They start bitching about everything.

The F-18 SuperHornet is fine for the American military but the Aussies are bitching about it.

Our military needs are different to yours, and what we need and want is an all weather, long range interceptor with the capacity for onsite bombing and other strike operations..

The FA 18 has been a mainstay of ours for years, our military needs have changed and our focus has changed, so we need a better weapon for our aerial defences.

We need an aircraft that can go toe to toe with aerial assets as well as ground strike and support operations...we have a huge amount of ground to cover and the Super Hornet, while a good aircraft, does not and will not need our unique requirements.

Take a look at a map, sometime, take a good hard look and tell me how you can parse the defence of the CONUS and its needs to that of a Pacific continent that is surrounded by ocean,. parallelled by at least three predominantly Muslim nations, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of miles of coastline that has to be monitored and defended.

We didnt buy your Los Angeles subs either...they dont suit our needs as we do not have to contend with the requirements of a hunter killer asset to protect boomers...our major issue is coastal defence and surveillance, air interception and force projection from the major cities.

We have to think of strategic layers in depth, our military budget is a scant fraction of yours, and we must think in terms of long range capability and long term asset management.

And this has nothing to do with a "left wing government" and EVERYTHING to do with listening to our generals who know a million times more about what our nation needs in terms of defence than you ever will.

THEY are the ones who are making these decisions.

Sonnabend
06-30-2008, 08:06 AM
Here, see for yourself

http://www.jetcityrescue.com/images/faq_map.jpg

Those islands are the Philippines, NZ, Malaysia, Indonesia..all within a few hours of our coastline....we have over the horizon radar but what is needed for the future will be an all aspects high speed interceptor, capable of ACM or ground strike support..we need an aircraft with long range capability..we looked at the F14, but the needs and assets for support for the Phoenix wouldn't cut it..the Tomcat would have been the perfect aircraft, logistics wouldnt work.

We have used the FA-18 for at least fifteen years or more already....with changing strategies, and new technology, means we have to rethink both strategic and logistics.

You CANNOT apply AMERICAN solutions to a Pacific problem, because the needs are not the same, you do not live here, and you know jack shit about what our defensive needs are.

Take a long look at that map, and tell me how we are supposed to apply the defensive parameters of the CONUS as opposed to our SPECIFIC defensive and offensive capabilities.

We have no carriers....none. The last one we had was mothballed and then sold for scrap twenty years ago. Our defensive and offensive responders and squadrons are all land based. Even if we got the SH we'd still need FASTpack conformal cells or other assets for long range operations...other aircraft are better suited. We live with the tyranny of distance, and even if we yell for help, it will be a while coming.

You lot want us to stand on our own...fine , then LISTEN when we tell you that the weapons you suggest will not suit the battlefields we must fight in.


They should keep and update their F-111's !

Meg...you're thinking US budget and strategies. Newer aircraft are in the long term a better investment than trying to keep an ageing airframe on the line.

Vepr
06-30-2008, 08:45 AM
While I do not begrudge the Australians wanting a better aircraft than the F-18 it is unrealistic for them to request the F-22 at this time. Also I thought the F-35 was not ready yet?

Couldn't something be worked out with the F-15's? If I am not mistaken the F-15 is faster and can fly higher and I believe it also has a better range.

LogansPapa
06-30-2008, 10:35 AM
They could always build their own. Oh wait, that’s crop dusters. My bad.:p

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/bxtai0509_a.jpg

Zafod
06-30-2008, 11:23 AM
They could always build their own. Oh wait, thatís crop dusters. My bad.:p

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/bxtai0509_a.jpg

hahahahahahahaa

megimoo
06-30-2008, 12:26 PM
I understand the requirement Sonna but the aircraft you desire isn't a cost effective solution for Australia. If Indonesia is flying high performance soviet aircraft you need to keep on a par.I've read where Australia is using F-18 inflight refueling from KC-135 .That will give you the range you need !


"Indonesia buys Su-27's/30's: \

I read a bit of bad news for all of us Aussies today. Indonesia is to take purchase of 2 SU-27's and 2 SU-30's, the first of a possible 24 of each type to be bought. Apparently this puts our upgraded F/A-18 force 4th in quality, behind Singapore and Malaysia(fortunately both allies), and Indonesia, in our immediate region. The Hornet's are also suffering centre barrel fatigue, which means that training hours are being limited to preserve the airframes. To make it worse, the Indonesians are looking at buying S-300's and an intergrated air-defence system, which seriously degrades the deterrant posed by our F-111's and their AGM-142's.

While the current Indonesian government is relitively friendly, their are lots of Generals who are pissed off about our involvement in the liberation of East Timor. If their were a coup, it could spell trouble for us. I don't see that our government has any choice but to upgrade our airforce, to get us through the next 10 years before the JSF can be expected to arrive. Possible options are,

-Leasing/buying new fighters until the JSF arrives. The late model F-16's would solve the fatigue problems of the F-18's, but would not give a real advantage over the SU-27.

-An F-18E/EF-18G combo would be formidable, with the EW aircraft giving us a real advantage, though I don't like the idea of the "E's" getting caught without the "G's". This plan would however have training/maintainance advantages, as we already use F-18's.

-A "silver bullet" force of F-22's has been suggested as part of the JSF buy, to give us a clear air to air advantage over any adversary. The government has rejected this, but mabye the idea or a variation of it needs to be introduced to get us through the next few years. While the F-22 may be to expensive/not available to Australia, a squadron of Typhoon's, to replace the oldest F-18's, may give us the edge we need. The F-18's could then be kept in reserve and rotated through the remaining squadrons, to extend the life of the force and give the pilots the hours they need. This would also give us an independent ability to provide dissimilar air combat training, though it would introduce another completely different logistics train.

-ALCM's like the Joint Standoff Weapon for the F-111's, outranging the S-300s would provide us with the deterrant we need. They would also mean the F-111's could continue to adopt the less demanding high-level approach.

-Long-range missile defences(ie, Patriots), for our northern facilites and for Darwin has also been suggested.

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/7-171.aspx

gator
06-30-2008, 05:20 PM
And this has nothing to do with a "left wing government" and EVERYTHING to do with listening to our generals who know a million times more about what our nation needs in terms of defence than you ever will.

THEY are the ones who are making these decisions.

So none of your generals signed off on the orginal purchase? They just bitch about it afterwards? :rolleyes:

It looks like your government and military should have done it's homework a little bit better ahead of time.

If you got an expensive weapon system that you really didn't need then it sounds like a clusterfuck to me.

Instead of bitching about what you bought you should have shopped a little more carefully. Dumbasses.

LogansPapa
06-30-2008, 06:39 PM
You CANNOT apply AMERICAN solutions to a Pacific problem, because the needs are not the same, you do not live here, and you know jack shit about what our defensive needs are.

Funny - it was good enough to save your real estate from being over-run by the Japanese 65 years ago.:rolleyes:

gator
06-30-2008, 07:49 PM
Funny - it was good enough to save your real estate from being over-run by the Japanese 65 years ago.:rolleyes:

I think we knew jack shit about the security needs of Australia. It was simple. Americans will kick the Jap's ass so the Japs don't kick the Aussie ass.

Teetop
07-01-2008, 10:59 AM
I really like the Aussie people, but if they don't like the product, spend your own damn billions on research and build your own damn aircraft.

Elspeth
07-01-2008, 11:25 AM
Funny - it was good enough to save your real estate from being over-run by the Japanese 65 years ago.:rolleyes:

65 years ago, the island nations around Australia were not nearly as well armed.

Oddly enough, I'm with Sonnabend on this one. And for people who say that the Aussies should do their own R &dD, just remember that this is exactly what the MIC does NOT want: the US-MIC wants the R&D edge to stay here (and not with (even) allies) for security reasons and economic ones. The US is producing less and less. One of our major remaining exports is weapons systems (along with entertainment DVDs).:)

gator
07-01-2008, 11:51 AM
65 years ago, the island nations around Australia were not nearly as well armed.

Oddly enough, I'm with Sonnabend on this one. And for people who say that the Aussies should do their own R &dD, just remember that this is exactly what the MIC does NOT want: the US-MIC wants the R&D edge to stay here (and not with (even) allies) for security reasons and economic ones. The US is producing less and less. One of our major remaining exports is weapons systems (along with entertainment DVDs).:)

There is a downside to selling really good weapons abroad. It may comeback and bite us in the ass some day. At one time we trusted Iran with our best weapon systems. Nowadays we are trusting Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The Aussie government made a significant turn to the left in the last election. Who knows what the future will bring?

Wouldn't it be better if we weren't in the business of trying to play International politics now that the Cold War is over?

megimoo
07-01-2008, 12:10 PM
There is a downside to selling really good weapons abroad. It may comeback and bite us in the ass some day. At one time we trusted Iran with our best weapon systems. Nowadays we are trusting Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The Aussie government made a significant turn to the left in the last election. Who knows what the future will bring?

Wouldn't it be better if we weren't in the business of trying to play International politics now that the Cold War is over?
If we turn our backs on our allies, real or imaginary, we would lose world wide credability.The days of being neutral in world affairs are gone,they ,Islam,would bring our next war to America's doorstep !

Every country ,Read Israel, that tries to purchase Either the F-22 or the F-35 wants access to the internal micro/nano code of the flight/navigation/fire control computers .

The internals of computer code of both aircraft are considered to be 'state of the art' and secret.

We will provide a GUI to take care of the problem but they want the actual code,so tough craps on them !

If we give the code to Israel they will integrate it into their weapons systems that they sell abroad then its public knowledge !

In the case of Iran's F-14 sold to the Iran's Shah the Microcode was never revealed and their F-14's fly now with obsolete IFF code making them dead meat in an air battle.That's what caused the Iranian airBuss being shot down during the preamble to the first gulf war, old IFF code !

LogansPapa
07-01-2008, 12:10 PM
65 years ago, the island nations around Australia were not nearly as well armed.

Oddly enough, I'm with Sonnabend on this one. And for people who say that the Aussies should do their own R &dD, just remember that this is exactly what the MIC does NOT want: the US-MIC wants the R&D edge to stay here (and not with (even) allies) for security reasons and economic ones. The US is producing less and less. One of our major remaining exports is weapons systems (along with entertainment DVDs).:)

Letís be precise here. One of the United Statesí major exports are weapon systems virtually given to places like The State of Israel and the like. The new JASDF stealth fighter jet thatís going to be made in Japan soon will knock us out of the box within the next decade anyway. Let the folks from ĎDown Underí carry their own water and if they want to bitch about the American technology available - let them buy Russian.

LogansPapa
07-01-2008, 12:16 PM
If we turn our backs on our allies, real or imaginary, we would lose world wide credability.

Christ, that quality left the barn back in March of 03'!:rolleyes:

megimoo
07-01-2008, 12:52 PM
There is a downside to selling really good weapons abroad. It may comeback and bite us in the ass some day. At one time we trusted Iran with our best weapon systems. Nowadays we are trusting Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The Aussie government made a significant turn to the left in the last election. Who knows what the future will bring?

Wouldn't it be better if we weren't in the business of trying to play International politics now that the Cold War is over?

Japan's Aerospace Industry
snip
Japan will never launch a totally indigenous commercial aircraft or engine program, but in the future Japanese aerospace companies will participate as equal rather than junior partners in international collaboration projects.

The Japanese don't like to 'stick their necks out 'and will always seek a consensus when ever possible and that especially includes the design of a high performance fighter aircraft !If their design were to prove in anyway inferior to Americas aircraft they would lose tremendous 'face' !

Other Japanese subcontractors include FHI, KHI, and IHI, and the principal U.S. subcontractors are Lockheed Martin, a large defense firm that produces the F-15, and General Electric.
snip
But there have been some limitations for IHI, KHI, and MHI. The Japanese have found out first hand how long it takes to recover the significant investments required to develop and produce a new engine. It took nearly 15 years before the V2500 project started to generate positive annual cash flow (Nihon Keizai Shimbun 1996), and it will take many more years before cumulative cash flow turns positive.

Two factors have somewhat limited Japanese learning on this project. First, the Japanese companies in IAE have responsibility for the sections of the engine that run at lower temperatures and lower pressures, which are relatively not as technologically difficult to develop and manufacture as those sections assigned to the other companies that make up IAE. Second, the assembly and testing of the engines are performed at Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce facilities with their own personnel.
..................................
Several key conclusion can be reached from this essay's analysis of the Japanese aerospace industry:
snip
Based on Japan's learning on the F-2 fighter program and their international collaborations, the country will soon possess the capability to develop and produce an indigenous aircraft, but it still lacks critical technologies to effectively produce a large aircraft engine without foreign assistance. Even though Japan may have the ability to produce an indigenous aircraft, it would be a strategic error to pursue this project alone due to its huge cost and commercial risk.

Japanese aerospace companies still have weaknesses in certain areas such as systems integration, assembly, design, and marketing, but they are actively seeking to gain experience and improve their skills in these areas by participating in key international collaboration projects.
................................................
Japanese companies will continue to join in international collaboration projects and will demand more significant participation in future projects—both larger percentage workshares and more critical and high technology sections of planes and engines. Japan will achieve this by exploiting the intense rivalry of the international prime contractors. Building on their Boeing collaboration projects, the Japanese will gradually increase their participation in Airbus projects.

Within twenty years, and maybe much sooner, the Japanese will join with a current prime aircraft or engine contractor in a 50/50 joint venture to develop and produce a new aircraft or engine. This joint venture might be similar to the successful CFM engine joint venture between General Electric and the French company Snecma.



http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/papers/aerosp6.htm

ConJinx
07-01-2008, 12:58 PM
the aussies are pragmatic, they are probably pissed because the Raptors were not on the available list in the free worlds ass kickn' catalog. They might see the Supeer-hornet as second class seeing as how we've sold them to the Brits and probably the Israeli's and Saudi's. Should be fun to watch "allies" shoot at each other, and us with the technology we created.

megimoo
07-01-2008, 01:07 PM
the aussies are pragmatic, they are probably pissed because the Raptors were not on the available list in the free worlds ass kickn' catalog. They might see the Supeer-hornet as second class seeing as how we've sold them to the Brits and probably the Israeli's and Saudi's. Should be fun to watch "allies" shoot at each other, and us with the technology we created.
If the F-18 they have are about fifteen years old they probably not super hornets just plain hornets !

F/A-18 Hornet

The F/A-18 "Hornet" is a single- and two-seat, twin engine, multi-mission fighter/attack aircraft that can operate from either aircraft carriers or land bases. The F/A-18 fills a variety of roles: air superiority, fighter escort, suppression of enemy air defenses, reconnaissance, forward air control, close and deep air support, and day and night strike missions. The F/A-18 Hornet replaced the F-4 Phantom II fighter and A-7 Corsair II light attack jet, and also replaced the A-6 Intruder as these aircraft were retired during the 1990s.

F/A-18A/B Hornet

While the general configuration of the YF-17 was retained, the F-18 became a completely new airplane. To meet the single-place fighter and attack mission capability, full use was made of new technology in digital computers. Coupled with cathode ray tubes for cockpit displays and appropriate controls based on thorough pilot evaluations in simulators, a single airplane and subsystems configuration for both missions was evolved !

F/A-18C/D Hornet

Following a successful run of more than 400 A and B models, the US Navy began taking fleet deliveries of improved F/A-18C (single seat) and F/A-18D (dual seat) models in September 1987. These Hornets carry the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) and the infrared imaging Maverick air-to-ground missile. Two years later, the C/D models came with improved night attack capabilities. The new components included a navigation forward looking infrared (NAVFLIR) pod, a raster head-up display, night vision goggles, special cockpit lighting compatible with the night vision devices, a digital color moving map and an independent multipurpose color display.

F/A-18Cs have synthetic aperture ground mapping radar with a doppler beam sharpening mode to generate ground maps. This ground mapping capability that permits crews to locate and attack targets in adverse weather and poor visibility or to precisely update the aircraft's location relative to targets during the approach, a capability that improves bombing accuracy. New production F/A-18Cs received the APG-73 radar upgrade radars starting in 1994, providing more precise and clear radar displays.

gator
07-01-2008, 01:10 PM
the aussies are pragmatic, they are probably pissed because the Raptors were not on the available list in the free worlds ass kickn' catalog. They might see the Supeer-hornet as second class seeing as how we've sold them to the Brits and probably the Israeli's and Saudi's. Should be fun to watch "allies" shoot at each other, and us with the technology we created.

I don't mind selling Gen 4 aircraft but we should keep the Gen 5 to ourselves. When we invent Gen 6 then we can sell Gen 5.

Just about the only country I would feel comfortable selling top of the line would be the Brits.

megimoo
07-01-2008, 01:11 PM
I don't mind selling Gen 4 aircraft but we should keep the Gen 5 to ourselves. When we invent Gen 6 then we can sell Gen 5.

Just about the only country I would feel comfortable selling top of the line would be the Brits.Not anymore !

Eyelids
07-01-2008, 01:16 PM
Austrialia isnt a threat to our global hegemony...