Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Hybrid View

  1. #1 Aussies called the F-18 a piece of shit. 
    gator
    Guest
    http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/conte...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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by gator View Post
    http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/conte...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
    !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Sonnabend
    Guest
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Sonnabend
    Guest
    Here, see for yourself



    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.
    Last edited by Sonnabend; 06-30-2008 at 08:11 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Vepr
    Guest
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member LogansPapa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Surf City, USA
    Posts
    3,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnabend View Post
    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.
    At Coretta Scott King's funeral in early 2006, Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Robert Kennedy, leaned over to him and whispered, "The torch is being passed to you." "A chill went up my spine," Obama told an aide. (Newsweek)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    gator
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by LogansPapa View Post
    Funny - it was good enough to save your real estate from being over-run by the Japanese 65 years ago.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    no-man's land in Texas
    Posts
    2,168
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,080
    Quote Originally Posted by LogansPapa View Post
    Funny - it was good enough to save your real estate from being over-run by the Japanese 65 years ago.
    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).:)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    gator
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnabend View Post
    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?

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •