[Dilmah G]

As far as Hornet Squadrons go

3 Squadron- RAAF Williamtown

75 Squadron- RAAF Tindal

77 Squadron- RAAF Williamtown

I want to know what the hell Angus Houston was on...

When you say Katherine do you mean Tindal? That's the only base I can think of that's near Katherine, they also have F-111s there IIRC. Yeah, scrapping the hornets sounds financially better but I agree we NEED F-15s. Actually, do you remember that TV Ad about one of our F/A-18 pilots training F-15 pilots in the US? Maybe we could get some lend-lease wise.

[NGTM-1R]

We should have bought F15Es to replace our F-111s without a doubt. We went from a decent but old medium range strike fighter to a bloody carrier based striek fighter, where you're supposed to bring the airfield to the battle . Ridiculous.

To be honest, the F-15E is also not a suitable replacement for the F-111. The F-111 was designed with a strategic bomber function in mind; the first of the new generation of strategic bombers that is more or less stuck at at the B-1 now (and the Tu-160 too, I suppose). It was very long-ranged and had about twice the payload. If you had wanted to replace the F-111s, I would have suggested the most recent version of the Tornado. I hear the Russians have something comparable too...FN-32 I think.

[Black Wolf]

When you say Katherine do you mean Tindal? That's the only base I can think of that's near Katherine, they also have F-111s there IIRC.

According to the base's website there're no F-111s at Katherine (I meant Tindal but couldn't remember the name).

As for the F-15E vs. the F-111, you're right that it's not the perfect replacement - it's got a slightly smaller combat radius and carries less mass. But there's really nothing around that properly equals what the F-111 could do in a modern plane (hell, if they weren't getting so old, I'd be keen to keep 'em running - they've apparently got a better record in terms of maintenance hours vs flight hours than our hornets do). None of the russian stuff really has the range (which in a country the size of Australia is of paramount importance), and going Russian makes no sense in an air force that's far more likely to be deployed with the USAF than any Russian equipped AF. Going to something like the B1 would maybe be better in terms of pure range/ordnance (of course, it's a bomber), but it's too big and unwieldy for Australia's requirements. And I just flat out disagree about the Tornado being a better plane for the job.

One thing I think we can both agree on though is that with 3 billion AUD to buy 24 F-111 replacements as part of a $6.5 billion program, you don't buy Super Hornets if you expect to maintain your capabilities.

[IceFire]

Thanks for posting.  Been very interested to read up about Australia's military sitation for a variety of reasons.  I was interested to see that the F-35 was going on to be purchased...and even the number was a bit surprising at 100.

I really like the F-35 in concept but there are some issues with it which I wonder what will be made of it in the end.  Its about as capable as the F-16 in terms of fighting capacity plus it has stealth, and data integration, and sophisticated sensors that the previous generation of jets never had.  The big problem is that its stealth isn't that spectacular, its range isn't fantastic, and its up against some very potent competition - namely the Su-30/35 and derivatives.  Not to mention the PAK-FA which will probably be the not quite as good but allot cheaper Russian counterpart to the F-22.

The F-35 is going to do allot of things pretty well...and in the US force mix it fits perfectly (F-22 dominates and the F-35 is called in to do whatever is needed).  The F-35 may also be fairly useful in asymmetric types of warfare as the sensors it has are apparently a step above (all classified and whatnot so they never really say what it can do) and could be used in a number of ways.  Its a bit of a mixed bag...the F-22 is assuredly the best in its class (at an extreme price) for years to come but the F-35's role and success is complicated by so many issues.

Also I believe its still happening that the Super Hornet will fill in the gaps until the F-35s arrive (and probably after too)?

Oh and there is still no true replacement for the F-111 anywhere...the F-15E is sort of there but not all the way.  The FB-22 sounds interesting but may just be a pipe dream.

Because having (Plane that's a generation better than F-16s) > F-16s.

Even if the plane that's better still isn't the F-22. And again, the strength of the F35 isn't so much it's bleeding edge technology (don't get me wrong, its 4x better than the F16, but still not a 22) so much as its adaptability and joint design profile. Between the variants ( I didn't bother to check which ones the Auzzie RAF was buying..) they share 80% of the same parts. That's three different planes that fulfill 3 distinct roles, but share 80% of the same parts. That also means they can use *80%* of the same technicians with 80% of the same training, at 80% of the same cost. That might seem silly alone, but looking from the logistics end of running an Air Force, that's a huge deal. Also, way more cost-effective.

You could say, one of the F35's primary attributes is its economy.

Oh you're definitely right on many of those points....overall its a good economic plane for all of those reasons.  The problem is that the F-16 is past its prime and despite the F-35 being more effective....neither are likely to be as effective according to many experts as the Su-30MKI which India has (and China has a similar model - and others will probably get something similar later on) and is considerably less money.

On the upside the F-35 will be able to carry a lot of different weapon types, a lot of weapons at the same time (if you forget the stealthy part of it), its has all of the fancy new AWACS/datalink stuff, its stealth is present if not super, and it has the most powerful jet engine yet devised.  I'm just curious what its legacy will be in 30 years time....success or flop.

[Knight Templar]

Thanks for posting.  Been very interested to read up about Australia's military sitation for a variety of reasons.  I was interested to see that the F-35 was going on to be purchased...and even the number was a bit surprising at 100.

I really like the F-35 in concept but there are some issues with it which I wonder what will be made of it in the end.  Its about as capable as the F-16 in terms of fighting capacity plus it has stealth, and data integration, and sophisticated sensors that the previous generation of jets never had.  The big problem is that its stealth isn't that spectacular, its range isn't fantastic, and its up against some very potent competition - namely the Su-30/35 and derivatives.  Not to mention the PAK-FA which will probably be the not quite as good but allot cheaper Russian counterpart to the F-22.

The F-35 is going to do allot of things pretty well...and in the US force mix it fits perfectly (F-22 dominates and the F-35 is called in to do whatever is needed).  The F-35 may also be fairly useful in asymmetric types of warfare as the sensors it has are apparently a step above (all classified and whatnot so they never really say what it can do) and could be used in a number of ways.  Its a bit of a mixed bag...the F-22 is assuredly the best in its class (at an extreme price) for years to come but the F-35's role and success is complicated by so many issues.

Also I believe its still happening that the Super Hornet will fill in the gaps until the F-35s arrive (and probably after too)?

Oh and there is still no true replacement for the F-111 anywhere...the F-15E is sort of there but not all the way.  The FB-22 sounds interesting but may just be a pipe dream.

Because having (Plane that's a generation better than F-16s) > F-16s.

Even if the plane that's better still isn't the F-22. And again, the strength of the F35 isn't so much it's bleeding edge technology (don't get me wrong, its 4x better than the F16, but still not a 22) so much as its adaptability and joint design profile. Between the variants ( I didn't bother to check which ones the Auzzie RAF was buying..) they share 80% of the same parts. That's three different planes that fulfill 3 distinct roles, but share 80% of the same parts. That also means they can use *80%* of the same technicians with 80% of the same training, at 80% of the same cost. That might seem silly alone, but looking from the logistics end of running an Air Force, that's a huge deal. Also, way more cost-effective.

You could say, one of the F35's primary attributes is its economy.

Oh you're definitely right on many of those points....overall its a good economic plane for all of those reasons.  The problem is that the F-16 is past its prime and despite the F-35 being more effective....neither are likely to be as effective according to many experts as the Su-30MKI which India has (and China has a similar model - and others will probably get something similar later on) and is considerably less money.

Just curious, what are your sources on naysaying experts? I've seen a lot of newsreports, but an admittedly hasty search and read through has only produced this for me: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/10/15/317309/us-defence-policy-and-f-35-under-attack.html   

Even in that article, the negative report of the F-35 came from people who 1) aren't pilots 2) weren't using real simulations and 3) using extreme situations. I.e. the F-35 gets destroyed when it goes against 28 Chinese Migs. Well duh, the 35 only carries four A-to-A missiles.

[Dilmah G]

Black Wolf: Oh yes my bad, both F-111 squadrons are based at Amberley

28 CHINESE MIGS! That angers me beyond words that people would think that's a SERIOUS scenario, it's highly likely that situation won't even happen in real life. There are a whole host of reasons why that would never happen. The F-35 isn't an uber-fighter or anything, it's a multirole aircraft, and theoretically and oversimplified you could almost say F-22s are in place to escort F-35 formations while they make their run on the target in the 21st Century. Three "regiments" (guy obviously isn't a pilot OR in the military) of Su-27s are NEVER, I repeat NEVER going to be in the air at any one time. As much as some racist people like to think, asian tacticians are NOT stupid, no-one would ever deploy ALL of their forces with no reinforcements or reserves. Military leadership workshops (that I've had experience with) stress the importance of responding to a threat with the appropriate force, you just wouldn't sortie squadrons upon squadrons if there's only <6 craft approaching your shore. Sure they'll be destroyed, no doubt about that, but it just isn't tactically and logistically feasible. If that happens to be a scout force and these guys are all heading back and an actual strike force appears. "Oh Sh*t" moment. People in these command roles take those kind of things into account, at most I'd say one squadron of aircraft deployed against a threat of that size, ideally you'd be going for a 1-2 to 1-3 kind of numbers regarding the defending force, once you have numerical superiority you lose what's known as a "Target Rich" environment and your extra fighters start doing more harm than good (colliding, getting in each others way), it's a known fact that Taiwanese officers will know. Bottom line being it would NEVER happen.

[Flipside]

Now, what would have been funny was if Australia had really got a large piece of white paper, written 'No Invaders or Cold-Callers' and stuck it over the outback, as kind of a defence policy mixed with a Sun-screen...

[Knight Templar]

Dilmah - I'm pretty sure China has more than 28 MiGs, so it wouldn't be their entire force, nor a region's entire force. But you are correct in that the number is ****ing excessive. You probably wouldn't see that kind of number of MiGs in one combat sortie short of a massive international war, WWIII, or an alien invasion. I definitely hope not to counter  six F-35s. However, if that's the point the article is trying to make, that it's "doable" to down six 35's with 28 MiGs and cost effective to do so... well.. ****. It's like making the argument that the F-35 isn't the F-22. Again, no ****. If that's the kind of proportional force that's needed to defeat the F-35, and that worries you, you either need  to get a grip, or start writing bigger checks for those 22's.

[Dilmah G]

Sticking a smaller version onto a kangaroo and taking a picture of it before distributing it between the higher echelons of the Australian Defence Force would've been funnier

Knight Templar: Yeah, but the way it was put made it sound like 28 MiGs was the maximum number defending the Taiwanese Straights, which was probably every frakking MiG that could get there in 30 minutes or less, and yeah I agree with you. We just don't see big wings anymore, no need.

[NGTM-1R]

Three "regiments" (guy obviously isn't a pilot OR in the military)

That's what they call 'em, regiments. Just like the Russians. He's not that crazy.

[Dilmah G]

Ah I see, looks like I need to do my research a little more carefully