If Australia's military is purely a defense force then why don't we have dedicated Interceptors as well as the Hornets?
>>29834489
Because dedicated interceptors are fucking asinine and retarded, its not the 50's anymore.
Because the Hornets are dedicated interceptors. They intercept Aussie Lebbos in Syria and turn them into burnt kebab. Simples.
>>29834501
English Electric Lightning operated well into 80s and Tornado is still in service
Still in for that retarded sentence you just spurted out?
>>29834516
>>29834489
Money and politics play a big role in procurement. It could be that the Hornets were simply the cheapest option that met the minimum requirements.
What's the furthest that Australia needs to fly? I can't imagine too far since it's fucking Australia and not Russia.
>>29834629
You either underestimate the size of Australia and how far away everything is from everything else on the continent, or you underestimate just how far away we are from everything else relevant
>>29834524
OK, I posted about Kebab removal, which is the goddamned truth. We have AWACS, Super Hornets and tankers based in the Gulf, operatinh over Syria. Everytime one of our wild Kebabs starts using electronic comms he shortly after ends up dead. We just ordered 3000 small diameter bombs. Ideal for kebab removal, and everyone agrees that we have a lot of kebabs that need removing. Even the Kebabs, who seem intent on removing each other in Western Sydney
>>29834629
Let's put it this way, Super Hornet has a ferry range of 3000km while the Tornado ADV has 4000km ferry range, so it can intercept threats further off shore then the Hornet, plus it has superior performance, and just as much payload, and is a dedicated air combat platform.
>>29834649
I'm talking about when the chinks decide to get funky and send an airborne assault on mainland aus to bypass our navy
>>29834666
plus we already have experience in maintaining swept wing aircraft (F-111C) and we could purchase old air frames and modify them for our needs
>>29834649
That said, NZ does not have an air combat force, nor does PNG. Indonesia has very few combat aircraft.
Malaysia uses F18s too.
Singapore has the most effective regional air arm, with F15s in the strike version. As we guarantee their safety through the five powers agreement, they are not a threat.
We ran an interceptor fleet when Indonesia had a large russian supplied airforce and were in a cold war with OZ.
These days the threat must come from the South China Sea, so our airforce is designed around maritime strike and precision ground attack.
>>29834672
No! 100 times No! We spent 600 million a year keeping the F111s in the air as an orphan fleet. Fuck that idea.
The Supers have an interesting radar that can be used against eneny aircraft to fry their electronics. The Russians used something similar when they overflew and fried the Aegis system on a Burger destroyer.
Just because the Hornets are designef gfor strike doesn't mean they aren't multi role.
>>29834489
Australia's primary threats are from the sea, so strike aircraft are more important, hence why we bought the F-111 those years ago. The Super Hornets, Growlers and F-35As won't have the same range or speed, but they will be a lot cheaper and will actually be able to get bombs on target (whereas an F-111 would be seen from ages away and intercepted).
AusAirPower (eww) wanted F-111 Evolved's (they came up with the name) and F-22s to have dedicated air-to-air and air-to-ground. Problem though is how we'd afford to have more than ~24 of each.
>>29834489
When you have BVR from air launched or ground launch platforms there is no need. The original purpose of interception fighters was to get up quick and knock down bombers with guns/missiles. Since missile technology has improved 100 fold since the 70s you no longer need 50 to kill target, and just about every NATO plane has a 20mm Gatling or twin rotary cannon.
Besides even fully loaded strike eagles can climb to 30,000-50,000ft from a standstill in 2 minutes.
>>29834666
Airborne Assault. Is that what you call plane loads of communist party princelings landing at Kingsford Smith with suitcases full of cash to buy houses with waterviews?
They don't need to invade when they can buy us.
>>29834708
hamburgers should of gone through with the FB-22
>>29834702
>The Supers have an interesting radar that can be used against eneny aircraft to fry their electronics. The Russians used something similar when they overflew and fried the Aegis system on a Burger destroyer.
Wait, what?
>>29834666
>ferry range
Combat radius is what matters here, not ferry range. Ferry range assumes maxed out fuel and no munitions to move to a different base.
>>29834708
They copyrighted it. They thought that gave them royalty rights if the idea was used. Kopp and Goon are the worst kind of fanbois.
One was given a ride in a Super and proclaimed it was the greatest thing since sliced bread - until we ordered them to replace his fetish obsession, at which point the superbug became the worst abomination in human history.
>>29834733
was just comparing them on Wikipedia, Tornado combat radius wasn't specified
>>29834723
It's the Donald Cook meme
>>29834524
the from the 70s onward the Lightning was the second fiddle to the F4k Phantom(basically a naval phantom with jacked up suspension, more powerful engines and british radar) which did the heavy lifting for britain's air defence
>>29834666
Superior performance in what possible way?
Once the F-18 loaded for CAP has a significantly better thrust to weight, newer avionics that will allow it to be usable for the foreseeable future. Further the ADV was retired by the RAF so why the fuck would you want a retired aircraft not in production or service with anybody?
>>29834708
F-35As also have a >50% greater combat radius than Super Hornets, and don't need to use a pair of external hardpoints for fuel to get that.
>>29834702
>No! 100 times No! We spent 600 million a year keeping the F111s in the air as an orphan fleet
Only because we didn't have the sense to cannibalise retired USAF F-111s.
Does anyone even make a medium ranged bomber any more?
>>29834772
Cont
>>29834722
Seems to have been the only option and it was shelved.
>>29834772
Take your F-111 and fuck off. They're obsolete garbage and they're NEVER coming back.
>>29834723
Russian story: HAHA our Su-24 jammer killed the Aegis system on the Donald Cook and the crew of 42 quit as soon as they got into port! (Actual crew: 33 Officers, 38 CPO, 210 Enlisted)
US opinion: "about as tame a flyby as you can get."
>>29834758
Three possibilities.
A) massive fanboi
B) troll looking for a reaction
C) Its late, a school day tomorrow and the kid should be in bed instead of posting on the net.
>>29834772
Jesus. We bought 24 ex USAF F111s for that reason. You are a troll.
>>29834768
do auscuck f/a-18s have buddy refueling or is that USN only?
>>29834783
Its radar signature is about the same as a previous generation two engine fighter like the F15.
I'm not suggesting we bring them back (after all, the government shopped them up and dumped them in a ditch in Queensland), but we should have kept them around until we could acquire a replacement.
>>29834758
>Mach 2.2 > 1.8
>>29834801
We did, the Super Hornets replaced them.
>>29834798
What. We bought our F111s in the 60s and bought four more in the 80s to replace losses.
>>29834799
Yes. Also we have our own tankers.
>>29834789
Actually the semester ended last week and it is also 4:05 PM here.
>>29834801
We did. Super Hornets, Growlers, tankers and JASSM stand off cruise missiles.
>>29834799
USN Hornet buddy refueling has always been a panic move for the capability after the KA-6 fleet was retired. No idea about the ozzies, though.
>>29834804
>3.35>2.2
But you don't see anybody buying Yf-12s.
>>29834809
Bought a bunch out of the bone yard in the 90s.
>>29834808
>Super Hornet
>800km combat radius
>F-11C
>2100km
Nope, that's not a replacement.
>>29834834
citation needed
>>29834831
because maintaining a mach 3 plane is too much for an interceptor
>>29834829
A330 MRTT. Buddy refueling for emergencies.
>>29834819
Eurotroll detected.
>>29834829
We don't, there's nowhere a Hornet can go in Australia that a tanker can't go as well.
>>29834841
>F-111 gets blown up from 200km trying to drop a JDAM
>Super Hornet gets within 100km due to a lower RCS and launches a JSOW, accomplishing the mission
>>29834853
They're aircraft of a similar size with no stealthy features. Their RCS will be almost identical.
>>29834841
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-111C
Fucked up. It was 15 F111Gs. At the time of the anouncement it was to be 24 aircraft as attrition spares.
>>29834853
>Stealth and RCS
>Tanker
does not compute
>>29834853
Why can't we just have land based AShMs and call it a day?
>>29834853
Which is why we have JASSM. No need to overfly the enemy when we can fuck them up from a distance.
>>29834874
Your link says four, not fifteen and not twenty-four
>>29834867
lol no; an F-111 is massive compared to a Super Hornet. The Super Hornet also has RCS reduction that give it an RCS of about 0.5m^2. The F-111 would be more around 10m^2.
>>29834875
Super Hornets can fly >400km without a tanker.
>>29834881
Not long-ranged enough.
>>29834889
Indeed, but the F-111 was old an incompatible with a lot of new weapons, including the JASSM, etc.
>>29834881
They are listed in the defence white paper as afuture capability.
>>29834894
citation needed.
You appear to have this strange irrational hatred for the F-111. Like autistic levels of hatred.
>>29834903
Not long ranged enough, so?
If the ship tries to pick off the missile battery with cruise missiles then 10 more will take it's place
>>29834910
when will they have them? i honestly think they are a more cost effective way and less risky
>>29834891
LEARN TO READ. 4 Attrition replacements. 15 G models. I was alive when the F111 entered service. I remember the announcement that another 24 F111s would be purchased. Obiously they didn't buy that many.
>>29834903
I know. We spent a fortune integrating Popeye onto them.
>>29834934
Did you get poisoned by the fuel tanks or something, mate? You're real agro about this.
>>29834920
Probably when the Joint Strike Missile is ready.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile
>>29834913
We are going to order a GBAD to provide cover. Speculation is a variant of CEAFAR /AUSPAR.
>>29834970
noice, i know they got skullfucked but countries facing overwhelming force like the gulf war tend to use mobile launchers, i think its more cost effective then fighters and frigates
>>29834961
3/10. You mildly annoyed me.
>>29834912
There's no hatred; I've even made (shitty) flight sim models of them. I'm just pointing out why they retired them.
>>29834913
I think you're missing the point; Australia's massive, so if you want to prevent the enemy from landing their ships, using land-based launchers, you have to build hundreds and have them spread over thousands of kilometers. Those systems aren't cheap either. Also, if the enemy pokes a hole in that defence, it'll take hours or days to get replacements in, in which time the enemy could have landed their forces.
>>29835009
My guess its for point defence of Christmas Island, Cocos Keeling and NWS, with the ability to deploy to the SCS, Sunda and Malacca straights if needed.
>>29835009
You're right about that, but we only need to protect ports/coastal population centers unless the invading force's intention is to invade 1000sqkm of sand, 1000km from the nearest town.
>>29835027
We should try to force that. Defence in depth. Allow the Emus and spiders to wear down their numbers.
>>29835027
>unless the invading force's intention is to invade 1000sqkm of sand, 1000km from the nearest town.
That would be a very acceptable objective for an enemy; you wouldn't need to blitzkrieg major cities in your first landing, but rather just be able to establish a beachfront where you can set up docks and logistics to enable the spread of your forces. If the 1000km is mostly just flat land with negligible population and no defences, it might as well be 100km (again, assuming you can establish the beachfront to establish a supply chain).
Also, don't get me wrong; all of these scenarios would require something like a mid-WW3 surprisingly-stronk China to pull off. Indonesia would have no hope.
>>29835052
In that case, then they can have the privilege of being anal pounded by F/A-18s 30,000ft above them.
>>29834639
sure, its a big continent. But other than the coasts, there's nothing to defend. What, the chinese are going to bomb the abbos in the western desert?
>>29835065
But aren't we talking about a scenario where we're reliant primarily on land-based missiles?
>>29835118
that would be extremely foolish thing to purely rely on a single mode of defense
>>29835118
No. We use integrated warfighting. JoRN, AWACs & BAMS to find the enemy. Growlers to fuck up their electronics. Collins to take out their transportation. DDGs against their aircraft at a distance, Hornets and F35 close in AshM and GBAD at choke points or if they make it to the mainland. Emus and spiders if they make it ashore.
>>29835161
>AshM
But how much use are these?
I full understand the need for land-based AA and rocket artillery for defending city centres, but I don't really understand how you establish choke points for naval vessels on an island continent country, save for the Tasman sea and Cape York, although invaders could just choose to sail around the top of PNG or south of Tasmania to avoid those.
If you have AshMs stationed in Sydney and Perth, etc and the enemy comes into range of those missiles, you've already won the war because they're either desperate or retarded.
>>29835161 (you)
>>29835139
>>29835236
And as a reminder, this was the original comment I was arguing against: >>29834881
>>29835246
say what?
>>29835291
In regards to these guys: >>29835139 >>29835161
, I was responding originally to this guy: >>29834881
In other words, my comments about how AshMs wouldn't be very useful are in regards to the guy suggesting that we forget using tactical bombers, etc for protecting our coastline, and instead use land-based missiles.
>>29835318
>that would be extremely foolish thing to purely rely on a single mode of defense
that was me
i didn't say we should completely go without maritime strike
>>29834745
We all know that wikipedia is the height of your knowledge base on this subject anon, no need to reinforce it.
>>29834750
>the from the 70s onward the Lightning was the second fiddle to the F4k Phantom(basically a naval phantom with jacked up suspension, more powerful engines and british radar) which did the heavy lifting for britain's air defence
RAF also bought second hand US made F-4J's in 80's that were used as pure interceptors. FAA and RAF operated three different variants with local designations being F-4K FG1(naval variant) , F-4M FGR2 (RAF variant) and F-4J F3.
You made a mistake with radar and left something major out completely. Radars used in Brittish F-4's were license made US designed AN/AWG-11 on FG1 and AN/AWG-12 on FGR2. Different radars because it had to fold on naval variant, space needed for folding mechanism basically sacrificed ground mapping capability. The thing left out was bigger slats than on other versions.
FG1 was fleet air defense interceptor with secondary ground attack and nuclear missions. After RN ceased to have proper carriers in 1979. FAA Phantoms were transferred to RAF and used mostly as interceptors, FGR2's that had been used interceptors were transferred to more ground attack oriented role.
>>29834489
>If Australia's military is purely a defense force
It's not.
Who would you defend yourself from? You think the Indonesians are going to load up a flotilla and invade? You realize how pathetic their ability to provide air cover at that kind of range from their basis would be?
Australias military has nothing to do with defense, it's purely a way to suck up to the US.
>>29836291
Who would you defend yourself from?
>>29836380
>China
7,470 km
Distance from Australia to China
China has yet to be even arguably aggressive anywhere that is not directly bordering it.
By the time the Chinese are able to project force to Australia they'll own it outright without needing to invade.
>>29834524
RAF retired the interceptor variant of the Tornado in 2013 iirc.
>>29834702
>The Russians used something similar when they overflew and fried the Aegis system on a Burger destroyer.
Pravda.ru is not a reliable source, Carlos.
Why do countries that don't have carriers buy Hornets? Wouldn't it be better to buy F-16s?
>>29839542
The hornet is a very capable aircraft, especially when denavalized. It's also attractive due to dual engines.
>>29836414
>7,470 km
>Distance from Australia to China
Don't worry, they're dealing with that little problem.
>>29836414
>China has yet to be even arguably aggressive anywhere that is not directly bordering it.
They constantly threaten to shoot down any planes flying over the south china sea. They basically put SAMs on random atolls, sandbanks and any rock above sea level, then call it a military base.
>>29839542
The early hornet was seen as more reliable than the f-16. The early f100 engines had some flameout issues and since most of Australian patrols involved over water flights. They opted for the f18. It could also carry more ordinance and was able to shoot the sparrow. Which at the time, the f16 wasn't able to do.
>>29839827
>Don't worry, they're dealing with that little problem.
All China is doing is causing a Nuclearization of SEA, which will ironically box them in like never before.
Phillipines and Indonesia are now building several nuclear reactors.
It is just a matter of time before we end up with a Nuclear Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, and South Korea.
>>29835325
Cool, but I wasn't originally talking to you, I was replying to the guy who thought that AshM's could replace strike fighters / bombers.
>>29841885
Why wouldn't these countries want to be annexed by China and become Chinese territories?
>>29842349
They don't want quasi-communism and governments that care about mainland China more than them?
