Derek 2.0 Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 So they aren't currently receiving more of them? You'll have to tell them that. Tell them what? That both services opted to retire Rafales and Typhoons in favor of keeping 70s vintage aircraft in service? Or that in the case of the Eurofighter program, each of the four partners was/is contractually obligated to procure aircraft, and if they sell a portion of their own inventory, they are required to procure more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 As always, you win. I don't see a point in continuing this line. I will say thins though - we aren't getting the F-35. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 Get a few helicopters. Yeah, who needs to patrol and protect their own airspace, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 As always, you win. I don't see a point in continuing this line. I will say thins though - we aren't getting the F-35. I doubt we're getting anything under this mandate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 Yeah, who needs to patrol and protect their own airspace, right? From who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 I doubt we're getting anything under this mandate. Well, they've kept 3 promises so far. They've begun the process immediately, as promised. They've made signals of maintaining current funding and increases, as promised. I see no reason to doubt what they say so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 From who? Russia. Rogue airliners. Unforeseen circumstances. We need jets. We don't really need the F-35. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 One thing is for sure - the Conservatives didn't get it done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) Russia. Rogue airliners. Unforeseen circumstances. We need jets. We don't really need the F-35. The Russians are now basing jets in the Arctic (again), including Flanker variants that are on par with the Super Hornet, to be replaced by stealth aircraft that will eventually outclass all current 4th/4.5 generation aircraft.......if you intend to see a capability to deter Russians, aircraft that they will even surpass in the next decade is not the way to go about it. If we as a nation are not prepared to invest in a modern military, including fighter aircraft, but are prepared to pay the near total cost for obsolete (or what will be obsolete in the ~2030s) aircraft, we would be better following the path of New Zealand or Ireland and retiring the capability, and accepting the Americans will do as they please. Edited November 15, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 The Russians are now basing jets in the Arctic (again), including Flanker variants that are on par with the Super Hornet, to be replaced by stealth aircraft that will eventually outclass all current 4th/4.5 generation aircraft.. Yes, I'm terrified of a country that is on the verge of bankruptcy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) Yes, I'm terrified of a country that is on the verge of bankruptcy. Then why mention them in response to Big Guy? Kinda cuts the legs out from under your attempted point. Edited November 15, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 Then why mention them in response to Big Guy? Kinda cuts the legs out from under your attempted point. They'll always be something of a threat. The idea that they'll be procuring any new aircraft in large numbers is laughable for the foreseeable future. The reality is, the 3 choices that we have in front of us have brand new export orders. We aren't the only customers. Our choice will serve us well for at least 30 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 Wonder why the Australians are still sticking with the F-35 if they are such a piece of crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 They'll always be something of a threat. The idea that they'll be procuring any new aircraft in large numbers is laughable for the foreseeable future. So you're saying they are a threat, but they aren't really, and the idea that they are procuring modern (for them) aircraft is laughable, even though they are, and deploying them to bases inside the Arctic circle......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) Wonder why the Australians are still sticking with the F-35 if they are such a piece of crap. They're not a piece of crap. They're great for what they're designed for (or will be -hopefully). That said, they're certainly hedging their bets. They've upped their Super Hornet order by buying 12 EA-18s instead of converting 12 of the FA-18Fs that they have. They'll now have 36 total. Edited November 15, 2015 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 Wonder why the Australians are still sticking with the F-35 if they are such a piece of crap. Exactly, and why a small sale of Su-30s to Indonesia, forced them to procure Growlers to escort their Super Hornet fleet in the advent of hostilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 So you're saying they are a threat, but they aren't really, and the idea that they are procuring modern (for them) aircraft is laughable, even though they are, and deploying them to bases inside the Arctic circle......... Russia is having real economic troubles. The aircraft they deploy won't be outclassing things like the F-15 or Rafale any time soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 15, 2015 Report Share Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) Exactly, and why a small sale of Su-30s to Indonesia, forced them to procure Growlers to escort their Super Hornet fleet in the advent of hostilities. They've now lowered their F-35 commitment to 72. It was originally 100. Edited November 15, 2015 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 They're not a piece of crap. They're great for what they're designed for (or will be -hopefully). That said, they're certainly hedging their bets. They've upped their Super Hornet order by buying 12 EA-18s instead of converting 12 of the FA-18Fs that they have. They'll now have 36 total. Ahhh no, they replaced their previous F-111 fleet, which included former SAC aircraft, for long range strike, interdiction and electronic warfare.....that is not hedging their bets, but replacing a capability they could no longer afford to maintain after the Americans retired their F-111 fleet and the Lockheed shutdown the support network for the aircraft.........yet you're suggesting we put ourselves in the same position.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 They've now lowered their F-35 commitment to 72. It was originally 100. No, they haven't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 They're not a piece of crap. They're great for what they're designed for (or will be -hopefully). That said, they're certainly hedging their bets. They've upped their Super Hornet order by buying 12 EA-18s instead of converting 12 of the FA-18Fs that they have. They'll now have 36 total. The aren't hedging anything. The 24, F-18F's are intended to replace their F-111's. We have no equivalent of the F-111 or Growlers and don't intend any. The F-35 is still their replacement for the F-18 with 72 firm orders and the possibility of 100. This is a country with only 2/3 our population but 63 F-35's will break us. Pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 Russia is having real economic troubles. The aircraft they deploy won't be outclassing things like the F-15 or Rafale any time soon. The F-15 perhaps (outside the TA-50), but the Rafale (or Eurofighter) is of the same vintage as the Su-35. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 Ahhh no, they replaced their previous F-111 fleet, which included former SAC aircraft, for long range strike, interdiction and electronic warfare An aircraft originally to be replaced by the F-35. No, they haven't. Yes, they have: Australia committed to buying a total of 72 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, down from a 2009 plan to purchase about 100 of what has become the Pentagon’s most-expensive weapons system. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-23/australia-commits-to-buying-58-more-f-35-joint-strike-fighters Moving on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 The aren't hedging anything. The 24, F-18F's are intended to replace their F-111's. We have no equivalent of the F-111 or Growlers and don't intend any. The F-35 is still their replacement for the F-18 with 72 firm orders and the possibility of 100. This is a country with only 2/3 our population but 63 F-35's will break us. Pathetic. The ~28 aircraft option will be determined with their new white paper, but is likely to see them procure the F-35B to jointly share between the RAAF and the RAN FAA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 16, 2015 Report Share Posted November 16, 2015 The aren't hedging anything. The 24, F-18F's are intended to replace their F-111's. Which were originally to be replaced by the F-35 Look, you're complaining to the wrong person about defence spending. I'm an advocate of meeting our 2% of GDP goal. I'm far more critical of the Conservatives than anyone else on this file though. They undercut their own CFDS by defunding it for political expediency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.