Stig wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 9:24am:



I was talking about a long time ago
when the F-117s were bulldozed into the ground.

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 12:14pm:


If speed and range were the only criteria for fighter aircraft, we could just buy Mig-25s.

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 12:55pm:



Interoperability is very important -
otherwise how could we join the Yanks & vice versa in a war situation?

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 1:48pm:




We have a Yanky nuclear umbrella over us and we
don't have a large enough war machine to defend us from any possible threat.
We need the Yanks so we buy their products to keep them happy.

Cu Chulainn wrote on Oct 13^th, 2018 at 10:43pm:


I'd recommend you read up about the F-111K's history.  Some education might do you the world of good before you display your ignorance further.

Quote:


Actually, we have better strike capability with the F/A-18F and F/A-18Gs.   They have superior ECM and maneuverability.  What they lack is the F-111s load and range - and their F-111s ability to fly fast, low down.    Why?  'cause the F-111 was designed to sneak under the radar coverage of the fUSSR's air defences.   Today, most advanced nations have a more comprehensive defence system consisting of AAA and MANPads and SAMs.   Low and fast is not the guarantee of invulnerability as it once was in the late 1950s (which is when the F-111 was started to be designed).    Today, most strike packages are flown at medium to high altitudes making use of "smart" weapons.   What is required is SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air-Defences) assets, such as the F/A-18Gs, to open a path for the strike aircraft - the F/A-18Fs in our case, to attack their targets.  ECM and anti-radar missiles do the work to enable the strike package to survive.

Captain Nemo wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 12:14pm:


Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Spoken like a true neophyte, Nemo

Nuclear submarines are superior to conventional submarines - without a doubt.  However, in order for Australia to use Nuclear powered craft, we would need to develop a Nuclear Industry.   We presently lack Nuclear engineers and technicians - we would need to train them before we could build a Nuclear Industry.   We would then need to either develop our own Nuclear propulsion system or purchase one from overseas, in order to develop a Nuclear propelled submarine.  All this would take considerable time and cost a fortune.   If we did not do that, we would be beholden to overseas powers to purchase their Nuclear powered submarines from and require to send our submarines overseas for servicing and refuelling (and yes, Nuclear submarines need to be refuelled with fissionable materials to make their reactors work).   So, in the end, the cost of any Nuclear subs would be trebled or quadrupled - on a good day - to fund their development and support.  Nuclear subs are not for the RAN until we develop our own Nuclear Industries which we are unlikely to do for at least the next 30-50 years.

The F-111 was unfortunate in that it encountered problems after it was designed and built.  In the end though, we ended up with an extremely capable strike aircraft - the best in the region and one of the best in the world.   The F-35 is facing more political than technical problems - problems caused by ignorance and fear rather than reality.   The F-35 is proving to be technically a difficult but not insurmountable problem.   It will also prove to be a capable aircraft and I can just imagine the cries when it comes to it's retirement.  They will echo what has been said about the F-111, no doubt.   

Gnads wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:23pm:


Actually, not it isn't.

The myth of two engines being better than one has been largely disproved by the Norwegian experience with the F-16.  They have successfully operated the F-16 for many thousands of hours worth of flying over the Arctic and it has only one engine.  The idea that two engines are better than one is a myth - created when engines were less than reliable and unable to supply sufficient power to keep a heavy aircraft in the air.   Nowadays single engines are powerful and reliable enough to function quite well.

Oh, and no two engined V/STOL aircraft has ever been successful.   Until you can work out how to make one fly on only one engine, you'll make a fortune.  The former Soviets even designed their multi-engined Yak38s to automatically eject the pilot if one engine failed.  It was simply too difficult to control otherwise.

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 5:33pm:


Of course pay them to service and refuel them.

They can navigate to France you know.

As for self-sufficient?
If we were, we wouldn't be paying the French $50b for the submarine contract in the first place.

Think that price won't blow out even more? What's the bet?