ashkon

[quote=Captain Drunk]

If you go by range, the SU-34 has a ferry range of 7000km.


QUOTE]

long way to fly to get shot down

-{SpoonmaN}-

I told you, we're spineless. We'd rather hide behind big countries like you, the UK and the Europeans than have to do anything for ourselves. I think the shock everyone reacted with when one of our decrepit Sea Kings crashed on Nias shows it all: we're so used to letting everyone else do the hard fighting that people are actually surprised to see that some of our soldiers can die. If one of our troops gets killed in Iraq, no matter what the circumstances, it immediately provokes a call for a pullout because its 'too dangerous' such as happened when Pvt. Kovco died in a weapons-handling accident.
I think this goes back to world war two when we pretty much let the USA and China do all the fighting and dying after 1943, all the while stamping our feet that Britain had abandoned us and that the USA didn't respect us.
Not to say I think Australia should be buying Raptors, but yeah we need to get serious about Defence, its the best way for us to make sure things in our region don't get too crazy, or it will come back to bite us and deservedly so.

__________________
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."

Anon

Advanced Eagles will be more than adequate for hiding behind us.

If on the other hand Aus wants to stand up and spend some serious defense money we will sell you as many of the greatest tactical combat aircraft of all time as you want.

Hell, compared to what we've paid for them (sunk costs, OUCH!) you'll be practically stealing them.

We are glad- very glad- to have Aus's help in "The Great Calling of our Time", and i am saddened at the loss of all our soldiers. Yours and mine, and everyone else that's standing up to be counted.

YellowFever

Can we at least wait until we see the russian put in production any sort of the 5th generation fighter before we start talking about it?
And, by the way, the russians thought the mig-23 was "competition" to the F-14.
Go figure.
I'll believe it when they have at least one squadron of the 5th gen fighter operating.

You forget one thing.
Other nations are TRYING to build a fighter better than the Raptor.
I'm sure there are some on the drawing board (some ways off in the future) that will indeed beat the Raptor.
Only problem is that the U.S. RIGHT NOW can probably build something better than the Raptor if they had to.
By the time the Ruskies have anything near production that can beat the Raptor, the US will probably be thinking about something that can run (fly?) circles around your new fighter that can beat the Raptor.

Who are we kidding?

No Mig or SU has EVER measured up to the boasting of their makers.
I'm sure we can build

YellowFever

Relax.
Australia is one of the few countries I, as an American, have no reservations whatsoever of going to bat for. So you're perfectly safe.

And it seems most of the world has gone spinless these days. Why should the aussie be any different?

And, yes after 1943, you guys did back off a bit but prior to '43 you guys did one hell of a bang up job.

You guys have my seal of approval..LoL

But we will never forgive you guys for Paul Hogan.

-{SpoonmaN}-

We'll never forgive ourselves either. And I don't expect Australia to have anything more than a localised capacity for independent operations (SE Asia, the Southern Pacific) but it'd be nice if we were prepared to have at least a fully armed and self contained brigade ready for expeditionary operations.
After all, everyone here seems to think the SAS is all we need or something.

dave angel

if JSF B gets canned then the alternatives are JSF C with a slightly larger Carrier that has CATOBAR, but thats bloody expensive, Typhoon N which at preseent doesn't exist and we'd have to take all the financial risks for, or Rafale N which is currently flying and is a bit stealthy. or just bin the idea altogether.

JSF C and Typhoon N would bring commonality savings with the rest of the RAF fleet, Rafale would be cheap because A) it already exists in operational service and therefore needs no development, and B) the French are desperate to sell them.

a Naval version of the Raptor? - that we could/would afford? fcuking behave! added to that is the continuing aggro over technology transfer, if you thought the Americans were uptight about JSF just wait till you see them over Raptor.

we already have some 'first day of way capability' - which is what JSF/Raptor bring to the table in larger quantities - in the shape of TacTom SLCM's.

being shiny and expensive doesn't make it right for us - and remember green one - every pound spent on Raptor/JSF is a pound not spent on helicopters to save your little leggies!

__________________
before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

jgetti

Russia won't have ANY AESA radars in 2012 beyond early development stages, and probably not even that. Conversely, the C/D/E model F-15's WILL be getting the APG-63V3/V4 AESA radar sets, and I'm quite confident you have no idea what ranges these radars can actively target any aircraft of any kind in any given situation from any angle.

I won't ever use COPE India or any other DACT exercise to compare an aircraft's capability like typical morons such as yourself. It's obvious that even after everyone on the board has tried to explain DACT, you still don't have a clue what the intent of such exercises is.

The F-15 was designed to MUCH higher operating altitudes than 50,000 ft, as demonstrated during ASAT missile launches, and during Streak Eagle altitude exercises.

As if the number of hardpoints even matter on an air to air aircraft, the F-15 can make use of 9 hardpoints, but there's never been any need for more than 7, so the other two aren't used. And some of those are capable of carrying multiple missiles on each. The light greys typically carry 8 missiles, and I've yet to see an aircraft that needs more than that many missiles on a realistic engagement.

What the hell does ferry range of the SU-34 have to do with air superiority?? Furthermore, there are hundreds of different variables that will influence how far an aircraft can go on any given amount of fuel, so your arguement is moot.

As far as maneuverability goes, the F-15 maneuvers just as well as ANY of the Su-27 variants at any airspeed that an arial encounter will actually occur. The beautiful backflips these aircraft have demonstrated can only be done at airspeeds so low that it would get them killed in any dogfight. Additionally, humans can only handle around a 9g turn for any sustained period before blacking out. And a 9g turn is the same radius on ANY AIRCRAFT, so until we FIELD flight suits capable of keeping the blood in a pilot's head beyond 9g's, it really doesn't matter how much beyond that an aircraft can handle.

Lets get another thing straight, turning radius (commonly referred to as maneuverability) and angle of attack are two separate things. The ability of the Su-27 variants to achieve a given angle of attack quicker than an F-15 really doesn't matter when helmet mounted cueing systems are in place coupled with high off boresight missiles,, both of which are already in use in both USAF and USN.

What matters more than anything else in a dogfight is the conditions at which you enter the engagement, and the few countries who fly the F-15 are among the best trained airforces in the world. What that means is THEY KNOW HOW TO ENTER AN ENGAGEMENT.

That's right,, F-15 is your daddy...

YellowFever

THANKYOU!!!!

I keep saying to these Sukhoi the same thing and they keep bringing up the same cobra, kulbit (or whatever it's called manuever).

By the time your precious sukhoi slows down enough to do any of these manuevers, it'll be jailraped by an amraam.

nutter

Crap.

We have 22million people.

That's $20 per person (man, woman and child), *per plane* (on top of our current budget). We're already one of the most highly taxed nations in the civilized world (currently 42% above $150k AU - PLUS 10% gst on all purchases, fuel excise, etc, etc).

We can *not* afford F22 - not when there are so many more important areas of our budget that need attention (hospitals, schools, police, etc). Then again, we already have far higher levels of service in all of those areas than the US... but it's still not good enough.

Judging by the current state of the US economy (massive foreign debt, as I understand it), you guys can't either (really)... you're just a fair bit more stubborn about accepting it.

Australia will just have to continue doing what we usually do - superior training... to stay competitive.

-{SpoonmaN}-

LOL I wouldn't be surprised if we wind up selling our Military training services to our allies to generate cash. After all, we already sell every other kind of training and education under the sun.

Anon

Um, what is Aus military budget as a % of GDP?

I rest my case.

urmomma158

its not jsut the AESA argument you know. The F 15 we're outnumbered 3:1,Aim120D range was shortened, and the old AIM9 was used. Besides the F 15 AESA already existed. And the V3 prototype already exists.The AN APG 63 has a longer range than any of the SU 30 radars.The SU 3 0radar didn't exist AT THE TIME!!! So don't use that as an excuse.

http://www.ausairpower.net/0830-ASPI-Rebuttal-HR.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APG-63_and_APG-70_radars




Eagle is 65,000 feet
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...f-15-specs.htm



Depends on the armnament besides after being shot down the SU 30 won't need all those hardpoints. http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...f-15-specs.htm


And with the AIM9X/JHMCS we won't need to worry. Besides the F 15 can be fitted with TVC as an upgrade. If the Flanker is shot down in BVR what differrence will it make.

__________________

nutter

What does that have to do with the price of eggs?

Whatever the current percentage is, unless you're going to drastically cut funding to other areas (education, hospitals and police dept are already all election issues due to lack of appropriate funding - the military budget isn't), or raise taxes, you're not going to get any more money for it.

And if you were to propose either of those two options to the australian people, you'd be laughed out of office.

-{SpoonmaN}-

Like I said we have a problem with a large portion of our population expecting and demanding a high level of service from the Government but not being willing to pay for it. It's a situation that may change as I think people are generally shifting towards a culture of independent mindedness but for the time being we're not going to be able to boost defence spending beyond the 2.5% mark, which is a shame.