EA/18G Growler

[Todjaeger]

A few reminders about the SH purchase

As has been mentioned by a few people, the Super Hornet purchase is a Bridging Air Combat Capability purchase, to cover the Strike role currently filled by the F-111. It is expected to cover a ten year period, from roughly 2011 to 2020-ish. At the end of the period, the expectation is that the JSF would be in service and taking over the strike role. However, as mentioned, the SH might be retained in that role, possibly due to costing for the JSF, and/or strategic situation at the time.

The SH was not purchased with the intent of using it as an Air Superiority fighter, though it can be used in this role, to an extent far greater than the F-111 can. I would expect, given the current status of the regional air arms, that an RAAF F/A-18F Super Hornet properly supported, would be able to defeat other fighters, except for RSAF fighters (F-15SG in particular) similarly supported.

As for the discussion of Su-XX vs. SH or JSF. In an air-to-air engagement, the issue of who wins revolves around which aircraft will be able to detect and lock onto the other, and then fire it's AAM from within the NEZ. Given the relatively large (vs. SH or JSF) RCS of the Su-XX series and lack of LO features, I feel it safe to say that the SH or JSF will detect the Su-XX first. The issue will then revolve around what the NEZ of the RAAF AAM would be vs. a Su-XX fighter and how that relates to the detection range of an Su-XX. If the Su-XX would enter the NEZ of the AAM before it can detect the SH or JSF (something I consider quite possible for the JSF) then the JSF would win. If, on the other hand, the Su-XX detects the SH or JSF first, it would then become a direct comparison of NEZ of the AAM for each aircraft and see which one has a greater NEZ.

One thing I'm not convinced of is the ability of an Su-XX, even a heavily modified or upgraded one, to detect the JSF. As certain websites discuss, situational awareness improvement paths are available to the Su-XX. However, the discussion is about possible upgrades available in the future, if development work is done on these programs. In a few respects, the possibilities are less than the current work that is becoming available on the SH and even more so on the JSF. What some these websites which suggest that the JSF would perform poorly against an Su-XX fail to take into account is the potential availability of an appropriately upgraded Su-XX (i.e. how many years before one is available) and what sort of upgraded JSF would be available at the same time. Short of a significant and unexpected breakthrough, I don't forsee the Su-XX being able to spot a JSF first, or achieve a lock first. Therefore, as long as the NEZ of the AAM is kept at the same range as the target lock range, the JSF will win.

As for AEW&C support, I'm not so certain that other air forces will be adding that soon. Currently in the ASEAN/Oceania region, only the RSAF has an AEW capacity, with the RAAF adding one soon. Of the air forces in the same area, those two seem to be the most advanced and best maintained (not counting the RNZAF since no air combat arm). In order to make effective use of an AEW&C capability, the training, doctrine and underlying technology needs to be in place. It will likely be some time before other nations are able to bring their air forces to that point.

-Cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Of course not. However the "doom and gloom" brigade are predicating upon massive cost increases because THEY alone say that USAF in particular intends to reduce it's order to only around 760 aircraft, when in fact this is completely un-true.

USAF has not yet changed it's plans to purchase 1760 odd F-35A JSF's and no amount of mis-quotes or half-truths changes this.

RAAF plans to purchase 3x tranches of JSF aircraft for up to 100 aircraft. Government approval for this does not happen until late 2008 when second pass approval is due.

In the 18 or so months until that is due, many of the uncertainties that the anti-jsf brigade point to will be resolved or confirmed in that time. By the time 2nd Pass Approval is reached Defence should be in an excellent position to evaluate the risks/costs involved in F-35 and when exactly is the best time to buy.

Once again the SH will provide an excellent measure of "breathing space" for RAAF to allow it to judge when best to acquire F-35.

The interim fighter has given us that breathing space i agree. Although we do plan to buy the first batch mighty early, and any futher reductions in ANUAL production could see the price tag rise quite a bit. This could mean the interim fighter could become a perminant resident in the RAAF.

As to your points (copy catted from APA's website I'd suggest) I believe you are once again discounting the benefits of the improved SA of the F-35 pilots, just as you have the SH, despite even Dr Kopp acknowledging it.

The fact is that in almost EVERY operational scenario THEY will get the first A2A shot off. The AIM-120C is widely considered the best A2A missile in the world. The AIM-120D with a 50% range enhancement and other improvements will only extend this lead.

As to the radar issue, I think you've confused detection with targetting ability. There is a big difference between detecting a stealthy aircraft and targetting one and your post assumes once more that LM has learnt NOTHING additional about LO matters in the roughly 10 year design difference (in favour of the F-35) since the F-22 was designed.

VERY dangerous thinking I believe. One can only hope these mythical regional enemies of ours believe this nonsense as much as the APA advocates and similar do...

Mate i have sighted APA a few times. Why is it that people just discount anything Kopp says, even though he is probably the most distinguished australian defence jounalist and academic?? I dont think everything he says is right, and i dont agree with eth F22/F111S idea, but he does make some valid points.

1. The SA advatage is a large one, however we are counting on it to overcome the large airodynamic/kenetic dissadvantage we are burdeneing ourselvs with. Especially when you are considering the SH this advantage is not suplemented by LO. The falnker will most likely (especialy with the Ibis radar system) detect the SH well before it reaches the maximum launch range of the AIM 120D, let alone its NEZ. It would also be able to track said aircraft well bofore that range is met too. However the Flanker can play kinematic games with the SH, like runing in and out of its missile radii, or disengageing at its pleasure. SH can not do this. And the AIM 120D may be a very good missile but the SH will (more than likely) not be able to launch wothout being deteced AND tracked. And the NEZ for the R77 vs the SH will be higher, especially with the extra energy given to it by the flanker. They might get the first shot off but will it be usefull? Maximum range shots have pretty low kill probabilities. And the closer that range gets the less the SA advantage matters. I dont see how SA will be decisive considering the Flankers advantages, but perhaps you can explain it to me?

2. I think you missunderstood me. Advanced ESM and IRST would be used to cue BVR R27P (slow burn) and R77P IR guided missile shots, multiple sensors could quite easily triangulate range. Is this as good as APG 81 & AMRAAM? No. But it will alow the flanker to engage the F35 at BVR combat.

3. So your inferring somehow that becaus LM have learnt about LO since the F22 was designed that the F35 will be more stealthy? Id like some evidence backing up that assertion. Because everything i've read says states that the F35 is much less so, especially in the IR spectrum while maintaining supersonic speeds, or in RCS at lower wavelengths.

 

[Todjaeger]

Advanced ESM and IRST would be used to cue BVR R27P (slow burn) and R77P IR guided missile shots, multiple sensors could quite easily triangulate range. Is this as good as APG 81 & AMRAAM? No. But it will alow the flanker to engage the F35 at BVR combat.

I'm not so sure that it would be easy to triangulate the position of a JSF, even if the IRST was able to detect it.

The way I see such a system working, there would need to be a minimum of 3separate IRST sensors detecting the JSF at all times. The position of the detecting aircraft (Su-XX) would need to be known to within a very small tolerance at all times. The angle of of detection at each sensor would need to be known, relative to the heading of the detecting aircraft. From this, the aircraft computer would then need to plot lines at the appropriate angles for each detecting IRST and find the point where the three lines intersect, then create a GIS position for the point of intersection, compensating for the constantly changing position of both the detecting and detected aircraft. It can be done, but the difficulties in doing so I see as being fairly significant.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

To be fair AD the first post in this thread put up by you does have the heading "Regional Air Domincnce" and several referances to suplementing the Bugs that are going into the HUG programe. So you kind of broght the air superiority argument into this thread when you started it.

You used this line twice in the one post. Wow. Perhaps you should go back and read that post.

"Regional Air Dominance" was the headline of the ADF media release on this issue. Do you think I have some input into how Defmin Nelson's releases are worded?

1. Would you mind giving me a link to some analasys that states the F18E/F as having the edge in WVR combat, if all the other experts apart from Kopp state this that is? Or that the small advantage in situational awarness (given that the missile systems are comperable) will negate the Flankers ability to generate much greater angles of attack than the SH.

2. WVR combat is dominated by off broadsight missiles. However SUXX and F18E/F have comperable missile systems in the AIM 9X and the R74 with helmet mounted sights. Cortrary to what you infer Dr Kopp does take that consideration into account in his analisys, this can be seen here;

Hmm, what he doesn't take into account is counter measures, but never mind, let's keep it simple shall we? Overall capability of course being completely irrelevant when compared to aerodynamic performance figures gained from open source data, afterall.

So, whoever shoots first is likely to win. Isn't that what the inestimable Dr Kopp writes? What element specifically do you think is going to decide who can shoot first? Or do the Sukhoi's have such a "firepower" advantage that they can saturate airspace with blind missile shots?

"With mutually competitive WVR missiles and Helmet Mounted Sights/Displays for close-in combat, all three types will live or die in a close in engagement with an advanced Su-30MK variant by pilot ability and good or bad luck. The Sukhoi combines high alpha manoeuvre capabilities with excellent thrust/weight performance, and is apt to have an energy advantage entering and prosecuting a close in fight. A JSF driver opting to engage a thrust vectoring late model Su-30MK in a knife fight may not survive to speak of the experience, unless the Sukhoi driver is unable to exploit his advantage properly.

In close in air combat terms the JSF qualifies as 'double inferior' against the later model Sukhois, since the Sukhois have an advantage in both thrust/weight ratio and in wing loading (interested visitors refer R.L. Shaw's Fighter Combat), and with its canard and thrust vectoring capability will generally be able to gain a firing solution quicker. Because the JSF is designed within the kinematic performance class of the F/A-18 and F-16, it is right in the middle of the performance envelope of aircraft the Sukhoi was designed to kill."

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.htm

So you are using the opinion of Dr Kopp on the JSF which at that point had yet to even fly, to justify your POV on the SU's capability against an SH Block II in A2A combat???

1. its angles of attack that are important in getting a fireing soloution not big high g turns.

2. Actually all the Air dominance fighters that have been designed or produced in the last 10 to 20yrs seem to be very capable kinetic and airdoynamic performers such as the F22, EF2000 and Flanker. All the other fighters you seem to mention are what? F35, Grippen and Rafale? They are all multirole aircraft with a good deal of design being put into the CAS/Stike missions.

3. You infer that just because the USMC or RAF chose the F35 that it can automaticaly outperform a Flanker? And IIRC the RAF's air superiority fighter is the EF2000 which will be a very goos airdynamic and kinetic performer.

Not according to Dr Kopp, even the Typhoon is massively outclassed. Only the F-22 is superior. But why not? You, Dr Kopp and co seem to think that SAAB, Dassault, BAE, LM and Boeing are designing aircraft that are inferior to a Russian aircraft design that is older than many of it's competing designs, based soley on 1 area of air combat, raw airframe performance, derived from open source data.

Do you honestly think that all these VERY well respected aircraft manufacturers are ALL failing to take into account a very possible threat system when designing their respective aircraft? The fact that these manufactures aren't scrambling to rectify the situation, shows that the difference is not as great as some groups agenda would have it seem, to me.

Of course this hardly qualifies as the "hard data" that they want, but it does seem a reasonable proposition.

Again this does not alter the core of my previos argument. The APG 79 is superior, I said that in my previous post you are quoting. However this will not allow the SH to reach maximum missile launch radius for the AIM 120D without being detected and, depending on the missiles caried by the flanker, engaged. So the APG 79 vs BARS is irrelevant to this argument.


The point is not which radar is superior. It is whether the F18E/F will be able to get into a decent launch position without being detected and engaged by the Flanker. This was the argument used by an un-named previos poster (if you want to know who go and have a look) as to how the SH could defeat the flanker every time.

If the APG 79 has an effective EA attack capability then this could be verry usefull, however it remains to be seen how capable and effective it is. Also, is this usefull against missiles of fighter radars? what effect does it have, does it jam or disable the radars? how in priciple does it achieve this? Untill we know some of these facts it is hard to call it decive, although it does need to be considered.

Detection range is irrelevent in BVR combat now eh? I can provide links which show the AMRAAM-C variants have superior range to R-77 and other BVR missiles carried by Russian fighters but I'm really starting to doubt the point.

So from your arguments so far, the SH-/APG-79 has superior radar detection range, superior (presumably) targetting discrimination, equally capable weapons and acknowledged superiority in head on RCS, yet you still argue that the SU-30 is likely to be shooting before the SH in the all important "first shot".

Out of interest, I've raised the issue before but I'll mention it here once again. Why does no-one seem interested in the proposition that although RCS is increased when external stores are carried, LO still reduces the RCS figure. An SU-30 with external stores is going to equally suffer increased drag and RCS problems, the point being that the SH whilst not immune, is still going to benefit from the RCS reduction measures it DOES have.

You still havent outlined exacly how these advantages can be used tactiacaly to negate the Flankers airodynamic/kinetic advantage, which is the important part. And i would call, for the most part, AA weapons systems comperable.

India has an AWAC capability, not a bad one either. China has just flown their first A50 AEW&C aircraft and will soon have quite a few.

What is the threat situation facing australia in general at the moment? Minimal. Everyone likes to quote indonesia as the major threat nation but they are a stable democracy with strengthening ties to the US. The posibilty of a war with India/China or anyone for that matter is negligable. But everyone on this forum seems to use this fact to excuse deficiencies in capabilities with "dont wory, what are the chances we will have to fight them anyway" statements. Thets a bad foundation for the doctorine for defending our nation. By that reasoning, due to the very low likelyhood of a war with anyone in the region, and the high likelyhood of the ADF being part of peacekeeping duties and small GWOT deployments we can do away with our combat aircraft because we will allways be deployed uneder the USAF, scrap the collins, by more C17's and close down JORN. We have these assets "just in case" and as a deterrunt. Just because we have good relations with these nations now does not mean we can plan our future force structure around that assumption holding true in the future.

I refer to my firts line in this post. You brought the Air superiority debate into this thread with your first post, so you kind of shot yourself in the foot on that one AD.

The SH is a fine strike aircraft, just as you quoted. But as an air supoeriority fighter is has some major problems when facing advanced flankers. You and defence stated that this would be one of its roles with the RAAF, so it needs to be debated.

AD your pushing a POV too are you not???

Sure am and my POV is that the "doom and gloom" calls are unwarranted. The SU-30 is a fine combat aircraft. So is the SH and so will the F-35A. I happen to think that the SH and F-35 in RAAF hands will be more than a match for anything that can be done with the SU-30 by our regional adversary's whoever they may be exactly and that APA whilst obviously well versed in these subjects are not the ONLY experts in this matter.

Blanket statements like this comment taken directly from APA's website: [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Given that there is an enormous volume of open source material now available which details these issues it is now an irrefutable fact that Defence have lost the capability to objectively analyse and understand capabilities in contemporary and future air power in the region. The Minister's statements are proof of this.”"

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I find insulting to the extreme. I know many excellent and intelligent people inside defence and out who happen to disagree with many of the views of the APA crowd.

Slandering the entire Defence Department because they don't happen to agree with you, is a disgrace.
[/FONT]

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

As has been mentioned by a few people, the Super Hornet purchase is a Bridging Air Combat Capability purchase, to cover the Strike role currently filled by the F-111. It is expected to cover a ten year period, from roughly 2011 to 2020-ish. At the end of the period, the expectation is that the JSF would be in service and taking over the strike role. However, as mentioned, the SH might be retained in that role, possibly due to costing for the JSF, and/or strategic situation at the time.

The heading for the first post in this thread is Regional Air Superiority. As a strike aircraft i think it will do just nicely. Could use a bit more range though.

The SH was not purchased with the intent of using it as an Air Superiority fighter, though it can be used in this role, to an extent far greater than the F-111 can. I would expect, given the current status of the regional air arms, that an RAAF F/A-18F Super Hornet properly supported, would be able to defeat other fighters, except for RSAF fighters (F-15SG in particular) similarly supported.

Given training, operational doctorine and support structures such as wedgetail, i would agree, unless you take india and china into acount.

As for the discussion of Su-XX vs. SH or JSF. In an air-to-air engagement, the issue of who wins revolves around which aircraft will be able to detect and lock onto the other, and then fire it's AAM from within the NEZ. Given the relatively large (vs. SH or JSF) RCS of the Su-XX series and lack of LO features, I feel it safe to say that the SH or JSF will detect the Su-XX first. The issue will then revolve around what the NEZ of the RAAF AAM would be vs. a Su-XX fighter and how that relates to the detection range of an Su-XX. If the Su-XX would enter the NEZ of the AAM before it can detect the SH or JSF (something I consider quite possible for the JSF) then the JSF would win. If, on the other hand, the Su-XX detects the SH or JSF first, it would then become a direct comparison of NEZ of the AAM for each aircraft and see which one has a greater NEZ.

As far as the SH is concerned the chances of it reaching NEZ launch range undetected is very low. Given that fact, most other advantages do lie with the Flanker. I wouldnt want to be a SH driver at that point.

As for the F35, if it was able to set the terms of the engagement i would give it the advantage, as long as advanced ESM systems are not installed (ok they would still have the advantage then , but it would be significantly reduced). However when the F35 has to intercept the Flanker its does not pick when and were to fight, it will strugle to get to a decent missile launch poition before the Flanker gets to an ASM shot range unless it is poistioned in advance. Even if its just trying to intercept the flanker its IR signature will be alot higher due to the AB glowing on out the back.

One thing I'm not convinced of is the ability of an Su-XX, even a heavily modified or upgraded one, to detect the JSF. As certain websites discuss, situational awareness improvement paths are available to the Su-XX. However, the discussion is about possible upgrades available in the future, if development work is done on these programs. In a few respects, the possibilities are less than the current work that is becoming available on the SH and even more so on the JSF. What some these websites which suggest that the JSF would perform poorly against an Su-XX fail to take into account is the potential availability of an appropriately upgraded Su-XX (i.e. how many years before one is available) and what sort of upgraded JSF would be available at the same time. Short of a significant and unexpected breakthrough, I don't forsee the Su-XX being able to spot a JSF first, or achieve a lock first. Therefore, as long as the NEZ of the AAM is kept at the same range as the target lock range, the JSF will win.

The AF 41F supercrusing engine which is somewhere in the 33000 to 44000lb thrust range is allready in LRIP. It will alow the Flanker to supercruse, although the drag created by external weapons and fuel will not allow similar performance to the F22. It will greatly increase its T/W ratio, and therefore lower the NEZ of the AIM 120D and increase the R77M. This will give the Flanker a HUGE kinetic advantage over the F35. This could be in operational flanker variants by 2015. The Ibis radar is also in LRIP and is speculated to be 3 times as powerfull as the BARS. Advanced IRST and ESM i'm not sure on, so thats just speculation at this point.

As for AEW&C support, I'm not so certain that other air forces will be adding that soon. Currently in the ASEAN/Oceania region, only the RSAF has an AEW capacity, with the RAAF adding one soon. Of the air forces in the same area, those two seem to be the most advanced and best maintained (not counting the RNZAF since no air combat arm). In order to make effective use of an AEW&C capability, the training, doctrine and underlying technology needs to be in place. It will likely be some time before other nations are able to bring their air forces to that point.

Your not taking china and india into account.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

You used this line twice in the one post. Wow. Perhaps you should go back and read that post.

"Regional Air Dominance" was the headline of the ADF media release on this issue. Do you think I have some input into how Defmin Nelson's releases are worded?

Nope but its what you posted.

Hmm, what he doesn't take into account is counter measures, but never mind, let's keep it simple shall we? Overall capability of course being completely irrelevant when compared to aerodynamic performance figures gained from open source data, afterall.

So, whoever shoots first is likely to win. Isn't that what the inestimable Dr Kopp writes? What element specifically do you think is going to decide who can shoot first? Or do the Sukhoi's have such a "firepower" advantage that they can saturate airspace with blind missile shots?

The jaming and ECM abilities on the APG 79 will be very usefull i agree, but that doesent automaticaly mean victory as you seem to imply. I disagree with your assumption that whoever shoots first wins, i would say that whoever gets a usefull shot off first wins in BVR (maybe, if the target doesent get a soft kill on the missile). In WVR you have to agree that the SH and Flanker are going to be well aware of each other's position. In such a situation, given the capabilities of the missiles involved its anyones game, although the Flanker does hold the energy advantage and can achieve higher angles of attack, so in that respect the falnker holds the advantage. If the SH holds a decisive advantage in IR countermeasures then this could indeed be signifigant. Could you outline it?

So you are using the opinion of Dr Kopp on the JSF which at that point had yet to even fly, to justify your POV on the SU's capability against an SH Block II in A2A combat???

If you read the quote he is refering to the F18 HUG, F18E and F35.

Not according to Dr Kopp, even the Typhoon is massively outclassed. Only the F-22 is superior. But why not? You, Dr Kopp and co seem to think that SAAB, Dassault, BAE, LM and Boeing are designing aircraft that are inferior to a Russian aircraft design that is older than many of it's competing designs, based soley on 1 area of air combat, raw airframe performance, derived from open source data.

Do you honestly think that all these VERY well respected aircraft manufacturers are ALL failing to take into account a very possible threat system when designing their respective aircraft? The fact that these manufactures aren't scrambling to rectify the situation, shows that the difference is not as great as some groups agenda would have it seem, to me.

Of course this hardly qualifies as the "hard data" that they want, but it does seem a reasonable proposition.

His analysis of the Typhoon is irrelevent, it is still designed to be a very capable airodynamic and kinetic performer.

No these aircraft manufacturers have designed very capable stike platforms, and very capable air superiority platforms. The multi role/strike platforms are much better than there russian counterparts, like the F35 or Rafale vs the MiG 29M or multi role SUXX in the strike role. The F22 is much better than the SUXX in the air superiority role. However you seem to think that just because the designer is well respected that the platform they created that has been designed for a strike/CAS role can automaticaly defeat the russian air superiority platform at air dominance, a role it was not specificaly designed for???? I'm not sure how you can just make that jump.

Detection range is irrelevent in BVR combat now eh? I can provide links which show the AMRAAM-C variants have superior range to R-77 and other BVR missiles carried by Russian fighters but I'm really starting to doubt the point.

So from your arguments so far, the SH-/APG-79 has superior radar detection range, superior (presumably) targetting discrimination, equally capable weapons and acknowledged superiority in head on RCS, yet you still argue that the SU-30 is likely to be shooting before the SH in the all important "first shot".

I dont think your realy getting what i'm trying to say. Yes the SH will detect the flanker before its detected, providing theres no AEW&C cover. But in order to engage the SH it will have to enter into its detection and track radius, so i'm wondering why this advantage is so decisive. Yes the AIM 120D will outrange the R77, even the R77M. However its NEZ will be significantly reduced when facing the flanker, especially supercrusing variants. As soon as the SH is detected then the flanker can start using its kenetic advantage. It has the initative, it sets the terms of the engagement. I dont see how the extended detection range is deceive.

Out of interest, I've raised the issue before but I'll mention it here once again. Why does no-one seem interested in the proposition that although RCS is increased when external stores are carried, LO still reduces the RCS figure. An SU-30 with external stores is going to equally suffer increased drag and RCS problems, the point being that the SH whilst not immune, is still going to benefit from the RCS reduction measures it DOES have.

This is an advantage in head on engagements. But could you explain how exactly it could be exploited in a decisive manner?

Sure am and my POV is that the "doom and gloom" calls are unwarranted. The SU-30 is a fine combat aircraft. So is the SH and so will the F-35A. I happen to think that the SH and F-35 in RAAF hands will be more than a match for anything that can be done with the SU-30 by our regional adversary's whoever they may be exactly and that APA whilst obviously well versed in these subjects are not the ONLY experts in this matter.

Of corce they arn't. But i'm yet to hear a comprehensive rebuttal to the points they make.

Blanket statements like this comment taken directly from APA's website: [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Given that there is an enormous volume of open source material now available which details these issues it is now an irrefutable fact that Defence have lost the capability to objectively analyse and understand capabilities in contemporary and future air power in the region. The Minister's statements are proof of this.”"

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I find insulting to the extreme. I know many excellent and intelligent people inside defence and out who happen to disagree with many of the views of the APA crowd.

Slandering the entire Defence Department because they don't happen to agree with you, is a disgrace.
[/FONT]

I agree with theat statement. Kopp does have a tendancy to ridicule other points of view. He allways refers to his opponants as "canberra beurocrats" even though they do include RAAF brass. However this does not ulter the substance of some of their arguments.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Personally I think the Superhornets and F-35 will be extremely capable planes.

Lets not forget the SU30 is still in its growing period. Look at the trouble india is having getting its birds going.

They are playing the same old cards they had with the Mig-25. Its aerodynamically fast and now nimble. But has short commings in other areas. Like stealth, networking, radar, controls, etc.

Barring buying the F-15 or Eurofighter theres no other aircraft that would improve Australia's position that is avalible right now, that we aren't buying.

F-15 verse Superhornets, well I think the superhornets are the way to go for Australia. Eurofighter isn't really there yet so its not yet in the running.

I would be interested why the APA crowd aren't lobbying for the F-15. Sure it doesn't have the goodies of a SH, but they are apparently irrelivant. We could afford and get the F-15 if we really wanted.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I would be interested why the APA crowd aren't lobbying for the F-15. Sure it doesn't have the goodies of a SH, but they are apparently irrelivant. We could afford and get the F-15 if we really wanted.

Because they are more interested in potential business oppotunities then in actually discussing what is best for Australia. F-15 provides no benefit for their agenda that SH doesn't.

Hence, little to no support for anything besides F22/F-111 combo's.

 

[old faithful]

one small point that some of you (anti F35) guys are forgetting...the LO characteristics of the Lightning will make it very difficult for active AAM,s to "see" their target,meaning that the enemy aircraft will need to get much closer to the F35 to get a shot away. in the meantime,the F35 will get first shot in,as soon as the enemy is within the AMRAAM,s range. BVR wpns will have their legs cut short against F35.
The significant l.o. tech applied to the F18F,along with its ECM and AESA,will also contribute to any enemy needing to get closer to it to get a shot in. The F18F will be much more survivable than the F111. Still it will be sad to say goodbye to the pigs...(and,yeah,id love to see the F22 with skippy on its wings,but it aint gonna happen )

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Why does this allways degrade to making nasty little comments and sniping like "why didnt APA say this" and " vested interest" that? none of that ulters the validity of what they are saying. Stop attacking the man and attack the facts.

Faithfull. The question is about IR guided R77's and slow burn R27's cued by ESM guided IRST. So Xband fire conroll radars may be countered by the F35's LO but i dont think its IR management is all that great.

I dont see how the Lo on the SH or its radar will mean an opponant needing to close range in order to get a missile shot off.

 

[Grand Danois]

Well, on using IRST for triangulation - that could be done. Following is my own reflection on that topic, not perfect, but perhaps useful a starting point.

ESM cueing. If there are passive F-35/SH shooters, the Flankers will be disadvantaged developing a firing solution and engaging the illuminator - they will most likely be unaware of the shooter. The Flankers can also only do this to one target at a time.

With the radar track you get real-time, high-quality position, direction and velocity.

As the IRST should have a greater error on the bearing than the radar and there are two sensors involved, the positional accuracy should be less than that of a radar. As the direction and velocity from such a system are derivatives of the positional data, the errors from the bearing measurements will be built in. Further the different method will mean that the two latter will have a lag in time as they are extrapolated. In the radar they are instanteneous and independent.

As how this impacts the Pk of a BVR missile over range is difficult to say, as it depend on what the quality of the track the missile needs.

Anyhow, on the back of an envelope, I can make it out that quality of such data should deterioate exponentially with range (or improve similarily with proximity).

It depends on the missile, which makes it difficult for me to make up my mind.

 

[Todjaeger]

Your not taking china and india into account.

I do take India and China (PRC) into account, I'd covered this in a prior post. What seems to be forgotten is the distance between India or China, and Australia. Even with AAR, an air battle between either nation and the RAAF is very unlikely in Australian airspace, and for similar reasons, over Chinese or Indian airspace, unless it was as part of a coalition. How many times would an Su-XX need to be refueled in-flight if it carried a useful air combat load and was taking off from the closest Indian or PRC airfield, heading straight to the closest Australian land?

Something to keep in mind.

-Cheers

 

[Rich]

I do take India and China (PRC) into account, I'd covered this in a prior post. What seems to be forgotten is the distance between India or China, and Australia. Even with AAR, an air battle between either nation and the RAAF is very unlikely in Australian airspace, and for similar reasons, over Chinese or Indian airspace, unless it was as part of a coalition. How many times would an Su-XX need to be refueled in-flight if it carried a useful air combat load and was taking off from the closest Indian or PRC airfield, heading straight to the closest Australian land?

Something to keep in mind.

-Cheers

To make it even more indigestible for any potential enemy, even if they could fly that far, is they would be picked up by the Aussie JORN system a long, long ways off. It would be hard enough for our best stealth aircraft to go against JORN and its software let alone big fat targets like SUs and MIGs. Dont forget JORN is capable of detecting such targets out to 3,000 kms away.

So here come the Indians, or Chinese, at the end of their tethers with no fuel for maneuvering, or even running away at high speed, running head on into the lethally networked RAAF, backed up by all that Pilot/airmen training/skill, superior avionics/weaponry/radars. Well who do you think is going to win the engagement?


Even if flying those crummy F-18SHs?

They are playing the same old cards they had with the Mig-25. Its aerodynamically fast and now nimble. But has short commings in other areas. Like stealth, networking, radar, controls, etc.

The MIG-25 was probably the most un-nimble fighter ever produced. It couldnt even out-turn a F-4 Phantom and tho it was fast you wouldnt want to run it fast for to long because the engine would fry. The thing was hand welded and used vacuum tubes in its circuitry. Well, I dont want to make this a MIG thread.

 

[old faithful]

Why does this allways degrade to making nasty little comments and sniping like "why didnt APA say this" and " vested interest" that? none of that ulters the validity of what they are saying. Stop attacking the man and attack the facts.

Faithfull. The question is about IR guided R77's and slow burn R27's cued by ESM guided IRST. So Xband fire conroll radars may be countered by the F35's LO but i dont think its IR management is all that great.

I dont see how the Lo on the SH or its radar will mean an opponant needing to close range in order to get a missile shot off.

mate,those IR guided R77 will need to be guided to their target from BVR with data link,untill the missiles IR seeker can see the target for its self. That means that the attacking aircraft will need to be able to see the F35 as soon as possible. The problem for the attacker is,that the Lightnings will be aware of their pressence first,and manouvre into a position where it will get first shot away.
As for the R27....they dont have an impressive combat record....worse than sparrow.they have been used by Ukraine and Russian pilots in combat in Africa from Mig29,s and SU27,s. Sudan,and Eritria. if they cant down Migs and SU,s, I dont like their chances against F35,s or F18,s, given the ECM both platforms boast.
As for the F18,s capability. It will see the opponent first once again. The Aesa radar is powerful enough to burn out the oppents aircrafts radar. You think it might burn out an active AAm,s radar to eh...blinding it. Again that brings us to a wvr fight. SH would get first shot again with Amraam, but if not, the Aim9X will make up for its own percieved lack of manouverability. Their is no pilot than can out turn modern WVR missiles. The G,s would crush him,if their platforms allowed them to throw their planes around.
As a stop gap,we are getting the F18F. They have been ordered. It is highly likley that we will get F35. so really its pointless to argue that we should get this/that,cause were not gonna!

 

[Aussie Digger]

Why does this allways degrade to making nasty little comments and sniping like "why didnt APA say this" and " vested interest" that? none of that ulters the validity of what they are saying. Stop attacking the man and attack the facts.

Faithfull. The question is about IR guided R77's and slow burn R27's cued by ESM guided IRST. So Xband fire conroll radars may be countered by the F35's LO but i dont think its IR management is all that great.

I dont see how the Lo on the SH or its radar will mean an opponant needing to close range in order to get a missile shot off.

Of course not. first of all, LM have learned NOTHING about improving LO, IR management in the roughly 10 years of further work since they settled on the JSF design after they worked on F-22's initial design.

Second of all, both the JSF and SH (by 2008/9) will have their own "ESM cued" IRST systems. Wonder what the IR signature of a supercruising non-LO aircraft is going to be like?

Again, NOTHING I wrote on the whole front page of this thread started this discussion into questioning the SH's a2A capacity. YOU in fact were the FIRST person in this thread to write about it's air superiority capability in post # 19. Go back and have a look if you don't believe me. What I posted was a defence release confirming selection of the F/A-18F for Australia. I made NO comments about it's air superiority capability until well after it was already being discussed.

Rich, you can't let reality enter into this debate. The idea that China and India would WANT or NEED to fly all this way and attack us with their SU-XX's is ridiculous in the extreme.

The ONLY reason it's brought up is as a "strategic" rationale for an F-22/F-111 based force structure and then ALSO assuming that India or China could base aircraft in Indonesia, East Timor or somewhere else close enough to launch cruise missile strikes on mainland Australia launched from tactical fighters WITHOUT the USA joining the fight and helping us out.

They then go on to assume EVERYTHING is equal (tankers, AEW&C, weapons capabilities, JORN capability, GBAD capability etc) and thus RAAF would operate totally defensive in CAP flying within small rings of Australian mainland.

No offensive strike on our enemies airbases, from RAAF, RAN or SOCOMD, no support from RAN or Army in defending point targets, and most definitely ANY outside assistance from any other nation at all.

All of this is completely disregarded or ruled as irrelevant so they can concentrate on the one possible aspect they can point to as a problem. The aerodynamic performance of the SU series compared to all other fighters bar F-22.

Any other fighter suggestions bar F-22 are not good enough. Even Singapores AEAS equipped F-15SG was dismissed by Messir KOPP as I recall and that wasn't even in an Australian context.


Then they wheel out someone like AM (Ret) Peter Criss who goes on the record and espouses many of the same ideas as APA. This is a bit more serious as Criss is a former Air Commander of Australia and a very experienced F-111 pilot.

Criss is also however a dissaffected person who it turns out WAS unfairly dismissed from ADF and has just been awarded a public apology by CDF and is likely to receive a fairly hefty payout.

Is Criss completely altruistic in this matter though, or merely taking cheap shots at the group that he'd likely still be serving with if he wasn't unfairly dismissed? I wonder exactly what he'd be saying publicly RIGHT NOW if he WERE Chief of Air Force, or even "just" Air Commander still.

I have a funny feeling he'd be saying IDENTICAL things to what AM Shepherd and HOUSTON are saying and APA wouldn't be quoting him as "proof"...

 

[Todjaeger]

One problem with direct X vs. Y aircraft comparisons is that they tend to be made in a vaccuum. The SH/JSF vs. Su-XX discussion here tends, IMV to an example of this.

The discussion has devolved to which aircraft has a smaller NEZ from the other's missiles, and which aircraft will be able to lock onto the other first.

The reality of the situation, is where do the different aircraft fit into the overall force, and what forces a nation can bring to bear.

The IAF/PLA-AF scenario is a pretty good example. In a direct conflict, I would expect either air force to be able to overwhelm the RAAF, by sheer numbers if nothing else. However, one mustn't overlook a niggling little detail, the distance needed to travel from an airfield to reach Australia from either country, and then travel back to the airfield. Given the vast distance to the coast of Australia, nevemind crossing the GAFA, either air force would be hard pressed to carry out such an attack. In the future, either or both countries might have developed a Fleet Air Arm or the equivalent and a carrier presence, which would shorten the distance of course. However, if there is an Indian or PRC CV off the shores of Australia posing a threat, a Collins SSK (or the successor) could solve that problem and at the same time creating a new artificial reef for divers. Similarly, for concerns of Indian or PRC forward basing in ASEAN nations, there would need to either be diplomatic agreements allowing the nations to do so, or an invasion & seizure of land. In the first there would need to be considerable incentive to allow the forward basing, and in the later, there would need to be a massive increase in the capacity of either nations' defence forces to carry it out at such a potential distance. Again, not impossible, just very unlikely. Not to mention, for all of these scenarios, there would be a fair amount of warning beforehand.

As for the aircraft comparison, it might be better if one were to consider the RAAF force and the significant support available and how that is or can be employed, vs. the potential regional opponents forces, and how they are supported currently. Then consider the time, cost and work needed to develope those forces to a level where they can operate effectively against the current RAAF forces. I would expect that some of the air forces would need some time to reach that point. Time that would allow the ADF notice of the expanding capabilities as well as allowing the RAAF to similarly expand their capabilities.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

One problem with direct X vs. Y aircraft comparisons is that they tend to be made in a vaccuum. The SH/JSF vs. Su-XX discussion here tends, IMV to an example of this.

The discussion has devolved to which aircraft has a smaller NEZ from the other's missiles, and which aircraft will be able to lock onto the other first.

The reality of the situation, is where do the different aircraft fit into the overall force, and what forces a nation can bring to bear.

The IAF/PLA-AF scenario is a pretty good example. In a direct conflict, I would expect either air force to be able to overwhelm the RAAF, by sheer numbers if nothing else. However, one mustn't overlook a niggling little detail, the distance needed to travel from an airfield to reach Australia from either country, and then travel back to the airfield. Given the vast distance to the coast of Australia, nevemind crossing the GAFA, either air force would be hard pressed to carry out such an attack. In the future, either or both countries might have developed a Fleet Air Arm or the equivalent and a carrier presence, which would shorten the distance of course. However, if there is an Indian or PRC CV off the shores of Australia posing a threat, a Collins SSK (or the successor) could solve that problem and at the same time creating a new artificial reef for divers. Similarly, for concerns of Indian or PRC forward basing in ASEAN nations, there would need to either be diplomatic agreements allowing the nations to do so, or an invasion & seizure of land. In the first there would need to be considerable incentive to allow the forward basing, and in the later, there would need to be a massive increase in the capacity of either nations' defence forces to carry it out at such a potential distance. Again, not impossible, just very unlikely. Not to mention, for all of these scenarios, there would be a fair amount of warning beforehand.

As for the aircraft comparison, it might be better if one were to consider the RAAF force and the significant support available and how that is or can be employed, vs. the potential regional opponents forces, and how they are supported currently. Then consider the time, cost and work needed to develope those forces to a level where they can operate effectively against the current RAAF forces. I would expect that some of the air forces would need some time to reach that point. Time that would allow the ADF notice of the expanding capabilities as well as allowing the RAAF to similarly expand their capabilities.

-Cheers

Precisely. Their analysis's don't stand up because they don't consider ALL factors. Only a very narrow aspect of combat.

They don't consider or care about the distance issue alone, and make no mention of ALL about the fact that the IAF and China's air force outnumber RAAF at least 5-10 times EACH. If they could muster their forces close enough to Australia to launch tactical fighter borne strikes against us, we'd be screwed no matter WHICH air combat aircraft we operated.

Of course that they then go on to dismiss ANY combat aircraft in the world other than their "pets" which further shows that they aren't serious about discussing what's "best", only telling what's "best" according to their own wisdom....

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Theres a major problem with your strategic thinking boys.

1. You only look in a 5 to 10 yr timeframe. Possibly the SH and definatly the F35 will be in RAAF service for 30 years. China and India currently dont have the motive or the capability to truely project power in SE asia or into the sea air gap. However does this ussumption hold true for 2022-2025??? Because the desisions we make now we will have to live with unltill at least this time. The strategic situation can change a hell of alot in 20yrs. Anyone remember what the world looked like in 1987?? A whole lot different from now. However just because the PLAAF and the IAF lack the motive or capability in 2007, your all content to assume that the this situation will not change by 2017 or 2027, especially given the masive expansion in military capability and economic terms in both of these nations. So the fact that neither of these threats truely constitute a threat now is used by many members to justify any deficiencies in capability the RAAF will suffer in this timeframe. Very short sighted thinking IMO.


2. As i have said 5 times before the chances of a regional war with any of our regional neighbors is less than minimal. But the fact that this can be said for india or china is used by some members to rebutt the threat of the capabilities being sought by these nations. The threat of a war with Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Buruni, Singapore, or anyone for that matter is negligable. But if we apply the attitude some members have towrd india or china we could scrap the combat air wing, close down JORN, sell off the collins, and most of the surface fleet for that matter, becuase their use in the defence of australia is so unlikely it doesent justify talking about it let alone the billions of dollars spent. You plan for middle case, prepare for worse case. Your all planning for best case and preparing for middle. Are the chances of australian aircraft, or australian units for that matter, facing the PLAAF or IAF without big brother USAF in that particular battlespace in the next 30 low? Yes. Are the chances of the colins ever being used in a defence of australia situation low? Yes. But that doesent mean you dont consider, plan for, and aquire the capabilities needed to adress such a situation. If we dont need to consider china or india, why do we operate JORN or the Colins??? Its a selective aplication of that logic. In an A2A scenario it doesent need to be considered, but in a naval situation it does. Seems like aplication designed to sure up a particular point of view.

3. Your all only looking at a massive invasion of the mainland scenario, not a small regional conflict. What if we had a situation somewhere in Indonesia similar to East Timor, with a pro chinese faction. We intend to send in the troops for a peace inforcement mission, the pro chinese faction wants support from the PLA, who starts supplying them. We dont take to kindly to Chinese intervention in the region, PLAN send a CBG into the theater for air cover. Yanks dont want to get to involved for fear of sparking a larger conflict over a "Timor Leste". In such a situation, i.e. not all out war, we cant just hit the CBG with a huge maritime strike, or the colins, but RAAF F35/SH would have to take on navalised Flankers, both with AEW&C's, and it would be the RAAF fighting at extended range. Is this kind of regional conflict likely? No. But its alot more likely than a shooting war with indonesia or anyone in the region for that matter.

 

[Big-E]

The jaming and ECM abilities on the APG 79 will be very usefull i agree, but that doesent automaticaly mean victory as you seem to imply. I disagree with your assumption that whoever shoots first wins, i would say that whoever gets a usefull shot off first wins in BVR (maybe, if the target doesent get a soft kill on the missile). In WVR you have to agree that the SH and Flanker are going to be well aware of each other's position. In such a situation, given the capabilities of the missiles involved its anyones game, although the Flanker does hold the energy advantage and can achieve higher angles of attack, so in that respect the falnker holds the advantage.

If the US pilot shoots his AMRAAM first he has well over a 98% chance of a victory. US AESA means we see first, we shoot first. In WVR the Rhino will have the advantage thanks to greater situational awareness and the enhanced features of the AIM-9X. The Flanker pilot will be so busy trying to figure out where he is in the battle space the Rhino driver would have already decided on an attack strategy and implemented it. The layout of Su-XX cockpits are prehistoric even with upgrades. Higher alphas are irrelevent if you play to your strong suites, just keep him from getting below you and his alpha ability is worthless. That's what we like to call playing on the waves. If you keep him down on the deck you will slow him down giving you the advantage as he tries to jimmy you into tone. It won't work as the Rhino's drag surfaces makes it the best slow speed manuvering jet aircraft in the world.

I dont think your realy getting what i'm trying to say. Yes the SH will detect the flanker before its detected, providing theres no AEW&C cover. But in order to engage the SH it will have to enter into its detection and track radius, so i'm wondering why this advantage is so decisive. Yes the AIM 120D will outrange the R77, even the R77M. However its NEZ will be significantly reduced when facing the flanker, especially supercrusing variants. As soon as the SH is detected then the flanker can start using its kenetic advantage. It has the initative, it sets the terms of the engagement. I dont see how the extended detection range is deceive.

I don't see why you think kenetic energy is important at BVR. If the Flanker is charging into an AIM-120D at full speed he is foolish. When engaging at BVR you want to track the aircraft at the engagement radius of the weapon system and outrun the inbound threat. Rather than charge in it is best to slow to rail launch speeds and wait for the bogey to enter range. The inferiority of the flankers radar will make his detection of your launch come rather late. The only thing that possibly saves him is punching the burners and hope he gets out of range. If he is smart he will try and make you expend your BVRAAM loadout and then close for the kill. The probabilities after firing two AIM-120Ds of getting a kill are 180%+ if he stays within range. In conclusion no trained flanker pilot is going to charge a Rhino armed with AIM-120Ds. He will try and make you waste them.

I agree with theat statement. Kopp does have a tendancy to ridicule other points of view. He allways refers to his opponants as "canberra beurocrats" even though they do include RAAF brass. However this does not ulter the substance of some of their arguments.

I don't understand why everyone is so willing to take Kopp's side when your own Air Chief clearly outlines the reason for buying the Rhinos...

http://www.isrjournal.com/story.php?F=2643727

Kopp is not a combat pilot and is quick to dismiss the testimony of RAAF and USN aviators alike. I think you should take that into account when deciding what you think will be best for your air force.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Of course not. first of all, LM have learned NOTHING about improving LO, IR management in the roughly 10 years of further work since they settled on the JSF design after they worked on F-22's initial design.

Second of all, both the JSF and SH (by 2008/9) will have their own "ESM cued" IRST systems. Wonder what the IR signature of a supercruising non-LO aircraft is going to be like?

I really dont think your understanding my argument. The sensor lead held by the F35/SH is already large. The point is that they (the SH anyway) will have to enter into the Flankers detection and track radius in order to employ there weapons systems. When that happens and the flanker is aware of the SH then it hold all the cards. Unless its radar is blown up by the APG 79 or is jammed by it (which is possible i grant you, but untill we know the spcifics of its capabilities, even in general terms it would be hart to argue that its desicive) the flanker can can use it large (huge in the supercrusing variants) kinetic advantage to full efect. Extra sensors on the SH will not change this fact.

Again, NOTHING I wrote on the whole front page of this thread started this discussion into questioning the SH's a2A capacity. YOU in fact were the FIRST person in this thread to write about it's air superiority capability in post # 19. Go back and have a look if you don't believe me. What I posted was a defence release confirming selection of the F/A-18F for Australia. I made NO comments about it's air superiority capability until well after it was already being discussed.

Thats fine mate. If you just wanna talk about its strike capabilities then i'll probably agree with you. However the media release you posted in the start of this thread does have the heading "Regional Air Dominance", and this would bring the platforms A2A capabilities to the debate wouldn't it? Whether you wrote it or not.

Rich, you can't let reality enter into this debate. The idea that China and India would WANT or NEED to fly all this way and attack us with their SU-XX's is ridiculous in the extreme.

Sure is. So is the threat of a naval task force sailing down to get us, so jorn, the bugs, the pigs and the colins should be shut down too eh? Its a realy short sighted view IMO. If you apply that logic to the whole ADF then we could save ourselvs at least $10bn pa becaus i dont think half the stuff we have would be used.

The ONLY reason it's brought up is as a "strategic" rationale for an F-22/F-111 based force structure and then ALSO assuming that India or China could base aircraft in Indonesia, East Timor or somewhere else close enough to launch cruise missile strikes on mainland Australia launched from tactical fighters WITHOUT the USA joining the fight and helping us out.

There you go bringing APA into it again. What does the F22/F11S idea have to do with the dicussion at hand i.e. the SH A2A capability when facing advanced flanker variants???

They then go on to assume EVERYTHING is equal (tankers, AEW&C, weapons capabilities, JORN capability, GBAD capability etc) and thus RAAF would operate totally defensive in CAP flying within small rings of Australian mainland.

No offensive strike on our enemies airbases, from RAAF, RAN or SOCOMD, no support from RAN or Army in defending point targets, and most definitely ANY outside assistance from any other nation at all.

Planing for best case again mate? What about PLA or IAF cruse missile strikes on our air bases? What about PLA special forces attacks on our assets. If you plan around the fact that you will have the advantage in AEW&C, tankers, training, allies and doctorine what happens when you dont in any or a few of these areas????? Planing around the fact that all things are equal will ensure victory when things are in your favor, and avert disaster when things are not. Seems like sensible thinking to me. We cant plan our force structure and platform choice around the assumption that we will allways be operating with the USAF/USN! What hapens if we're not?????

All of this is completely disregarded or ruled as irrelevant so they can concentrate on the one possible aspect they can point to as a problem. The aerodynamic performance of the SU series compared to all other fighters bar F-22.

Its not just its airodynamic and kinetic performance, but its effect on the tacitcal situation. It seems the "net centric junkies" out there seem to be the ones who banish airodynamic and kinetic performance into the rhems of irelivency, when IMO its only half the story. Thats why the F22 is such an amazing platform it is an exeptional performer in sensor, airdynamic, kinetic, LO, networking, internal fuel and cruse speed. Its got the whole story. For any other platform we need to weigh its advantages against those of potential adversaries.

Any other fighter suggestions bar F-22 are not good enough. Even Singapores AEAS equipped F-15SG was dismissed by Messir KOPP as I recall and that wasn't even in an Australian context.

The F15SG would be a match for most current flanker variants like the J11. But will this hold true against supercusing ibis equiped variants, or should these advances just be reguarded ar irrelevant because they are russian.

Then they wheel out someone like AM (Ret) Peter Criss who goes on the record and espouses many of the same ideas as APA. This is a bit more serious as Criss is a former Air Commander of Australia and a very experienced F-111 pilot.

Criss is also however a dissaffected person who it turns out WAS unfairly dismissed from ADF and has just been awarded a public apology by CDF and is likely to receive a fairly hefty payout.

Is Criss completely altruistic in this matter though, or merely taking cheap shots at the group that he'd likely still be serving with if he wasn't unfairly dismissed? I wonder exactly what he'd be saying publicly RIGHT NOW if he WERE Chief of Air Force, or even "just" Air Commander still.

I have a funny feeling he'd be saying IDENTICAL things to what AM Shepherd and HOUSTON are saying and APA wouldn't be quoting him as "proof"...

I ask again what this has to do with the discussion at hand? if you want we can open a "bag APA" thread. But if your just trying to undermine the opposing argument by attacking APA it doesent reflect too well on a member as well respected and senior as yourself. If not, and you really just have a problem with the way APA and Kopp have conducted themselves, could you not put it in a post that is a response to mine. Because contrary to what you might believe, i'm not a Kopp follower, however i'm not just going to direguard his arguments because they are unpopular.