Has Australia been out-Flanked?

[srev2004]

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Flankers-Aug03.pdf

This is what Australia has to say about our flankers. It is equivalent to the F-15 E/I/K/S. Thanks for your time. I'd appreciate it if you guys read it before trying to debunk anything.

"
At the induction ceremony, the IAF could barely hide its excitement as was evident from an official statement released on the occasion: "...the Su-30MKI offers a comprehensive package that combines super manoeuverability with lethal firepower, making it an excellent instrument of deterrence as well as power projection at long ranges. Its state-of-the-art avionics suite, modern cockpit and integrated fire control system would ensure decisive response to any air opposition in the foreseeable future. In view of its ability to undertake a wide variety of missions, undeterred by any opposition, the aircraft can be aptly termed as an Air Dominance Fighter. This is the order-of-combat-aircraft that other combat aircraft in the world are measured against. Indeed, barring the F/A-22 for the USAF, there is not a fighter in the world that is in sum, better than the Su-30MKI today. The IAF is proud and grateful to the nation and the Ministry of Defence for having filled a void in its inventory so magnificently"."


We are the only country in the world to have an ocean named after us. The Indian ocean, and there is a reason no one contests that name.

 

[Magoo]

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Flankers-Aug03.pdf

This is what Australia has to say about our flankers. It is equivalent to the F-15 E/I/K/S. Thanks for your time. I'd appreciate it if you guys read it before trying to debunk anything.

No, this is what Carlo Kopp has to say about what India says about its Flankers, NOT what Australia says. Dr Kopp runs his own 'thinktank' under the 'ausairpower' banner, but many of Dr Kopp's theories and thoughts have been debunked by the ADF and by many other observers and analysts, many of whom are regular contributors here.

The RAAF's and the government's position is that the Flankers entering service in the region are neither politically nor capability-wise considered as threats due to their limited numbers, lack of precision guided weapons, lack of networking, lack of training, and lack of political conflict.

Magoo

 

[Big-E]

The RAAF's and the government's position is that the Flankers entering service in the region are neither politically nor capability-wise considered as threats due to their limited numbers, lack of precision guided weapons, lack of networking, lack of training, and lack of political conflict.

Magoo

Don't you just hate propoganda? :rel

 

[gf0012-aust]

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Flankers-Aug03.pdf

This is what Australia has to say about our flankers. It is equivalent to the F-15 E/I/K/S. Thanks for your time. I'd appreciate it if you guys read it before trying to debunk anything.

You obviously know very little about how much credibility Carlo Kopp has in military circles. He is australias version of Riccioni, Meyers and Sparks.

He also thinks that Australia is about to be attacked by India and China (ever heard of logistics bub?)

Mr Kopp (who is a very good mobile phone engineer) was comprehensively smacked about in the recent Joint Senate Committee hearings when he was trying to promote his "Super F-111" (again) as a solution to the (again) non existent Su-27/30 threat.

Its also worthwhile pointing out that Kopp does not have any of the requisite security clearances that would allow him to support his often bizaare and factually denuded claims

But, he is a very good communications engineer, and he does excellent graphics.

Carlo obviously dislikes indians and chinese, and that truncated view of the strategic environment colours his analysis of threats to the extent where he convinces the amateurs, but confirms for the "real ones" - that he's short on facts and original ideas as well as structured and considered debate.

When you wish to quote foreign sources, it sometimes pays to understand the credibility level of those you quote. refer to Sparks and Meyers for examples.

 

[Occum]

Drinking One's Own Bathwater

Don't you just hate propoganda? :rel

***************************
Quote:

Originally Posted by Magoo

The RAAF's and the government's position is that the Flankers entering service in the region are neither politically nor capability-wise considered as threats due to their limited numbers, lack of precision guided weapons, lack of networking, lack of training, and lack of political conflict.

Magoo

***************************

Sadly, it seems some folks down here truly believe this. Of equal concern is the apparent difficulty to project out to 2015 and beyond in terms of likely capability rankings in the region.

As to the point on 'debunking', am working <slowly> through the evidence from 2004 inquiry, related documents from Defence, and the latest inquiry into air superiority.

As reported, the 2004 inquiry unanimously recommended there needed to be the one that is now happening. Then Defence Minister, Senator Hill, rejected the Committee's recommendation. The Senate then referred their previously recommended inquiry back to the Joint Standing Committee, overruling Senator Hill. Have yet to find anything substantive which debunks the contrary view being put to that of Defence.

The Defence papers, 'RAAF Air Combat Capability' (June 2004) and 'Is the JSF Good Enough' are the only Defence documents found (other than the transcripts of hearings). The data in these would seem to support the contrary arguments -

For example -

• Half the strike capability post 2010 (refer Figure 3 in RAAF Air Combat Capability paper).
• Total operating expense of F-111 out to 2020 is stated as A$2.5bn to A$3.5bn, including upgrades such as EWSP/RWR and JASSM while F/A-18 HUG+ upgrade is costing about this much, according to the Defence Capability Plan, to get the aircraft out to 2015, not including operating and maintenance expenses.
• CAF states in the Strategic Insight that 'The F/A-22 will be the most outstanding fighter aircraft ever built. It may even represent the end of the line in manned fighters. Every fighter pilot in the Air Force would dearly love to fly it.'

Can someone point to where this 'debunking' may be found?

By the way, what is the total annual cost (ie. total operating expenses) for operating and maintaining the F/A-18s?

 

[Supe]

Carlo obviously dislikes indians and chinese

Could you be more specific? That comment is open to interpretation and implies a sort of racist view from Kopp.

 

[Aussie Digger]

***************************
Quote:

***************************

Sadly, it seems some folks down here truly believe this. Of equal concern is the apparent difficulty to project out to 2015 and beyond in terms of likely capability rankings in the region.

As to the point on 'debunking', am working <slowly> through the evidence from 2004 inquiry, related documents from Defence, and the latest inquiry into air superiority.

As reported, the 2004 inquiry unanimously recommended there needed to be the one that is now happening. Then Defence Minister, Senator Hill, rejected the Committee's recommendation. The Senate then referred their previously recommended inquiry back to the Joint Standing Committee, overruling Senator Hill. Have yet to find anything substantive which debunks the contrary view being put to that of Defence.

The Defence papers, 'RAAF Air Combat Capability' (June 2004) and 'Is the JSF Good Enough' are the only Defence documents found (other than the transcripts of hearings). The data in these would seem to support the contrary arguments -

For example -

• Half the strike capability post 2010 (refer Figure 3 in RAAF Air Combat Capability paper).
• Total operating expense of F-111 out to 2020 is stated as A$2.5bn to A$3.5bn, including upgrades such as EWSP/RWR and JASSM while F/A-18 HUG+ upgrade is costing about this much, according to the Defence Capability Plan, to get the aircraft out to 2015, not including operating and maintenance expenses.
• CAF states in the Strategic Insight that 'The F/A-22 will be the most outstanding fighter aircraft ever built. It may even represent the end of the line in manned fighters. Every fighter pilot in the Air Force would dearly love to fly it.'

Can someone point to where this 'debunking' may be found?

By the way, what is the total annual cost (ie. total operating expenses) for operating and maintaining the F/A-18s?

Sure thing, it's right here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs.htm

and here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/hearings.htm

Annual cost for operating RAAF F/A-18's is about $4-5m per aircraft per year, IIRC, which I may not. They can be found in defence annual reports at the defence force website, however require a bit of wading through and I can't be bothered at present...

As to the retiring of the F-111's an interesting point was brought up recently, by Defmin Nelson I believe, which I never bothered considering before is the issue of actually introducing a new capability.

If you continue to operate a capability, when your are attempting to convert over to the new capability, where are you supposed to find the facilities and persons who are supposed to operate your new capability???

From interviews with DefMin NELSON, it seems that 1 Sqn (current operational F-111 Sqn) will be the first operational unit to acquire the F-35. The personnel from this unit, once the F-111 is retired will be concentrating on getting prepared for the F-35 capability. I'd imagine that they will at times deploy to the USA for training, etc because the first RAAF F-35's will trained upon in the USA, as they apparently won't be allowed "outside" the USA. If large portions of the Sqn are in the USA, training for F-35, they won't be operating F-111's anyway, even if they were available...

 

[contedicavour]

F-111 and the low-altitude fighterbombers

In an age where stand-off cruise missiles are all the rage, it is easy to forget that some missions still require a jet to get real close to a target, through heavy AAW defenses, in all weather conditions and potentially at night.
For those missions there were wonderful fighterbombers such as the A6 Intruder (may it rest in peace ), the F-111 (only Australia still has it operational) and of course the Tornado IDS.
Once an air force replaces these jets with less "specific" fighters such as F-15E, advanced versions of the F-16 or of the F-18, or even with tomorrow's JSF, I wonder if we are not losing a whole set of capabilities ...

cheers

 

[Big-E]

or even with tomorrow's JSF, I wonder if we are not losing a whole set of capabilities ...

cheers

The only capability they lose is the one where they get shot down.

 

[pshamim]

Basis of this thread is purely hypothetical.
Australia has a very powerful force even with the assetts it currently posseses. There have been talk of alleged threats by Indonesia. But Indonesia neither has a Naval Force nor an Air Force capable enough to mount a threat against Australia.

Australian Government has ascertained that there are no credible threats to Australia for the next 15 years. There are surely security threats after the 9/11 but F-15s/F-111 etc are not expected to be a part to combat it. Internal security threats yes but externel military threats no.

It looks more and more that this thread eas started to talk about Flankers abd not threats to Australia. Many who may have Flankers found this thread to boast about Flankers and please themselves.

All this talk about Flankers being a threat to Australia has not been anything but to be boastful.

Australia does not plan to invade any country but all its assetts are more than capable to defend its territory and vipe out its adversary-no matter who they are.

Web: This thread needs to be closed.

 

[SABRE]

In an age where stand-off cruise missiles are all the rage, it is easy to forget that some missions still require a jet to get real close to a target, through heavy AAW defenses, in all weather conditions and potentially at night.
For those missions there were wonderful fighterbombers such as the A6 Intruder (may it rest in peace ), the F-111 (only Australia still has it operational) and of course the Tornado IDS.
Once an air force replaces these jets with less "specific" fighters such as F-15E, advanced versions of the F-16 or of the F-18, or even with tomorrow's JSF, I wonder if we are not losing a whole set of capabilities ...

cheers

The age of free fall bombing is at the edge of the end line. Its verually over. It is being replaced by Precision guided and other smart missiles and bombs. Many times free fall bombing uses more bombs than required and destroys more than what is targeted. So the only capability being lost is the one considered as a 'draw back of bombing.' The Australian Pig (F-111) has got to go sooner or later. JSF will be a proper replacement. Its ground attack capability is quite good, specially for carrying guided/smart weapons.