Australian Defence Forces

[hakz2007]

Boeing, RAAF Welcome Super Hornets To Australia

KUALA LUMPUR, March 29 (PNA/Bernama) -- The first five Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornets for Australia landed at Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Base Amberley Friday, bringing the next generation in air combat capability to the multirole fighter's first international customer.

The Super Hornets, piloted by RAAF aircrews, departed U.S. Naval Air Station Lemoore, California, on March 18 and made scheduled stops in Hawaii, Pago Pago and New Zealand on the way to Amberley.

The Australian Minister for Defense, Senator John Faulkner, welcomed the RAAF Super Hornets to Australia at a ceremony on the base. Dennis Muilenburg, president and CEO of Boeing Defense, Space & Security, joined Senator Faulkner at the event.

"The men and women of Boeing are honored to provide the next generation in air combat capability to the Royal Australian Air Force and proud to deliver it on time and on budget for all Australians," said Muilenburg.

"The arrival of these Super Hornets marks a new chapter in a partnership between Boeing and Australia that has endured for more than 80 years.

The exceptional collaboration and teamwork between Australia's Defense Materiel Organization, the Royal Australian Air Force, the U.S. Navy and the Hornet Industry Team was the foundation that ensured these new Super Hornets are now ready to begin their RAAF service."

Australia announced its intent to acquire 24 Super Hornets in March 2007. The remaining 19 aircraft, each equipped with the Raytheon-built APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, will arrive in Australia throughout 2010 and 2011.

"The on-schedule arrival of the new Australian Super Hornets marks the beginning of a new generation of air power for the RAAF," said Group Captain Steven Roberton, Officer Commanding the Super Hornet Wing.

"The multirole Super Hornet is an advanced, networked weapons system that provides a major leap in capability for the RAAF.

"We are looking forward to the new operational capability," Roberton continued.

"The Super Hornet employs advanced networked sensors that provide its two aircrew with total situational awareness, enabling them to conduct simultaneous air-to-air and air-to-ground operations."

The Boeing Super Hornet is a multirole aircraft, able to perform virtually every mission in the tactical spectrum, including air superiority, day/night strike with precision-guided weapons, fighter escort, close air support, suppression of enemy air defenses, maritime strike, reconnaissance, forward air control and tanker missions.

Boeing has delivered more than 420 F/A-18E/Fs to the U.S. Navy.

Every Super Hornet produced has been delivered on or ahead of schedule and on budget.

A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is one of the world's largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world's largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a $ 34 billion business with 68,000 employees worldwide. (PNA/BERNAMA)

http://www.pna.gov.ph/index.php?idn=...d=4&rid=266907

[GOR@N]

the yanks use it for their navy, yet for us they're bread and butter of our aerial capability .. meh.

[LanceDriver]

^ They're still damn good planes!

[TOCC]

Originally Posted by GOR@N

the yanks use it for their navy, yet for us they're bread and butter of our aerial capability .. meh.

the carrier air wing are arguably more relevant then the US air force when talking about Australian requirements.

In recent times the US Air Force have focussed more so on recon, transport, UAV and ground attack where as the navy's carrier air wing is focussed primarily on air superiority.

Hence the actions of the navy are more pertinent to australian requirements then the us air force.

[BrizzyChris]

Still, it would be nice to have a few F-22's in the sheds.

These F/A 18's are very good though.

[hangman]

The US air force has over 2000 fighter aircraft, they can afford to have separate, specialist platforms to fill their requirements. For multirole fighters the USN is a better role model.

[Dimethyltryptamine]

Originally Posted by BrizzyChris

Still, it would be nice to have a few F-22's in the sheds.

These F/A 18's are very good though.

It would be nice, and IIRC the US were considering selling some to Australia and Japan, except that fell through when congress had the export banned indefinitely .


They're definitely not bad, and are only filling a gap. The old F-111's, as good as they were for our situation were just too old

[Aussie Bhoy]

Originally Posted by GOR@N

the yanks use it for their navy, yet for us they're bread and butter of our aerial capability .. meh.

That actually shows that it is exactly what we need, a mix of a capable fighter and strike capacity, perfect for us.

Used to be that the USN had F-14's for dedicated fighters, and A-6's as dedicated bombers, now the F/A-18 Rhino fills both rolls, perfect fit for us too. Especially as will now have proper tankers, and finally AWACs. PLus C-17's, and the Navy getting decent destroyers, and LHD's that with a few more dollars spent on JSF's are capable of being carriers. Amazing how the miltary actually gets capability rather than dreams, plans and no action when you have a few years of coalition government.

PS - Shouldn't the title be Defence with a C

[Dimethyltryptamine]

Americans say "Defense", Brits say "Defence". No biggie.

[Aussie Bhoy]

Australia says Defence too

http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/

[Dimethyltryptamine]

Yeah, which has to do with the fact that for the most part we're descendants of the British, and are still ruled by them. Though the OP is from the Philippines, which is probably why they spelt it defense.

[Aussie Bhoy]

I love a good drunken sailors scandal in the media. In my time if they sent every ship home after an incident like this we would barely ever have got out of Sydney. Friends still in tell me that the Navy has got almost unbearably soft and PC.

Guys were always getting up to all sorts of hi-jinks in boats, cars, especially hired motor scooters and once an attempt to take a civilian helicopter for a joyflight in Vanuatu.

Fancy sending the entire ship off deployment though, ridiculous. Punish the guys responsible and get on with it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...section=justin

[hornetfig]

Originally Posted by GOR@N

the yanks use it for their navy, yet for us they're bread and butter of our aerial capability .. meh.

It's a multirole fighter. Carrier gear is neither here nor there.

Originally Posted by TOCC

the carrier air wing are arguably more relevant then the US air force when talking about Australian requirements.

How so? The chances of Australia operating a CATOBAR carrier in the lifecycle of an F/A-18F is approximately 0.

Hence the actions of the navy are more pertinent to australian requirements then the us air force.

Both the F-14 that the F/A-18E replaced and te F-15 are arguably better air superiority fighters than the F/A-18E. But for Australia they're an F-111 replacement, which is a small bomber (hence its originally intended designation FB-111).

Originally Posted by Aussie Bhoy

That actually shows that it is exactly what we need, a mix of a capable fighter and strike capacity, perfect for us.

But it's not a direct F-111 replacement. Less range, less carrying capacity etc. Real replacement for the F-111 would have been the A-12, but the USN considered it unecessary and too hard (as it did to a navalised F-111 20 years earlier).

Used to be that the USN had F-14's for dedicated fighters, and A-6's as dedicated bombers, now the F/A-18 Rhino fills both rolls, perfect fit for us too.

In Hi-Lo, an F/A-18E is still high and the F/A-18C (later F-35C) is low. But for what's just an F/A-18 expanded to the size and capability of an F-15E (albeit a process which required the whole thing be redesigned and cost as much as a new 4G airframe), it understandably causes some consternation amongst some in US.

For Australia, bottom line is the F/A-18F is different to the F-111. Oh, and despite current Defence indications, it should be kept beyond the delivery of the F-35As.

[gho]

I don't understand why the government spends so many billions of dollars on our 'defence' forces. This money could be better spent on education or health or just given to the community through tax cuts. There are no countries that Australia would have to invade (or be invaded by) in the foreseeable future that will require these types of fighters.

One of our pacific island friends may have a break down, but these planes aren't going to help us assist.

[cowface]

Health spending is there to make sure we're still here in a years time.

Education spending is there to make sure we're still here in 10 years time.

Defence spending is there to make sure we're still here in 100 years time.




And environmental spending is there to make sure we're still here in 1,000 years time.

[Dimethyltryptamine]

Originally Posted by gho

I don't understand why the government spends so many billions of dollars on our 'defence' forces. This money could be better spent on education or health or just given to the community through tax cuts. There are no countries that Australia would have to invade (or be invaded by) in the foreseeable future that will require these types of fighters.

One of our pacific island friends may have a break down, but these planes aren't going to help us assist.

We have one of the worlds largest populations JUST above us (Indonesia), who are said to be "bursting at the seams". If we looked weak and absolutely defenceless the US wouldn't have us on their side, Britain wouldn't have us on their side, and Indonesia or China would eat us for breakfast.

[TOCC]

Originally Posted by hornetfig

How so? The chances of Australia operating a CATOBAR carrier in the lifecycle of an F/A-18F is approximately 0.

i wasnt talking about acquiring a carrier, you missed the point

Both the F-14 that the F/A-18E replaced and te F-15 are arguably better air superiority fighters than the F/A-18E. But for Australia they're an F-111 replacement, which is a small bomber (hence its originally intended designation FB-111).

you are correct in the term 'arguably', everyone has a difference of opinion

[hangman]

Originally Posted by gho

I don't understand why the government spends so many billions of dollars on our 'defence' forces. This money could be better spent on education or health or just given to the community through tax cuts. There are no countries that Australia would have to invade (or be invaded by) in the foreseeable future that will require these types of fighters.

And you, being an expert in geopolitics and defence, are qualified to make that decision?

Remember a military is used for more than simply the launching of and defence against invasions - its used to enforce the political will of the government. Think back to 1999, would we have stuck our noses into east timor if we couldnt have overpowered Indonesia? No, we would have sat back and watched like we did in '75.

And what was it that frightened the Indonesians into line - other than the battery of cruise missiles the US navy had pointing at them - throughout the crisis? It was the combination of our submarine and fighter fleets. They couldnt find one and they couldnt have stopped the other. So stop thinking in two dimensions when it comes to defence, sometimes the 'high' end of the high-low mix is just as necessary as the low.

One of our pacific island friends may have a break down, but these planes aren't going to help us assist.

Who are we, the NRMA?

[LanceDriver]

^ nice one! i love it when the fools come out talking about wasted money on defence. they are closely aligned to the "we're full" groups that don't want any more immigration. they don't account for the fact that we have a whole continent of resources only being guarded by 22 million people!

their argument "why would anyone invade us, that's not noice?" history shows us that human nature is not inherently good when it comes to people wanting to take other peoples shit from them, especially when they are desparate.

[Macca-GC]

Originally Posted by Aussie Bhoy

Amazing how the miltary actually gets capability rather than dreams, plans and no action when you have a few years of coalition government.

Oh come on now. Labor isn't all bad when it comes to defence spending. Last time they were in, we got the submarines. lolz.