Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Hey

I just read this in an article, and it seemed so blatantly wrong that after re-reading it 10 times or so, I decided to post it here to see if it had any validity

"The Super Hornets will replace the RAAF's ageing F-111 strike bombers, which were ordered in 1963 and will be retired this year.

But federal MP and former defence scientist Dennis Jensen said the Super Hornet was actually a backward step in Australia's capability, lacking the manoeuvrability of the F-111.

"You can be tens of kilometres apart," Dr Jensen said yesterday.

"(In an F-111) you still have the option to engage if the conditions are favourable or disengage if the conditions aren't favourable.""

Is this at all true? the F-111 more manueverable than the Super Hornet?

F-16.net Sponsor

The mans a grade A moron and considering he claims to be a defence scientist he really does deserve to be mocked all the way to the grave for it. I'm astounded!

But wait, thats not the best of it. This to me is the real highlight of this wacko's claims:
"(In an F-111) you still have the option to engage if the conditions are favourable or disengage if the conditions aren't favourable.""

Now, does this clown really think the F-111 is in any position to engage any modern fighter aircraft especially considering the F-111 would be eaten for breakfast by any cpabale fighter. Does this plonker seriously want Australian pilots to dogfight say Flanker series aircraft in an F-111..?

My mind is blown.

I didn't know if maybe he was saying that the F-111's sheer speed would enable it to engage at its own will, but aside from AIM-9, I didn't think the F-111 had any Air to Air capability. Thanks for confirming that I hadn't lost my mind.

Here's the real proof that he didn't confuse the two (speed and manueving abilty):

"He said the Super Hornet also failed to match comparable aircraft - such as the Russian-built Sukhoi Flanker - for speed, since it could not cruise at supersonic speed without using its afterburn."

He said it ALSO failed to match the speed, so he clearly is implying it is not only as fast (fair point) but also less manuevrable. I think the Flankers so callled super cruising is another yarn he's spinning too, certainly the latest Su-35 is said to supercruise at modest levels (M1.3 was reported I believe) but ordinary Su-27 Flankers supercruising? I have serious doubts especially with any sort of a warload...

The full article if anyone wants a peak:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... 5846189139

Personally I think the man is a typical politician, in other words an outright liar.
Anyway. I was just about to sumbit my post when all of a sudden his name rang a bell! I tend to steer well clear of APA but Jenson suddenly struck me as name i'd seen afiliated with APA, sure enough he writes for them...
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2007-01.html

So, chalk up another reason why APA is such an awful propaganda website.

Su-27 with 117 engines would go faster then Su-35BM on dry trust. But we need to see if anyone will make such deal for upgrade. So you are right. Su-27 isnt capable to achieve supersonic speed without AB in normal conditions (weather, pressure etc).

He might be overlooking the fact that the F18 is cleared for ASRAAM, and has demonstrated an over the shoulder shot using helmet mounted sights at a target directly behind it.

From my point of view, that capability makes the airframe a bit less significant Smile

The F111 was faster with a longer range and there's an argument that in some ways the 'Vark did more stuff than the F18 but the F111 was pretty long in the tooth and there aren't any swing role fighters about that match those capabilities. The F18 has a much more modern fit of equipment however.

I'm fairly sure that almost all of APA's comments are driven by sour grapes over some of the contributors losing work by the F111 upgrades being set aside in favour of newer aircraft - it cost them money and from that perspective, nothing will fix it.

Ian

HaveVoid wrote:

Hey

I just read this in an article, and it seemed so blatantly wrong that after re-reading it 10 times or so, I decided to post it here to see if it had any validity

"The Super Hornets will replace the RAAF's ageing F-111 strike bombers, which were ordered in 1963 and will be retired this year.

But federal MP and former defence scientist Dennis Jensen said the Super Hornet was actually a backward step in Australia's capability, lacking the manoeuvrability of the F-111.

"You can be tens of kilometres apart," Dr Jensen said yesterday.

"(In an F-111) you still have the option to engage if the conditions are favourable or disengage if the conditions aren't favourable.""

Is this at all true? the F-111 more manueverable than the Super Hornet?

stobiewan wrote:

I'm fairly sure that almost all of APA's comments are driven by sour grapes over some of the contributors losing work by the F111 upgrades being set aside in favour of newer aircraft - it cost them money and from that perspective, nothing will fix it.

Ian

Yep, I think you're 100% correct with that assesment. . It is good to see though that more and more people are finding out about the F-111 contract saga involving APA members and seeing the truth for what it is.

Active Member Joined: Jan 30, 2010 - 08:43 PM Posts: 151

"In-depth" APA's analysis were ignored completely by Australian Government. However APA also strongly favors Russkie jets. Any theories?

OMG this guy from Serbia is also here of course together with "wonderful" 117 engines. Yes, we know every Russkie fighter with this engines will crush all Western fighters w/o problems! Wink

ultor wrote:

"In-depth" APA's analysis were ignored completely by Australian Government. However APA also strongly favors Russkie jets. Any theories?

I've often thought that whilst bitterness is APA's main 'driver' there is probably some financial shenanigans going on with another aircraft company. Sukhoi springs to mind in this regard considering there products are alway always presented in the very very best light possible, infact whole articles are often presented pretty much as Sukhoi advertisments.
I'm not a citizen of Oz but if I was i'd be tempted to try and dig a bit futher into it... Wink

Active Member Joined: Jan 30, 2010 - 08:43 PM Posts: 151

It is true some APA articles about Flankers and Russkie SAMs are biased. One guy called Ozzy Blizzard (I do not know if this is his real name) gave fantastic repulse to many APA's theories on his blog.

Ozzy Blizzard's Blog on APA's Flanker Article:

http://ozzyblizzard.blogspot.com/2008/1 ... lysis.html

Active Member Joined: Jan 30, 2010 - 08:43 PM Posts: 151

Correct! Great reading but also quite sad for Russkie fanboys. Smile

Did Australia been in war with any of its neighbors in last fifty years? No. Is there anything valuable in Australia. I dont think so. So why all that fuse about neighbor's Su-30?

milosh wrote:

Is there anything valuable in Australia. I dont think so.

You might want to look that up, it'd change your perception of Australia... Wink

Active Member Joined: Jan 30, 2010 - 08:43 PM Posts: 151

Almost all pro-Western Pacific Air Forces exercise together against Russian built fighters. For instance fighters from Australia, Singapore etc. fled to Malaysia and trained mock-up air-battles with Malaysian MiG-29Ns there.

PS. Australia took part in Vietnam War.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

F/A-18F Maneuverability claims