Long but illuminating. I thought there where a few other interesting points aside from Air Marshall Shepard's analysis of F-22/F-35 issue.

"The F111 must be escorted by the Hornet now, so we are already in a situation where we have to push things like the tanker forward, and that is the old venerable 707. ......... If we have a fully networked system of systems, we will have knowledge dominance in the air battle space. We will know things about other people before they know things about us. .........The AWACS will be able to see things approach it before they can get to it. So it is not as simple as someone sending off a long-range missile that will sneak in through our defenses. There will be an overarching network of knowledge that will allow us to know all. Then, of course, our aim would be to see first, shoot first, kill first."


Up with the excessive bold type I see. As if that will help your point of view. The idea that F-111 would need escort is a known. Escorting it with any Hornet tech in the future isn't up for the growing threats in the next 20 years.If keeping F-111 around was to be done, F-18 wouldn't be part of the solution. That would fall to something better. Also an overly optimistic view of wide area networked systems. Our AWACs doesn't even give us a total picture... by far. In the case of the twin MiG-29 downing by F-15s in the ex-Yugo. AWACs performance was taken to task by the shooters. F-22 which I know people are loath to hear about, brings back a lot of battlespace holes AWACS can't see.

Not once in the article did he say anything about top speed, acceleration, rate of climb. Changing technology, changing tactics, changing parameters for a successful fighter.


Wow, That is a big win I suppose for the Simple Simon concepts you have been so keen to put forward so far. Performance isn't mentioned because Super Hornet won't have enough of it to take on big threats.

Lastly, the part I think is most illuminating about the RAAFs philosophy on A2A.

"I hope that my fighter pilots of the future never get to see an enemy aeroplane unless it is in the data-linked image that is sent back from the long-range missile as it is about to hit one and blow it up. I hope they never get to see one with the naked eye, in the flesh."

That's a nice bed time story to end with. Almost brings a tear to the eye. However it is completely useless to the problem of poor decision making ability by Defence today. Next.

A nice summary of the situation.

It clearly shows that Defence is not unaware of "regional issues" and has clearly thought how best to address them, within existing budgets and with Government strategic direction.

The armchair air power "enthusiasts" of this world truly have a nerve implying RAAF doesn't have a clue...

Up with the excessive bold type I see. As if that will help your point of view. The idea that F-111 would need escort is a known. Escorting it with any Hornet tech in the future isn't up for the growing threats in the next 20 years.If keeping F-111 around was to be done, F-18 wouldn't be part of the solution. That would fall to something better. Also an overly optimistic view of wide area networked systems. Our AWACs doesn't even give us a total picture... by far. In the case of the twin MiG-29 downing by F-15s in the ex-Yugo. AWACs performance was taken to task by the shooters. F-22 which I know people are loath to hear about, brings back a lot of battlespace holes AWACS can't see.

Not once in the article did he say anything about top speed, acceleration, rate of climb. Changing technology, changing tactics, changing parameters for a successful fighter.

Wow, That is a big win I suppose for the Simple Simon concepts you have been so keen to put forward so far. Performance isn't mentioned because Super Hornet won't have enough of it to take on big threats.

That's a nice bed time story to end with. Almost brings a tear to the eye. However it is completely useless to the problem of poor decision making ability by Defence today. Next.

Defence doesn't have a clue. But funny how you give a medical doctor and a fawning AM Sheperd a free pass over how the Super Hornet decision came about.

-Nelson's crew just on the narrow issues of airpower speaks volumes-

-Stating F-111 was going to be at risk of failure if it was not taken out of service soon, crafting a non-existing emergency, where there already was a plan in place to keep F-111 going. When studies support that F-111 can be taken to 2020. Defence cheerleaders of course in order to defend Defence statements like that bring up the F-111 has to be escorted canard. F-111 would eventually have to go away. However doing that now is a waste of taxpayer value and existing killing power.
-The rest of the Super Hornet decision-
--Sheperd stating ( Nelsons story ) that No gap fighter was needed.
--Nelson going ahead with it anyway
--Sheperd going sycophant and stating that they never thought they would get a DM that could get something like this anyway. Which makes absolutely no sense or any value to the Australian citizen which is depending on someone that is supposed to be the lead professional with the experience to advise no knowledge DMs down the right path. Obviously Sheperd is the wrong man for the job. Which if Nelsons story in his own words are true, isn't any sane way to plug in very expensive hardware costing billions.
--Then of course creating a plan afterward of justification why Super was to be procured.
--Nelsons riddled unfact on his own page stating why Strike Eagle was down selected. An amusing read. Downcheck Strike Eagle for any number of reasons. However those wouldn't be the ones.
--More created stories to support the Super Hornet decision on how F-111 was at risk for any number of reasons.
--Stating Super Hornet has Stealth.

Oh yeah and the HUG statements in the paper recently were laughable. Thats the shortlist. And that is just AIR issues.

But no, Defence isn't wrong on this matter.

Nope you're absolutely right. But Australia won't only BE protected by Wedgetail will it? Wedgetail, JORN, TPS-77, civilian air traffic control radar (each of which is "dual" RAAF/Civilian agencies manned now), AWD - AEGIS, space based surveillance systems (which Australia has but doesn't discuss publicly) and tactical ground and fighter radar systems will ALL provide a very comprehensive air and maritime surveillance capability, which WILL be superior to anything else in our region. Tied together through Vigilaire, it will be one of the most comprehensive systems of it's type.

Which with the current Defence/Industry relationship, will never happen without insane amounts of cost. Defence leadership won't be doing the heavy lifting. Nor will entrenched jobsworths in other sections of Defence. You are very caviler about not placing any value on home defence industry, yet the total lashup of what you describe above, won't happen without a good working relationship between Defence and Industry. The other part of that is the pointy end of the spear that will be the "gap filler", Super Hornet. Also I am not locked into one home Defence scenario as some seem to be. Even if that one happens Super Hornet is so slow off of the alert pad as to be laughable. Better not craft any expeditionary warfare scenarios into threat areas 10+ years from now where Super is the only jet. It will need help.

Look at what RAAF are saying. They are NOT saying that their current plans will provide THE greatest capability. They are saying that their plans WILL meet the Governments requirements and level of funding. A change in priorities or available funding, up or down will change these plans.

Great lawyer speak. Yet they are willing to put $15-16 billion down on the roulette wheel for F-35, spend another $6.6 billion on Super and put 9 more years on HUG jets with dubious unknown results. Where you are going to be looking at a big hole in your plan if we goof up F-35 production more. Funny how if the idea was to do the most low risk thing. Get the best proven combat jets in service and get good value for the money. Defence, like programs before it, will go with an unproven jet of unknown quantity that is years from being produced, craft a plan around that to make it the most expensive Aus AIR plan ever, and then gap fill with the most sluggish of the 4th gens... "to maintain regional air superiority". Add to that investing in HUG, throwing out F-111 etc. Think of the most low risk option here and Defence does the opposite. "What ails Defence" indeed.



And by stating this would it prove to you he knows what he's talking about? OF course not. You'd still argue he's wrong.

On that he is.

WHY on earth would AVM Harvey or Shepherd or Houston stand up and read manufacturers specs to try and "win" this debate? THEY know the performance of their fighters and they know the performance of their likely
adversaries better than any of US>

If that is the argument, If I was ONLY to look at the Super Hornet decision alone, I would have to question whether they need to be doing that job anymore. I have seen both pretty and unpretty change of command issues.



Guess who takes parts in these debates? Simple Simons with NO first hand knowledge of air combat.

Dr Nelson; I agree.

In any case he HAS discussed SH's performance publicly. Not in the terms of the facts and figure you want, but in terms of the aircraft that HE HAS FLOWN. FYI AVM HARVEY has flown both types.

And Sheperd initially advised Nelson not to do it.

Can Dr Kopp even equal that?

I don't know. Why don't you talk to him?



A problem that doesn't exist on the scale that YOU think it does.

The problem exists on the scale I think it does and what is even more scary.... Most man on the street Australians unfortunately don't know how serious all of this is. Way-to-go drive-by media which is more interested in doing editorials on how much the PM spent to furnish his house .

IF it did. RAAF's operational performance would reflect this.

RAAF operational performance is damn good. The people they are working for up in the top office though need serious evaluation on whether they are even fit to command, given all of the current procurement goof ups.

.