Posted on 06/06/2002 3:23:27 AM PDT by spetznaz
Lots of Americans were convinced of the same thing, back in the early 1950's -- until Sputnik came along. I remember an old cartoon (might have been a "ViP"/Virgil Partch cartoon) in one of the men's magazines my dad read back then (he took Esquire, Argosy, and True, I think). Two USAF types are cruising along in a Piper Cub, and one is explaining to the other, "Well, the Russians will never catch up to us, we're just too far ahead -- hey, what's that?!", as the Sputnik flies overhead.
For that matter, why are countries like Thailand and Spain running out and building Illustrious-type small CV's? Is absolutely everyone trying to get into the power-projection game?
I doubt Australia would go for the Mig-29 anyway, but the Su-27 (a variant of it like the Su-30) as a replacement for the F-111 is possible, based on range and payload alone, with the only other options being the F-14 (not in production). The F/A-18E can't carry anywhere near the payload of the F-111 and it can't fly as far eaither. So essentially, Australia finds itself in a similar boat as America does with its F-14 problem (they do the job well, but are ageing and need to be replaced with no "western" option available in the immediate future).In-fact, i'd say it's worse than America's problem as the aircraft are older, and have a greater payload and range than any other fighter/bomber available. Finding an equivelant fighter/bomber will be difficult.
IMHO, whether the Su-27 or variant is purchased by Australia will be based on regional military strengths.
Anyway, heres a recent story:
Australia struggles to find bomber jet replacement
Monday May 27, 12:14 PM EDT
By Bradley Perrett, European aerospace & defence correspondent
LONDON, May 27 (Reuters) - Australia is struggling with an unusual defence problem in its current $10 billion combat aircraft programme: it would like to buy a better strike plane than any of the world's aerospace companies build.
Wishing that someone still made planes with the long range of its 30-year-old F-111 strike bombers, the Royal Australian Air Force finds itself instead kicking the tyres of new and very advanced fighters that are, basically, too small.
"This is our dilemma," Australian Group Captain Richard Owen told a conference on Monday. "We don't believe we can find an aeroplane out there at the moment that can provide the capabilities inherent in our F-111s."
The country might have to turn to long-range missiles or drones to replace the U.S.-built planes, Owen, the chief of staff for the air force's air combat group, said.
Minor powers like Australia normally find companies trying to sell them bigger and better planes than they can afford.
Australia's problem is so serious that the country intends to keep flying the 35 F-111s until 2015 or even 2020, replacing its 71 newer F/A-18A and B Hornet fighters first.
The country is having no trouble finding potential replacements for the F/A-18s, which were built in the 1980s by McDonnell Douglas Corp, now part of Boeing Co (BA).
Refusing to name favourites, Owen listed candidates as: the Boeing F-15 Eagle and F/A-18E Super Hornet; Lockheed Martin Corp's (LMT) F-22 Raptor, F-16C and D Block 60 Fighting Falcon and the yet to be built F-35; the Eurofighter GmbH (EAD) (EAD) (SIFI) (BA) Typhoon; the Dassault Aviation SA (AVMD) Rafale; the Saab-BAE (SAABb) (BA) Gripen; and Russia's Sukhoi Su-27.
LONG RANGE
But all of those planes are much smaller than the F-111s, whose main role is to strike deep into the territory of an enemy, destroying strategic targets such as bases, communications hubs and air fields.
The only western combat aircraft with greater reach are U.S. heavy bombers, such as the Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC) B-2 Spirit, which are unaffordable and out of production.
A single project, called Air 6000 and valued at around $10 billion, is supposed to replace both the F/A-18s and the F-111s but, considering the lack of long-range aircraft, probably not with just a new fighter type.
"It appears highly likely that manned aircraft will feature to some degree," Owen said. "There will be a manned component but it will not be the only component," he told the meeting, held by conference organisers IQPC.
Long-range missiles and pilotless drone aircraft were also candidates, he said.
Raytheon Co's (RTN) Tomahawk cruise missiles offer long range but, since the entire machine is destroyed in each attack, is considered an expensive way of delivering explosive. And it has been exported to only one other country: Britain.
Drones are widely seen as the future for combat aircraft, but experts say they are far from performing like piloted planes. They might be able to do basic attack missions now but are very vulnerable to defences, engineers say.
IMMEDIATE OPPORTUNITY
Military aircraft makers' immediate opportunity in Australia is to replace the F/A-18s.
Owen said a decision on that phase of Air 6000 would be taken in 2006, with the aircraft to enter service in 2012.
Although he refused to narrow down the list of candidates, he hinted that smaller fighters would be unsatisfactory, because they would not have enough range for the continent.
"Australia's situation and geography means that range is a very important discriminator for us," he said.
Some defence executives have suggested that Australia will have to replace the F-111s much sooner than it plans, because the big old planes are getting very expensive to maintain.
But the group captain said the maintenance costs were rising only within normal bounds.
"They are going up at about three to four percent (a year)," he said. "We are not experiencing a strain because of maintenance costs."
For starters.
As for Malaysia, i don't know why they would need a navalized Mig-29. I didn't even know they had an aircraft carrier (i guess they would need one for the planes?). They were in dier need of upgrading their equipment so the purchase of Mig-29's and F/A-18's doens't surprise me.
This may have something to do with the naval Mig's (from the CIA factbook):
involved in a complex dispute over the Spratly Islands with China, Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, and possibly Brunei; Philippines have not fully revoked claim to Sabah State; Pulau Batu Putih (Pedra Branca Island) disputed with Singapore; Sipadan and Ligitan Islands in dispute with Indonesia
As I understand it from some well placed sources, Grumman REALLY pissed the Navy Brass off some years ago. Seems, when asked (before the tooling was destroyed) what it would cost to re-start the F-14 production line, Grumman shot the Navy an outrageously inflated price, figuring they were the only game in town.
So, the "new, improved" F-18 E/F was selected to replace the A-6 and the F-14. The cost-benefit figures were juggled (i.e., the development costs were not "accurate" and in any event, were not added into the procurement costs) to show that the F-18 E/F program would be less expensive than a new F-14D production run, and the F-14 was killed.
BTW, initially, there was supposed to be a 70% parts commonality between the F-18 A/B/C/D models and the F-18 E/F. There is a 30% parts commonality.
When Grumman realized their mistake, they groveled to the Navy Brass and the SedDef, but, despite substantially reducing the "new" F-14s price, it was too late -- the damage was done.
Recall also that Grumman had an extensive Service Life Extension Program on-going with the A-6, which was also cancelled at roughly the same time.
Not only was Grumman a victim of its own stupidity, the Navy suffered, and our national defense posture will suffer for years.
Not to mention the poor American taxpayers, who always wind up picking up the tab for dumbass mistakes made by people who should really know better!
We (and the Navy) really do deserve a better airplane, and the F-14D is that airplane. Failing that, a Russian/American manufactured SU-27 would certainly be a good compromise, IMHO.
There is one other interesting tidbit I can throw out: When the F-14 was in its early stage of development, it was to be an "air-to-air" and an "air-to-mud" airplane. As the costs mounted, the Congress directed the Navy to eliminate the F-14's bomb delivery capability.
Ironically, had the F-14, as originally conceived, been developed as a true Fighter-Bomber, it would probably still be in production, and the F-18 would not be in the inventory. The Navy has spent enormous sums of money developing the F-14's air-to-mud capabilty, and unless I am mistaken, the only bomb the F-14 can deliver with any degree of safety is the 2,000 lb LGB. The aerodynamics of the F-14 preclude the use of smaller bombs because they do not release safely.
After the conflict the bogus claims were revealed:
In “INAT: Images of Serbia and the Kosovo Conflict” by Scott Taylor He describes an interview with Bojan Bugarcic on 25th November 1999 (Bugarcic, was the Senior Advisor on International Affairs to Yugoslav President Milosevic)
The relevant passage follows on pp 123-124: "He [Bugarcic] said that, throughout the war, a tremendous, and extremely effective, propaganda campaign had been mounted by the Serbian military. The aim was to keep the populace believing their forces were mounting a spirited defence. "Using the state broadcaster, unofficial 'Russian intelligence' web pages and Army communiqués, the deception had been so successful that many people were fooled. My 22-year-old translator, Vlada Kopric, was one example. While he vehemently denounced the government-controlled RTS media network as spouting 'pure lies,' his explorations on the Internet had led him to the bogus Russian intelligence site. As a result, up until my November interview with Bugarcic, Vlada had truly believed that the Serbian military had successfully shot down 78 NATO aircraft. "He was devestated when he learned the truth;
The following is an example of this disinformation campaign which resulted in Venik assembling his lists.
Belgrade, 01/06/1999 (MPA) The Deputy Secretary of Information of the Serb government, Radmila Visic, claimed that Yugoslavia has shot down more than 190 NATO aircrafts since March 24, when the Alliance launched air raids against the country, in her interview at the Macedonian Press Agency. Mrs Visic accused NATO of concealing the actual number of its losses during the two-month war in Yugoslavia and reassured that when the hostilities are over, the Alliance will be forced to inform first of all the mothers of the dead pilots, who still don't know the truth. "Of course Americans and the rest of the NATO allies do not admit that they lost 190 aircrafts and they will not admit it in any of their briefings. However, even in the Internet, in NATO's web-site there are data that confirm this number and verify the claims of the Yugoslav army", said Mrs Visic. "I am certain that when this is all over, then the international public opinion and especially the American one will face the Vietnam syndrome and then the mothers of the pilots of the shot down planes will be informed that their sons where killed in the raids against Yugoslavia", she stressed. When asked about why the Yugoslav authorities do not present photos or videos that confirm their allegations of having downed 190 planes, the Serb minister noted that even NATO itself has admitted that Yugoslavia has a remarkable strategy. "It is part of our tactics, not to show them. I, like a good soldier, will not give more information on this. However, the fact that NATO has announced that it will bring another 1.200 planes against a country with small air force, doesn't that mean something to you?.
In reality the NATO manned aircraft losses to combat were the F-117A, serial 82-806 and the F-16CG, serial 88-0550. The Yugoslavs despite the propaganda claims of scores of aircraft being shot down inside Serbia itself can only produce and display remnants of these two manned aircraft in the Yugoslav Aeronautical Museum. Several aircraft and helicopters took combat damage, but were not lost as a result.
I think the F-18 sucks on its own merits much less comparing it to another aircraft.
I think the Sukhoi is a better fighter then an F-18...however the F-18 is more than a fighter...and any bringing of Sukhois up to the QA standards, as well as logistical cost, new avionics etc etc would push the end user cost well past the $8,000,000.00 pricetag being quoted here.
I have heard the claim the the Australians [Who gives a **** what the Australians do?] brought Sukhois or Migs online.....that was false......I think I also saw something else about them buying the Kamov or some other Russian Helicopter.....if that was put forth.....that is also false........as well as the claim that any Russian Helicopter is better than the Apache or more importantly the next generation American attack Helicopter.
Part of the problem that is being blown out of proportion is the process of bringing a system online in the United States....once we bring another outstanding toy online.....the rest of the planet, especially the Russians...hustle to jerry-rig an existing system to counter it or they build something that reports to outperform it.
That process will never be overcome....the world will always be a step behind....and as a result will open a window of opportunity for them to close the gap on existing systems while we build the next generation.
It is just how it works.
The Chinese UCAV scenario is laughable.
The results of such a thing happening would set the chinese back twenty years.
Now to move on...
American Military planners...with all of their faults...are the greatest the planet has ever seen.
I defer to how they choose to direct their funds....I doubt seriously that if American Unmanner Aircraft RD funding was lacking that we couldnt get the funds needed to bring it up to speed.
So that is a nonissue that muddies the water.
As to the Israelis......we are designing our own system to deal with the emerging technology in pilots target aquisition....that discussion has nothing to do with Sukhois so I wont speak to it again.
In the end....it is clear that A. there is no "need" to bring Russian aircraft [Or anything else} into US Military service B. It is simply not practical.
I like the Sukhoi and even the Mig 29 but like I said....let me see one [just one] put down a Hornet or an Eagle in real combat then I'll take a second glance.
I am glad you arent a proponent of Russian Military equipment......because it sucks.
Very insightful.
If there is a weapon system that was designed elswhere which we like or need, we need only acquire the rights or imitate the technology with our own "original" designs.
The factories, shipyards and assembly lines must be here where we can control and preserve them. Most importantly, our workforce will remain employed, trained and up to date as it continues to build ships, tanks and planes.
Anyway here are some stats on the Hokum:
The Ka-50 Black Shark helicopter, developed by Kamov Helicopters JSC, carries the NATO codename Hokum A; Hokum B being the two-seat version, Ka-52. Ka-50 is also known as Werewolf. It entered service in the Russian Army during 1995 and is in full production at the Sazykin Aviation Company Progress, based in Arseniev Maritime Territory, Russia. It is a high-performance combat helicopter with day and night capability, high survivability and fire power to defeat air targets and heavily armoured tanks armed with air defence weapons.
A night attack version, Ka-50N, with Samshit-50T thermal imager, day TV and laser rangefinder has been developed, and Kamov has also joined with Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI) to produce a version, the Ka-50-2 Erdogan that is compatible with NATO weapons and has an Israeli equipped cockpit.
It is outfitted with a multifunctional on-board integrated electronic flight, navigation and weapon control system. Its passive/active observation/search and sighting systems ensure target search and their attack day/night in any weather conditions. The Sextant Avionic of France and Thomson company take part in creation of this helicopter.
This co-axial helicopter features a high flight performance and ease of piloting via automated flight devices. It can successfully execute combat missions day/night owing to high survivability under hostile fire, powerful armament and comfortable pilot's cockpit.
The Ka-50 helicopter is unrivalled in the world in terms of the 'cost-efficiency' criteria. In 1995 the Ka-50 combat helicopter entered service and is now series produced at Progress Arsenyevsk-based aviation complex.
The Ka-50 is the world's first operational helicopter with a rescue ejection system, which allows the pilot to escape at all altitudes and speeds. The K-37-800 rocket-assisted ejection system is manufactured by the Zvezda Research and Production Enterprise Joint Stock Company in the Moscow region. Pilots are rigged with pressurized helmets fitted with built-in displays to provide for required flight and sighting data.
The coaxial rotor design provides a hovering ceiling of 4,000m and vertical rate of climb of 10m/s at an altitude of 2,500m. The rotor blades are made from polymer materials. The coaxial-rotor configuration results in moments of inertia values relative to vertical and lateral axes being between 1.5 to two times less than the values found in single-rotor helicopters with tail rotors.
Absence of the tail rotor enables the helicopter to perform flat turns within the entire flight speed range. A maximum vertical g-load of 3.5 combined with low moments of inertia give the Ka-50 a high level of agility.
Extensive all-round armour installed in the cockpit protects the pilot against 12.7mm armour-piercing bullets and 23mm projectile fragments. The rotor blades are rated to withstand several hits of ground-based automatic weaponA combination of various armaments to a maximum weapon load of two tons can be selected according to the mission, including anti-tank missiles, unguided aerial rockets of different calibres, air-to-air missiles, guns, bombs and other weapons. The helicopter has small mid-mounted wings, fitted with four underwing suspension units and wingtip countermeasures pods. Up to twelve Vikhr supersonic anti-tank missiles can be mounted on the helicopter's two underwing external stores. The laserbeam-riding Vikhr missile is stated as having a target hit probability close to one, against a tank at a range of up to 8km, and the capability of penetrating all types of armour, including active armour up to 900mm thick. The Ka-50 is armed with a 2A42 quick-firing 30mm gun, which has an unrestricted azimuth and elevation range mounting for use against airborne or ground targets. The gun is equipped with 460 rounds of ammunition: two types being carried, high-fragmentation and explosive incendiary rounds and armour-piercing rounds. The pilot selects the type of ammunition in flight. The weight of the ammunition is 0.39kg each round, the muzzle velocity is 980m/s and the range is up to 4km. The gun provides an angular firing accuracy of two to four mrad.
Flight systems include inertial navigation system (INS), autopilot and head-up display (HUD). Sensors include forward-looking infrared (FLIR) and terrain-following radar. Ka-50 is fitted with radar warning receiver, electronic warfare system and chaff and flare dispenser.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.