David E. Powell wrote:
> On Sep 18, 10:06пїЅpm, "Spartan613"
pissoff.com> wrote:>> "David E. Powell"
msn.com> wrote in messagenews:db5a6b1f-4bcf-430d-a484-6c4df1505bc6@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 17, 10:27 am, Airyx attbi.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 17, 9:01 am, true.blue.bl...@
gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Is that a serious question?
>>
>>> Well, over the years, F-14s, F-15s, F-16s, and F-18's have all been
>>> criticized for being over-priced and under effective relative to their
>>> Russian counterparts.
>>
>>> Yet, they've racked up a A-A kill ratio of something like 150-1.
>>
>>> From what I've seen so far, the F-22 and F-35 will carry on the same
>>> tradition.
>>
>> If they need Fighters, why not buy used Tornado ADVs?
>>
>> *******
>>
>> My turn to ask "are you serious?".
>>
>> Tornados aren't fighters (just like the F111 was never a fighter), the ADVs
>> are interceptors built with 1970's technology. There's a reason the UK is
>> phasing them out.
>
> I was asking about buying fighters that could be had quickly now vs.
> waiting for newer ones that are "in the pipeline."
>
> That is, if they need fighters *right now.*
>
> The F/A-18s aren't too shabby as is.
And what, exactly, was the F-18's contribution in East Timor?
Precisely zilch.
In Peter Cosgrove's own words: "The RAAF were useless".
He had access to 6 F-111s, with about 4 days'-worth of ordnance if
Indonesia had got cranky.
His only real aerial weapon was the Blackhawk.
So.....based on our experiences in East Timor, WTF is the use of
buying an enormously expensive plane which has been designed for use
in Europe/the middle-east and is completely unsuited to the Australian
environment of long distances and the need to carry a lot of ordnance
to allow longer missions?
