"AUSTRALIAN taxpayers have been scheduled to cough up a huge $22 billion during
the next decade to buy two completely separate fleets of jet fighters.

These planes will almost certainly never fire a shot in anger.

The first $6 billion will buy and run 24 Boeing Super Hornet fighters over the
next 10 years. The planes are due to start arriving late in 2009.

The second $16 billion will purchase a fleet of up to 100 Joint Strike Fighters
from Lockheed Martin to take care of the nation's air defence for the next 30 years.

It is the most expensive single defence project in Australian history.

But it is the Super Hornets generating immediate political heat, which will
surprise no one.

The Super Hornets are designed and built to operate from aircraft carriers.

Australia doesn't have an aircraft carrier, so why are we buying them?

That's obviously the question that new Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has put
to our defence chiefs.

He's no doubt wondering why former defence minister Brendan Nelson ignored
expert advice from the RAAF and Defence that we did not need a "gap filler" in
case the JSFs (due from 2013) runs late.

The Super Hornet issue is back on the table, as expected, as part of a sweeping
equipment purchase review.

"Ned" aioe.org> wrote in message news:flb6so$l94$1@aioe.org...> The
strategic advice he was seeing convinced him that the risk of the RAAF's

What? They can defend our skies now, not later?

So what's your solution? Unless you can provide a viable alternative your
rant is just political claptrap.

russell

"Ned" aioe.org> wrote in message news:flb6so$l94$1@aioe.org...

"russell" hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:477a1856$0$76014$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...

Ummmm. He was quoting a news story, and provided a link at the bottom of his
post.
There was no 'rant'.

The correct solution is to let the RAAF have a lot more say on what
aircraft we buy than they did in the decision to buy the F/A-18F Super Hornet.

It may be that after all the options the F-35 Lightning II and/or the
F/A-18F Super Hornet turn out to be the right aircraft for the job. But
until all the available options have been considered, we cant say for sure
what we need.

The former defense minister basically signed up to buy the F/A-18F Super
Hornet without even considering alternatives, including (but not limited to)
Eurofighter Typhoon
Dassault Rafale
F-15E Strike Eagle

I have no idea how those aircraft (or other options) compare to the F/A-18F
Super Hornet and the F-35 Lightning II but unless the RAAF can show that
they have evaluated all the aircraft available (including the option of
using the existing F-111 and F/A-18 aircraft for the short term and buying
the F-35 Lightning II or another aircraft later on) and can show that the
F/A-18F Super Hornet and F-35 Lightning II aircraft we are signed up to buy
are the aircraft Australia needs for the threats WE face in OUR region, we
should not follow through and buy either of those aircraft.

We will not see the Super Hornets now with the Rudd Government.

wb wrote:

Well, not wanting to get involved with either side, "reviewed" doesn't
always mean 'cancelled'.

"russell" hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:477a1856$0$76014$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...

Russell - unless I am mistaken these are not Ned's views.
He attributes the text to 2 newspaper articles - at the bottom of his post.

John

Jonathan Wilson said the following on 1/01/2008 9:38 PM:

I'm not so sure about that. There were indications, before we jumped
onto the F-35, that the US was interested in selling us the F-22.

The US official who was quoted as saying that they wouldn't sell them to
us was:

. Acting outside his authority to make such a decision; and
. A known F-35 backer

In any case, various experts have said that the F-22 is not suitable for
the missions Australia is likely to fight in the future (being a pure air
superiority fighter to replace the F-15 Eagle in that role).

Also, I doubt that the US would sell us the same F-22 the USAF is using.