Super Hornets to Join ADF’s Ranks
March 17, 2008
The first part of the Federal Government’s air combat review recognised the merit in an F/A 18 Super Hornet contract reported the ABC today. Despite doubt shrouding the pending purchase of the RAAF craft fleet Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon changed his initial tune, today indicating that the review found the Super Hornets as the only aircraft that could meet Australia’s needs.
“I hold no doubt that the Super Hornet is more than capable of doing the job,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.
“We embrace the Super Hornet as a very special aircraft which is more than up to the job.”
[Early this year] Mr Fitzgibbon lashed out at the previous government, accusing it of mishandling the replacement of the F1-11 fighters, which are being retired in 2010.
“Greater foresight, better planning and less political interference would have allowed the Australian Government the opportunity to consider other aircraft,” he said.
“Sadly that was not an option given the political demands of the former government.”
The Opposition’s defence spokesman, Nick Minchin, says it is a humiliating back down for Mr Fitzgibbon.
“Conducting his much-vaunted review and what do we find, they’re going ahead with the order anyway,” he said.
Defence review found it was too risky to take the cheaper option of extending the life of the F-111 long-range bombers reported the National SMH today.
At a cost of $6.6 billion over 10 years (including maintenance and operating costs), the decision to buy the Super Hornets was made by the former defence minister Brendan Nelson to fill a feared gap in air combat capability, due to the late delivery of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
Former senior RAAF officials and air-power aficionados criticised the move [originally], saying the Super Hornet was slow, had poor stealth and would be outmuscled by the Sukhoi jets being acquired around the region.
SMH’s Tom Hollard suggests that ‘the radar, electronic self-protection and other avionics of the Super Hornet made it highly capable and [that] the F-111s were “beyond the point of no return” and would have to be retired in 2010.’
The ABC takes the stance that Fitzgibbon is hop-footing around the issue, whereas SMH squarely lays the initial blunder on Nelson who had signed off the deal against the advice of RAAF senior counsel. With so many diverse and changing!! opinions flying about it’s hard to formulate a complete and informed view on the matter. Whatever the case let’s hope these new shiny planes will give our modern RAAF the cutting edge capability it so desires.
March 28, 2008 at 10:25 am
What the media (and public) don’t understand is that, despite the media releases and interviews provided by the government and manufacturers, disclosure of what actually makes the military hardware worth buying, scrapping or continue using is non-existant.
If the government detailed why they reach a certain decision regarding this issue, they are effectivly telling potential enemies of any secretive advantage (or disadvantage) we may have.
Therefore, the media, public, or anyone not directly involved in the research and decision making for the government on a particular aquisition or sell-off cannot make any legitimate suggestion as to whether the correct decision has been made. Any suggestion or critique made without the full facts is merely speculation.
Even when 60 Minutes covered this purchase, their “experts” were a non-government stategic analyst and a retired RAAF Air Marshall. Both of whom were never involved with the decision to replace the current RAAF fast jet capability. They would know about as much as the next guy to read Australian Aviation magazine. As for the reporter’s report, it was full of half truths, old information, and seemed like just a good excuse to travel to the USA and get a free ride in an F/A-18 Hornet. His story was worthless, as are most of the stories on military harware and systems made in any medium.