With love from America... Love the Aussies!!! Taking care of our allies is key and allowing them access for killer machines, even better!!! Stay safe guys!!!
These jets are just WOW! Every year I grew up counting down the days til River Fire (Brisbane Festival) just to see the F-111s zoom by during the day and with the after burner at night. Seeing these bad boys in action so low to the river, flying low over the Victoria Bridge, right up to flying at a steep ascend until no longer visible. Just made me want to join RAAF even more, the sound is just pure magic to my ears. One day I wish to fly one of these.
same here my uncle roger flew f/111 for the USAF . F/A18 is a great multi role aircraft but its not as good at low level map of the earth bat out of hell flight that the f111 did
Robert Gutheridge we loved them but like all things they get old they were like our current air craft these and F35s etc nuclear capacity we have 9 nuclear reactors we may or may not have nukes but we have a shit load of weapons grade plutonium hypersonic missel tech lol don’t think we can’t make nukes
Cheers to the Aussies from US! Seem like they have very skilled pilots there also. Good to have a free world badass in that region of the world keeping it safe :)
Man, I've been telling all the Canucks and all you Aussies that this was/IS the aircraft for both of you instead of that golden turkey in the F-35 and looking at many of the comments below, I see a quite a few of you share the same sentiments. That's good. This jet is not only in the 'affordable' range, but for what it delivers and with the difference in the procurable quantity vs the F-35, you get a larger number of aircraft, close to double. The stealth factor is not a huge requirement if your mission is defensive which is what Australia and Canada both need. For the little amount of time that you'll need stealth, you sacrifice so much in other aspects that are more permanently important such as maneuverability, range and quite importantly maintenance man-hours. You can even get certain stealth values out of the Super Hornet. Not to mention the upgradable factor in this newer platform with 20% large space to fill with all kinds of future upgrades, including the new advanced features such as the conformal fuel tanks and the weapon's bay pod.
" close to double" Great in theory. In practice we don't have the infrastructure ( pilots , ground crew, hanger space , pretty much everything that comes with maintaining the aircraft) to operate any more aircraft than what we have ordered. It's either x amount of Rhinos or X amount of F-35's ( or a combination of both totalling the same number) The VLO aspect is critical for not only offense but defense also, there isnt a scenario where having a LO aircraft is a bad thing. The range on internal fuel is pretty much the same. The F-35 while slower than a naked Rhino, is MUCH faster when both aircraft are carrying the same amount of ordinance. The SA the F-35 provides is second to none, while the Rhino is certainly no slouch in that department, it's really not even comparable to the F-35. The F-35 while armed ( and remember, thats the important thing here, you dont fight naked) is actually MORE maneuverable than the Rhino. While not designed to do so the F-35 is capable of a short dash (150 nmi) above Mach 1 without reheat. It's not the current definition of super cruise but it technically is, a sight better than the Hornets anyway. Cost, granted, the project has blown up, unforgivable but you get what you pay for, costs will decrease as more are built, they always do. The Rhino is a decent aircraft , the F-35 is a better aircraft, no doubt at all.
Antifaith29 Good post, Thanks. Not sure if I'm speaking to a Canadian or an Australian, hard to tell but anyway, you mentioned that there isn't a scenario where having a LO aircraft is a bad thing. Well, yes, actually there is because you don't need stealth all the time and when you have it as an integral basis to the design of the aircraft, you're automatically at a disadvantage because you've sacrificed so much already. Your flaps and ailerons are terribly small and right then and there you've lost the edge right at the merge. There is no way to even keep up with an F-16 in close combat. Keep in mind, we're not talking about the F-22. Now there was a design that was close to perfect. Notice the huge wings, huge flaps and ailerons and huge rudders on the dual canted V-stabs? That platform doesn't rely solely on stealth to fight at BVR which is what the F-35 is betting the house on. And the Joint Nations are buying the A model which along with the super plagued, mangy dog in the F-35B is one of the two with tiny wings and tiny movable surfaces. Only the US Navy insisted on the F-35C to be larger bodied with larger wings. If there's any one of those 3 that has a remote chance it's the C model and not the others. Here's another problem that Canada and Australia have - the reliability of a single engine aircraft with land masses that bear the size of continents. 1 engine fails, plane fails. With 2 engines and 1 fails (since both engines failing at once is rare), the plane is saved. That is such a HUGE necessity with such large countries. This is the #1 complaint of the F-35 from former pilots. Notice this other critical element accounted for in the F-22 and obviously a HUGE necessity for naval aircraft such as the F/A-18 and other successful aircraft such as the F-4, F-14 and F-15? Another disadvantage - You can mount a few in-flight-refueling set-ups right on a Super Hornet and use that same aircraft to support refueling missions with such large landscapes while nothing of the sorts with the F-35 Turkey. The other thing is look at all the people from both nations that have objected vehemently at the F-35, they're mostly former pilots and top brass. So it's not some little quirky thing that's going on. It's a very legitimate issue. With the way LM has put all its marbles in the capabilities of the F-35's avionics and they're thinking it's going to revolutionize the art of air combat where it'll be restricted to only BVR engagements, then they haven't considered for a minute how that has failed since Vietnam and that every single air to air incident taken place to date since the advent of BVR missiles has, in fact, been within visual range. And the discounting of the advancement of L-band radars is unfathomable. Imagine the scenario where stealth actually becomes ineffective, then what are you left with? Interoperability? Hell, you could even hook up a biplane to be interoperable. What about that big, gaping bung-hole in that nozzle and the heat signature that'll produce? Notice the extent they went to in the Raptor to give it a low heat signature to increase it's stealthiness? It's putting too many eggs in a basket with shaky handles. I'm betting both nations will end up with a mixed batch of the two, at least Australia seems to be heading in that direction. Sorry for the long post.
***** Ok, thanks for the post but I'm going to apologize ahead of time because what I'm about to say can be taken in an insulting way, but that's not my intention, for sure. So, disclaimer! With all due respect, the problem is not my logic but rather your simplistic outlook and rather ill-advised claim. The disclaimer was in lieu of that latter statement because of the last line in your comment. You're telling me to "just wait and see, I guarantee you the F-35 really is that good and will prove you F-35 haters wrong". So many things wrong with such a bold (and honestly, pretty condescending) remark! First of all, you're assuming I'm simply a hater and that I have nothing viable to support my belief. That's rather lame and if you read my last post to Antifaith29, I hope that proves the point. Second is that when you say you have news for me as a hater of the F-35 (and since we've established that was a rather prematurely inaccurate description of myself) and then follow it up with another completely presumptuous guarantee that it'll be a great airplane and we'll all be proven wrong, is another huge mistake by you since there is absolutely no way on this green earth that you, as a YT aviation enthusiast could possibly ever know that with such certainty. Even if you're not just a regular RU-vidr/military aviation enthusiast/regular guy and you're some kind of expert, there's a counter to that because you probably aren't. Not because of other comments in the rest of your post that discredit that notion, but mainly that the Rhino was the airframe that lost to the F-16 in the LWF competition. That couldn't be further from the truth because even the legacy F-18 Hornet was vastly improved on from the YF-17 (which was the prototype in that competition) in so many ways that it almost looked like a different aircraft once it went into production and on top of it, we're not talking about something that was developed in the late seventies but rather the Super Hornet which is a much different and newer version put into service since basically 2006. So with that, you couldn't possibly be anyone with any more credentials than any one of us. Just a RU-vidr who happens to be a military aviation enthusiast and nothing more. That being said, you could NEVER, and I would suggest that you never make such an audacious and rather ill-informed statement that this dog will be anything other than what we all see and hear with our own ears and eyes and that we should just wait and see. There is so much professional literature out there that would destroy that in a second! I'll only give you one thing to support that: They lowered EVERY SINGLE targeted testing standard on this airplane just to move that disaster of a program along. Every single unattainable testing standard was lowered, just to so they could be met and to give it some semblance of success. If that isn't a huge blow to this aircraft then I don't know what is. So please, for your own sake, try not to give that guarantee again and if I was you, I would wait to see if there's any semblance of success to that thing before announcing anything with confidence. I did apologize at the beginning! :)
***** Didn't you read what he wrote? Only the C variant of the F-35 is suppose to be more maneuverable than the Super Hornet. You're probably right. The USAF has never lost a single F-15 (at least not that I know of) to an enemy aircraft mostly because they encountered planes with less powerfull BVR abilities than them. L band radars cannot be placed in fighters. I don't know what an L band radar is. Yeah if the advanced DIRCM system turns out to be reliable it will give a significant advantage to the F-35 in a dogfight. Morale: I wish I could desing an Iron Man suit so that our head of defense wouldn't have to deal with all that BS.
***** I think the Aussies have it right. Although the F-35 is a capable aircraft, I feel the cost to benefit ratio isn't prudent - specifically considering the core of the aircraft's advantage is its stealth capability. Considering rapid advances in stealth detection (eg. EADS's stealth detecting passive EM radiation radar systems) - the F-35 could turn into a very expensive and flashy, ordinary purchase. Also taking into account the size of Australia - more aircraft does make sense. Unlike the US, Australia doesn't have a monetary policy of using the World Bank as an endless slush fund for military research ;)
It sucks that I can’t get a flight in the backseat of F/18 . I guess you got to be a celebrity or something like that. Anyway safe skies to our brilliant pilots of the RAAF
I would like to be informed what your scores were on those National Guard Entrance Exams you had taken to join the National Guard??? When I had taken the test for the Ohio National Guard in Lakewood Ohio West of Cleveland back in 1969, the test had approx. 100 questions involving English vocabulary, definitions, word associations, sentence completion, math from simple arithmetic, to alegebra, plain geometry, calcqules, and trigonometry. Biolology, physics, and chemistry.
Thank you so much for uploading this video - its amazing! Excuse me but may I as, does anybody have report from around the same time with the same journo with regards to the F-35. Mr Bartlett (Liam - or Liamo/ Bill as you Australians may refer to him) interviews Minister Brendan Nelson and the F-35 test pilot Jon Beesley - thanks in advance
+youreale I'm sure they will do just fine if it comes to it is a highly capable jet and our aircrew are among the top on the planet I would be worried if I were a foreign Su pilot facing these and the upgraded classic has rents across the divide.
only the press gets the awesome privilage to fly in one of those... kinda pisses me off when a regular person like myself would love a chance for one ride in one.
Airforce (RAAF). They were supposed to be a stopgap while we waited for the F-35’s, but we quickly realised the full-time potential for the Super Hornets, and bought them outright. Augmented by a number of Growlers as well.
im thinking about joining the RAAF when i finish school in 2 years and being an F-18 super hornet pilot, however im questioning whether or not they have much of a social life, i mean when you're young it doesnt seem like you'd have time to go out with any friends and socialize because you're always moving :( i hope its not like this
its a long hard slog to get there. i wanted to do the same thing, but i realized at the end of school they wouldnt even let me in the front door because i get migraine headaches. Anyway, you will have to work hard for many years to get a shot at it and very hard when you do to stay in it. But, have you ever heard of a fast jet pilot that retires voluntarily? i never have. Its probably the best damn job in the world, something that rockstars and race car drivers wish they could do. If you want it, go for it full tilt. There's nothing worse than being in my situation. A few years ago my friend in the airforce took me on base and i got to sit in an f18 and walk under them and put my hand on them after my lifetime of wishing. I could only stare and wonder in solace what it would have been like to tear up the sky in one. So if you want it and you can do it, dont wait. start working towards it. there's nothing worse than missing your chance and wondering the rest of your life.
He is lucky to fly on super hornet......i'm jealous. So, I hope that our fighter pilots will never have to fly on F35 later, for safety. And i hope the next jet fighter for Raaf will be the Rafale. Our government should diversify weapons dealer, not to be dependent from washington, it's my opinion.
+Andy Foster It's a handy little tip to know that almost every airplane within the last 40 years had a bad public opinion. F15 was bagged on for only being a one trick pony, as it was designed to be an interceptor, not a multi-role aircraft. It was also very expensive and heavy (not the best dog fighter). People quite hated it. But now it's regarded as the best and most proven 4th gen fighter. F16 was bagged on for only having one engine with very little glide capability. People were fearful of these aircraft because they assumed that it was going to be a death trap when the engine goes out. People quite hated it. Now it's to most requested aircraft being exported from the US. A10 was bagged on for being everything people thought a jet plane shouldn't be. People didn't like that it was very slow, and they didn't like how close it had to fly to the ground. Many people assumed this plane was going to have very high casualty rates because of how it performed CAS. (funny because before the A10, people wanted support aircraft to perform the role like the F35 will.) F22 was bagged on (and still is) for having high costs, and only being really effective at A2A. Which is comical because that is the same thing people said about the F15. F35 is bagged on because of it's low glide capability, and it's single (and what people assume is unreliable) engine. Of course cost factors in too. This is the same concept as the F16. So even though both the F15 and F16 defeated the odds of public opinion and became the most famous, and most proven aircraft of all time. People still seem to think that the new programs are something different. When in reality it's the same exact thing. The only difference is when they were making 4th gen aircraft, muckraking the planes every chance they could wasn't very common. I have no doubt in 20 years these planes will prove them selves worth. After all, It isn't the congressmen and media that should pick weapons of war, it should be the people using them.
+Murtsman1 Air Force chief rebuts F-35 haters, calls for more modernization. arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/air-force-chief-rebuts-f-35-haters-calls-for-more-modernization/
Rox Malar Rafale is a shit jet, and I would feel much safer being armed with an F-35, Lockheed martins makes top of the line jets. And that it's not the matter of choice of weapons dealer, it's the choice of the weapons itself.
What an arsenal the Aussies have at their fingertips. Combine the F-18SH with the F-35, along with their great training, countries like China better think twice before messing with them.
+atter0 unless you're from NZ like myself and just have to suck it up and stick with YT lol :D Dreams are free, I'll stick with my job on the Railways :(
+nh6central The problem with buying 2nd hand aircraft is that it generally means it's outdated (or about to be), spare parts may be harder to find and it may have more problems than a newer aircraft. That said, it's probably better if the RNZAF buys a newer aircraft like the F-16C/D Block 52, F-16C/D Block 60 or the F/A-18E/F Advanced Super Hornet.
+nh6central The problem with buying 2nd hand aircraft is that it generally means it's outdated (or about to be), spare parts may be harder to find and it may have more problems than a newer aircraft. That said, it's probably better if the RNZAF buys a newer aircraft like the F-16C/D Block 52, F-16C/D Block 60 or the F/A-18E/F Advanced Super Hornet.
+Livin up in New Zealand Kia Ora The F/A-18 C/D would cost $29 million USD new so if anything given New Zealand's low budget I would forget about the F/A-18s because they're simply too expensive, but rather purchase a dozen F-16s and a tanker for mid-air refueling. Maybe if you pool your resources you can get 1 F-35 hehe :D
The Super Hornet or the Gripen for the Finland! I think so!?!? 2 Engines and not just 1 like in the Gripen, but would the 1 Engine be enough for the Finland or not!?!? We have had 2 1 Engine Fighters Before, the MIG 21 Biss or something and the Swedish Dragen! And when we bought the Hornet (The Legacy), the Mirage 2000 game very close, but the Gripen C was not ready back then! So we bought the Hornet! Of Course we could buy 2 Different Jet Fighters! The Gripen and the Super Hornet, which both has the Same Engine!?!? But What You Think, Which Jet Fighter We Finns Should Have!?!? The Super Hornet or the Gripen or the Typhoon or the F 35 or the Rafale!?!? God Bless! God Loves You So As We All!! But I think the we should get the Super Hornet. But we will get the F 35 A instead, which is lot/way better plane = jet fighter, than the Super Hornet , but I like lit more about the Super, how it looks aso = and so on. : )
The U.S. gives so many types of aide to Kuwait and other middle eastern countries that it would stand to reason that the U.S. government would make Boeing sell their aircraft to them on the cheap to keep those countries in their pocket.
For the bucks you can't beat the Super Hornet and then there is the F-35 which burns $1000 bills rather than Jet-A. Information has been leaking out that the F-22 out fights the F-35, which is pretty embarrassing to the USAF folks who had to figure out what the fighters mission was and what features to put into it. The excuse is that they aren't including all the package in the testing versions, when it has them all it will be the king of the skies. Foreign Policy website has a 2012 piece "The Jet That Ate the Pentagon" worth looking at foreignpolicy.com/2012/04/26/the-jet-that-ate-the-pentagon/ It chronicles the politics that forced a single aircraft on the USN, Air Force, Marine, maybe even the USArmy. It's a Texas made product, adding or keeping 1000's of workers going at Lockheed's Ft Worth assembly center. The Forces didn't want it, the Pentagon said the entire budget would be blown on this one fighter, never the less the power Texas had in the Senate and House made the choice and the project has been limping along for years while countries figure out how to pay for it wondering what would be the cost to back out completely as Canada has done. When I think of the F-35 mess you really appreciate the hell out of the F-18's, and F-22's doing the job for 1/4 the operating cost per hour of flight. An upgraded F-22 would have been a superior choice. Obama wanted to get rid of the A-10 Warthogs, a fighting platform that won't be improved on. There is no better way to fight a tank army than with that huge and ugly big gun as well as all the others weapons. It's old, it's cheap and it's damn near perfect for an Army. What do you folks think about the overall NATO fighter program?
Private Duck Stating the obvious it wouldn't servive against the F-22, but then what would. But against a USN F-18 ok that one any day of the week. RAAF pilots often beat their US counterparts in excersises etc and considered (even by the US to be some of the best pilots in the world). So take on a USN F-18 pilot... lol happily.
Australia, keep buying these over the flying turkey otherwise known as the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35). One airframe "designed" to do every role is just not practical. A sacrifice to accommodate each role thus making it less effective in each.
"One airframe "designed" to do every role is just not practical." You do realize that the F/A-18 is a multi-role too, right? It can fulfill Air Dominance missions then switch to ground or naval attack at the push of a button. The F-35 is the same, though it incorporates stealth and more advanced avionics to the mix.
I hate to see the F111 go. my uncle flew the f4 and f111 for the USAF. but to tell the truth 250,000,000 still seams pricey for the f18 as it is a 25 plus year old design.
Singapore has the F15SG and block 52+ F-16s, not that it matters anyway. Why would we wanna pick a fight with our neighbours? We ain't that free to do that sort of nonsense.
These Super Hornets replaced the retired F111's while we waited for the F35. The RAAF already had 72 classic Hornets since 1984....they also have 11 EA18's....radar jamming Super Hornets. Australia is the only other country besides the US to have them.
F16 has one engine, cant be carrier deployed, and isnt great at multi role. The F16 is really a CAP/Air-air aircraft. The F16 is more maneuverable, but is not really needed today. There are many more ground engagements then air nowadays and the F18 does a better job at that with the capabilities to also do decent at air-air.
Yeah no way we'd buy a commi made aircraft. Would not work out at all with our diplomatic relations with the US. And to be honest I'd rather have the US on our side than Russia
I don't think Australia would buy anything from Russia and in turn I doubt Russia would sell the Sukhois to Australia. I mean, Tony Abbot criticized Putin for his meddling in the Ukraine, a Russian built Buk Missile System shot down MH17 which killed 36 Australians and Australia's support for the US, Ukraine and EU regarding the crisis in Ukraine doesn't exactly make Australia Russia's #1 friend.
Listen, I'd go for a f-18 before I ever payed for an overpriced air plane such as the f-35. A Russian 4th generation su-33 can beat a f-35 in a dog fight ANYDAY. I'd feel more comfortable flying a f-15c than that f-35 junk
Threatstodebts69 well in that case i suppose in a couple years time , the netherlands , norway , turkey , denmark , israel won't be able to maintain air superiority during warfare ? because these nations are replacing F16 with f35 ? I love the F35 i think its gonna be a fantastic aircraft
I feel it may be a fantastic aircraft but at range and out of sight BVR combat is the definitive design of the F35 however aircraft like the F18 and F16 could surpass it any day in WVR combat.
Threatstodebts69 they are putting so much emphasis on beyond visual range combat , if it works its gonna so amazing have you seen a documentary called dogfights of the future? the things that the f35 or f22 are predicted to do are so awesome
I notice alot of comments about the F35 and they make me laugh. The idiots saying the f35 sucks and cant dogfight must be civilians that know nothing about fighters. Fisrt off its more than capable of defeating any 4th gen fighter in a dogfight but 99% of the time it will kill its enemy long before they even know its there. No fourth gen fighter is ever going to win a real engagement with the f35 or f22, especially a Russian fighter.
MississippiRebel it's funny how the people who criticize it have never even flown one before I think it's a fabulous jet and would love to fly one for the RAAF when I'm older
MississippiRebel F-35 has lost several simulated engagements with much older aircraft. Seeing how you’re clearly an armchair historian, no is taking you seriously anyway.
Greg Cunningham, that's because they've taken all the human factors out of it, the F-35 was not made to dogfight, but made to seek and kill in a stealthy way
Over 6 Billion of 24 Rhinos!?!? That's is a lot, when Austria paid over 2 Billion Euros of 15 Typhoons! But Typhoons is more Expensive to buy And!, All These Rhinos, Is the More Expensive Versions of Them, 2 Seat, not 1! Remember and know that! But! The Most Expensive Version (Probably, should be, I assume That!) of the Rhinos Is The Growler = The EA 18 G Growler And Australia Bought Them Too! And also, also why they cost that much is, the Technology Transfer too! Sorry I forget that or didn't know that back then. But now we know! But I don't know how much Technolgy They the Australia get from the transfer, but probably some for sure or hopefully more like quite alot?? : )
The F18 Super Hornet is formidable but Australia's training is lacking in many ways The aircraft is only as good as its pilots...both Canada and the USA have better training for pilots
