Aussie Airpower on Kiwi Soil

[V8Silverfox]

Australian Super Hornets land in NZ

Five new Australian Super Hornet F18 jet fighters at Auckland Airport on route to Australia from California. Accompanying them is a C17 and a DC10 tanker.

[greenfoam]

And people complain about having 50ks on a new car when they get it :P

[immortality]

seems weird that they would detour through NZ on ferry flight from the US to AUZ? there was a C17 with em as well.

they landed at Auckland with very little notice. odd for a ferry flight which should have had a lodged flight plan

[crew chief]

I think you will find it was an invasion as of this arvo we now rule nz bro............

[immortality]

I think you will find it was an invasion as of this arvo we now rule nz bro............

well, we got no way to defend, so i guess we are now the (enter number here) state of australia

[Veriton]

*steals sheep* They're ours now, and they're going into the sheep protection program, we'll disguise them as lamas...

[immortality]

poor invasion. there just sitting there on the apron at the airport. word is that they will depart Auck airport friday at 12.45pm for some fly-over at some ceremony in aus directly from NZ.

are these the first F/A -18 supe rhornets that you guys have received?

may possibly have some pics this weekend. the oldman is going to the airport with his telephoto lens when they depart

[undar8ed1]

Ahh nothing like sloppy seconds, something to buy while waiting for the new JSF.

[HamaTime™]

Yeah first of our Super Hornet order before we take delivery of the F-35's whenever they are ready.

[acarmody]

Very smooth landings by both the C17 and DC10

[savage1987]

Awesome. Big upgrade.

[vr94ss]

Do they have Holden or Chev badges? Gonna miss the F-111. These things are not bombers and now we have none. And no long range planes at all. An F-111 was capable of delivering a nuke or other ordnance to Jakata and returning. These are coastguard planes. We have no carriers to extend their range and they will rely on in air refueling often, they have no range. Hope the fuelers don't get downed if shit happens or they'll fall like stones. They don't serve our needs. They'll do fine when we ship them to the middle east or other places to help the yanks but for our landmass, coastline and distances they are pretty much useless. At least we can play war games with the US with them over our coasts. What a waste. Good onya Brendan Nelson.. The man who said creationism should be taught in the science class, as the education minister at the time! Dimwit. A liberal too! Also the overseer of the antique seahawk helicopter f'up.. What a load of cash the Liberals have wasted in defense hardware

Kiwis coulda killed our new airforce by slingshotting sheep into the refuelers turbines!

Here have look at the damned thing and see if it fits defending Australia.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18_Hornet

[savage1987]

Good onya Brendan Nelson.. The man who said creationism should be taught in the science class, as the education minister at the time! Dimwit

People like this barely even bear speaking about.

Spot on on the rest of your points by the way.. The F-111 was a bomb piece of hardware (pun intented), shame we don't really have a long range strike capability any more. A little scary to rely on allies for something so significant as heavy air support.

[HamaTime™]

Here have look at the damned thing and see if it fits defending Australia.. F/A-18 Hornet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wrong article mate, we don't have the old original F/A-18's on order, we only have the ones we previously bought. These new one's arriving are the new generation F/A-18 E Super Hornet's which are manufactured and designed by McDonnell Douglas and Boeing. They are larger, faster, more advanced and have a greater range of over 2,300km's which is basically the length and breadth of Australia (seperately). They are not a total replacement for the F-111's, they are an interim replacement for them while we wait for completion and readiness of the new F-35 joint strike fighter/bomber.

There isn't really a plane on the market that would completely serve Australia's long range needs...so Nelson had to buy what he could. F/A-18 is a fantastic choice, agreed it isn't totally suited, but what other choice do we have? Australia can't make combat aircraft....

The man who said creationism should be taught in the science class, as the education minister at the time! Dimwit.

Name one reason why we shouldn't teach Creationism in Science class. Children need to be taught how to think, not what to think.

Without causing a massive debate by starting my opinion which is completely off this threads topic - I disagree with evolution wholeheartedly, the man who wrote it's theory said it was impossible, scientists trying to prove it have said in the past that it is impossible. It is a theory. (My opinion) and there are many others out there that think the same as I do. To cater for such different opinions, the education system must teach a child how to think, so that they can believe in what they choose to. A closer study of the bible and a more Christian influenced education system is wrong on what level? Look at the generation of people that our selfish and self focused and evolutionist education system has spawned...

[savage1987]

Name one reason why we shouldn't teach Creationism in Science class. Children need to be taught how to think, not what to think.

Without causing a massive debate by starting my opinion which is completely off this threads topic - I disagree with evolution wholeheartedly, the man who wrote it's theory said it was impossible, scientists trying to prove it have said in the past that it is impossible. It is a theory. (My opinion) and there are many others out there that think the same as I do. To cater for such different opinions, the education system must teach a child how to think, so that they can believe in what they choose to. A closer study of the bible and a more Christian influenced education system is wrong on what level? Look at the generation of people that our selfish and self focused and evolutionist education system has spawned...

Yeah you're right, we should teach them total bull shit in science class which is in no way based on science. lol, fail. Open your eyes to the criminal institution that is the business of religion.

[HamaTime™]

Yeah you're right, we should teach them total bull shit in science class which is in no way based on science. lol, fail. Open your eyes to the criminal institution that is the business of religion.

I.e. Catholic Church, there is a distinct difference to Catholocism which has been purging, decieving and abusing society since the middle ages, thanks to people having the idea that the Church was another way to gain power, as in those days the church and the state were not seperate. The shortcomings of the Catholic church are in no way a true reflection of what Christianity is about. In fact they are totally seperate religion's.

Furthermore, creationism is not based on science, it is the truth about how it all came into being, rather than evolution where scientists left right and center are trying to 'prove' a theory that was denied by it's creator that is basically just an excuse for mankind to justify their own existence for their own rights and their own ends. You can see it throughout history, and history always repeats itself....

Also, I leave this as my final point, if you think creationism is bullshit and I think evolution is bullshit, then the education should obviously come to meet on middle ground, so as that the future generations can choose for themselves. By forcing evolution down their throats and denying the stories of the bible and denying the existence of a God, we are telling them what to think. That is a disgraceful way of teaching a child, the education system is there to teach them how to learn and decide for themselves how education, facts and subjects will influence their life, and choose what they believe in. The system that teaches only one is essentially socialist or even communist. That in itself is bullshit. I have no problem with people believing in something different to me. What everyone needs to do is understand that we are all different, respect that fact and come to middle ground. Children have the right to decide for themselves.

[Tsunamix]

meh Creationism, Evolution whatever. Fact is - neither side has incontrevertible proof of there 'theories'. thats why they are still called 'theories'.

I don't care which one you teach, as long as you also teach acceptance of others views.

The F1-11 was an awesome bit of kit. Very Fast. low level and standoff attack capabilities. Huge range. huge manouvrebility for the class of combat vehicle it is. It - however, couldn't dogfight for shit, had poor unreliable avionics systems, stuff all electronic countermeasures, no chaff dispensers, and a large radar signature.

the Super hornet can be re configured later down the track as a stand off and naval attack vehicle, leaving the J35 for air superiority, low radar incursion and long range roles.

[vr94ss]

Wrong article mate, we don't have the old original F/A-18's on order, we only have the ones we previously bought. These new one's arriving are the new generation F/A-18 E Super Hornet's which are manufactured and designed by McDonnell Douglas and Boeing. They are larger, faster, more advanced and have a greater range of over 2,300km's which is basically the length and breadth of Australia (seperately). They are not a total replacement for the F-111's, they are an interim replacement for them while we wait for completion and readiness of the new F-35 joint strike fighter/bomber.

There isn't really a plane on the market that would completely serve Australia's long range needs...so Nelson had to buy what he could. F/A-18 is a fantastic choice, agreed it isn't totally suited, but what other choice do we have? Australia can't make combat aircraft....

Name one reason why we shouldn't teach Creationism in Science class. Children need to be taught how to think, not what to think.

Without causing a massive debate by starting my opinion which is completely off this threads topic - I disagree with evolution wholeheartedly, the man who wrote it's theory said it was impossible, scientists trying to prove it have said in the past that it is impossible. It is a theory. (My opinion) and there are many others out there that think the same as I do. To cater for such different opinions, the education system must teach a child how to think, so that they can believe in what they choose to. A closer study of the bible and a more Christian influenced education system is wrong on what level? Look at the generation of people that our selfish and self focused and evolutionist education system has spawned...

That article does have all the hornets in it. You must have stopped reading after the first paragraph. 2300km isn't far, it's barely half way across Australia. The one reason creationism shouldn't be taught in a science class is that it's not science.. Simple really. Just because many others think like you doesn't make you right. The education system is there to teach facts not religion. If we teach your religion in a science class why not all religions in the science class? No time for science at all then.. As for the "Children have the right to decide for themselves" thing.. All children are born atheist and remain so until someone fills their heads with rubbish. Children don't get to choose their religion, it's given to them by their parents. As far as I'm concerned it's against the rights of children to brainwash them. If you really want to give them choice, don't teach religion to them till they are adults, then let them choose.

meh Creationism, Evolution whatever. Fact is - neither side has incontrevertible proof of there 'theories'. thats why they are still called 'theories'.

I don't care which one you teach, as long as you also teach acceptance of others views.

The science class is not the place for the acceptance of other views.. You, like most people mix up the word theory as science uses it. Most people use it as a scientist would use the word hypotheses. They are not both "just theories." As far as science and creationism go, one has observable truth the other is an hypotheses. If you do a little research I think you'll find evolution is an incontrovertible truth. Look up AronRa on youtube, he's pretty good at explaining it.

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories - The Scientific Method

[vr94ss]

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT

LOCATION: 7.30 Report - 15/03/2007: Nelson stands by fighter jet decision

Broadcast: 15/03/2007
Nelson stands by fighter jet decision

Reporter: Mark Bannerman

KERRY O'BRIEN: Welcome to the program. When the Government announced it would be spending $6 billion to buy 24 new fighter bombers last week, the defence establishment might have been expected to applaud. But, if there was applause, it was seriously muted. The criticism wasn't. The Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson, has come under sustained fire from a wide range of experts, including two former senior Air Force officers, who say the billions will be wasted on a poorly performed plane to fill a capability gap that isn't there. Now Mr Nelson is fighting back, saying it's a sound decision, for which he takes full responsibility. Mark Bannerman reports.

MARK BANNERMAN: It's sleek, it's fast. It's called the Super Hornet. And, if you believe the Government, it's the answer to our immediate strategic air needs.

BRENDAN NELSON, DEFENCE MINISTER: The Super Hornet, the Block 2, the most advanced version of it, is a very capable, very stealthy aircraft.

RICK MCCRARY, INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM DIRECTOR, BOEING: The Super Hornet Block 2 is a breakthrough aeroplane. Rugged long-life air frame, with great handling characteristics. It's been truly enhanced. It really makes it a next generation strike fighter.

MARK BANNERMAN: But it seems not everyone loves a Hornet.

AIR VICE-MARSHAL PETER CRISS (RET.): I am absolutely astounded that we're going to spend $6 billion of the taxpayers' money on an interim aircraft.

JOEL FITZGIBBON, OPPOSITION DEFENCE SPOKESMAN: The Super Hornet purchase is a $6 billion taxpayer funded election year fix. It's a patchup job.

MARK BANNERMAN: And it's not just the price that's stunned politicians and aviation experts, it is the plane itself.

PETER CRISS: I have trouble with the word 'super' and 'hornet', perhaps I would call it superdog or superbug, but certainly not a Super Hornet. The sting in the tail is not there.

MARK BANNERMAN: Peter Criss knows a thing or two about fighter planes and aircraft. He flew F 111s for longer than he cares to remember, and by the time he finished in the Air Force he was Air Commander Australia.

PETER CRISS: This thing will not survive in a fight now in our region - now, right now. Not another five years down the track, 10 years down the track. It is a dog.

MARK BANNERMAN: The question is, why is Australia prepared to spend $6 billion to fill a gap in our Air Force capability with a plane that arouses such controversy? Well, the answer can be found in this plane, the F 111. Controversial itself in its early years, the F 111 has been a remarkable aircraft.

AIR COMMODORE TED BUSHELL (RET.): The F 111 was quite capable of going out to 2020 and beyond and still retaining a very real deterrent and strategic strike capability throughout our region.

MARK BANNERMAN: Of course, all good things come to an end and, while the F 111 remains in the air, a replacement has to be found. Five years ago, the Government decided this plane would be their choice for the future. Known as the Joint Strike Fighter or JSF, the F 35 is an impressive bit of machinery.

BRENDAN NELSON: It was quite clear that what the Joint Strike Fighter then offered to Australia in terms of our future air combat capability is precisely the kind of outstanding all round capability in terms of bombing and air to air combat that Australia needs.

MARK BANNERMAN: As late as last year, the Air Force brass were telling anyone who wanted to listen the plan was on schedule.

AIR VICE-MARSHAL JOHN BLACKBURN: We're confident with the program as is currently progressing we shouldn't need an interim solution. However, as with most things in Defence, we're looking at contingency plans.

MARK BANNERMAN: But all that changed just a week ago.

BRENDAN NELSON: The Government will acquire 24 F 18 F Super Hornets.

MARK BANNERMAN: With those few words, Brendan Nelson effectively overturned five years of Air Force planning. The F 111 was out. The Joint Strike Fighter would come in its own good time, and Australia would pay $6 billion to buy a plane that, four months ago, his own top brass said was not needed.

PETER CRISS: I'm very concerned, because from close sources inside the department, I'm being assured that the request for the Super Hornet did not come from the department. So, if it didn't come from the department, where did it come from? Or what's driving the agenda?

MARK BANNERMAN: There is an easy answer to that and, today, when the 7.30 Report spoke to Brendan Nelson, he had this to say.

MARK BANNERMAN: I mean, basically all through last year the Air Force was telling the public that there was no need for an interim fighter. What changed?

BRENDAN NELSON: Well, I'm the minister and the Royal Australian Air Force and Defence officials were arguing quite rightly that there is not any gap and, whilst currently there is not any gap, my great concern is that with the ageing of the F 111s, that there will be uncertainty in the political process in the United States and with other partner countries that could potentially delay the delivery of the Joint Strike Fighter.

MARK BANNERMAN: It's significant the minister was not prepared to accept assurances from the Air Force that F 111s were safe to fly beyond 2010.

BRENDAN NELSON: What would happen if Australia did not acquire this squadron of Super Hornets and we had a wing failure or an engineering failure at 1.5 times the speed of sound at 100 feet above the ground in an F 111 in the year 2011?

MARK BANNERMAN: But if fear is the motivating factor for the minister, there are experts who now believe fear is no substitute for facts. Indeed, they claim the Super Hornet is simply the wrong plane to fill any perceived gap.

TED BUSHELL: It can't effectively perform the role that the Minister and the Department of Defence has given it.

MARK BANNERMAN: Ted Bushell is a retired Air Commodore with 25 years experience in the RAAF. He's been in engineering, maintenance and technical planning, and he simply does not believe the claims made about the Super Hornet.

TED BUSHELL: They've said the Super Hornet will maintain our air superiority in our region for the next decade. Not a hopping hope in hell of doing that. If it wasn't so serious, you'd have to laugh at it.

MARK BANNERMAN: The plane's critics are not confined to Australia. Reputable aviation experts in the United States tested the Super Hornet and had this to say.

REPORT TO THE US SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: "Testing has identified a number of deficiencies, perhaps 100 items of which I believe about 25 to 30 are appropriately considered major deficiencies."

BRENDAN NELSON: I have absolute confidence that our country will be well and truly protected by our upgraded FA 18s, a squadron of Super Hornets, and that they will also be able to ensure the safety and security of the men and women who will fly it.

MARK BANNERMAN: There the issue might rest. It doesn't. With the Government committing an extra $6 billion, the critics are now saying, let's rethink the whole strategy about buying new planes. Ditch the Super Hornet and the Joint Strike Force fighter and buy the top plane available the F-22 Raptor. There is just one problem the minister will hear none of it.

BRENDAN NELSON: The F-22, whilst it is a brilliant air to air combat capability is not the correct aircraft for Australia, would lose stealth capability once we put bombs on it.

TED BUSHELL: I sat down and I thought, "I can't be hearing properly". He's talking about the F-22, which some of the leading USAF generals have said is the best bomber we've seen for years.

MARK BANNERMAN: If the Minister for Defence thought he was clearing the decks in an election year by buying a new jet, he finds he's wrong. Indeed, it now seems he has a major dogfight on his hands.

NB: This transcript has been edited for accuracy.

[roy38]

f22 is a classified airframe (USA WILL NOT sell them to us or anyone) so its out, and not to mention the price of them IF they were for sale (which would involve severe downgrades i.e software, airframe (radar signature) etc.) we would get maybe 3 plus GSE.

[vr94ss]

f22 is a classified airframe (USA WILL NOT sell them to us or anyone) so its out, and not to mention the price of them IF they were for sale (which would involve severe downgrades i.e software, airframe (radar signature) etc.) we would get maybe 3 plus GSE.

Yeah, I know they won't sell them, some friends eh? A better choice than the super hornet would have been the eurofighter. The point is we didn't need either as the f-111 was fully capable of carrying out it's role beyond 2020 going by the experts in this field. Considering the US has a pile of them(f-111) sitting in the desert(where we bought the seakings from) parts are not a problem. The super hornet is a waste of 6 billion dollars and fills a role that doesn't exist, or didn't until Nelson, a govt minister, not a military expert, decided otherwise.

re: (which would involve severe downgrades i.e software, airframe (radar signature) etc.) we would get maybe 3 plus GSE.
We never get the full US software etc anyway. They always sell us windows home versions. We have to do our own upgrades.

[roy38]

the pile of pigs in the desert are a part of a treaty signed in the cold war and cannot be used by america or allys so no parts from them. the parts for the pigs come from store or are manufactured off drawings, some of which won't be released and hence their retirement, they would never have lasted til 2020. and how would the eurofighter have been a better choice then the super hornet, its got nothing we need. So lets just scrap 25 aircraft and not replace them cause their role doesn't exist aye? you wouldn't be saying that if the hoardes were coming over the hill and the only thing defending us were the super hornets...... would you

[HamaTime™]

T The one reason creationism shouldn't be taught in a science class is that it's not science.. Simple really. Just because many others think like you doesn't make you right. The education system is there to teach facts not religion. If we teach your religion in a science class why not all religions in the science class? No time for science at all then.. As for the "Children have the right to decide for themselves" thing.. All children are born atheist and remain so until someone fills their heads with rubbish. Children don't get to choose their religion, it's given to them by their parents. As far as I'm concerned it's against the rights of children to brainwash them. If you really want to give them choice, don't teach religion to them till they are adults, then let them choose.

The science class is not the place for the acceptance of other views.. You, like most people mix up the word theory as science uses it. Most people use it as a scientist would use the word hypotheses. They are not both "just theories." As far as science and creationism go, one has observable truth the other is an hypotheses. If you do a little research I think you'll find evolution is an incontrovertible truth. Look up AronRa on youtube, he's pretty good at explaining it.

Science class should be for teaching facts? Evolution is not fact, Evolution has more holes in it's theories than a bloody colander. Darwin himself said that Evolution is not a plausible solution to the World's existence and that there must be some form of higher power to have created life. Evolution is a theory, nothing more. It is not fact. Evolution is not a incontrovertible truth, it is a theory, written by a man....it gives little value to life.

if you want a full synopsis on how this theory has affected our society, Gary Ablett senior has hit the nail on the head

Gary Ablett Sr warns of drug, booze crisis in exclusive article | Herald Sun

Children are not born athiest, athiesm in itself is a belief in the fact that 'there is nothing else out there'.

[vr94ss]

the pile of pigs in the desert are a part of a treaty signed in the cold war and cannot be used by america or allys so no parts from them. the parts for the pigs come from store or are manufactured off drawings, some of which won't be released and hence their retirement, they would never have lasted til 2020. and how would the eurofighter have been a better choice then the super hornet, its got nothing we need. So lets just scrap 25 aircraft and not replace them cause their role doesn't exist aye? you wouldn't be saying that if the hoardes were coming over the hill and the only thing defending us were the super hornets...... would you

So both the super hornet or the eurofighter(a better choice that the f-18) have nothing we need, as I implied. But if the hordes were coming over the hill would we use either? If that's all we had, yes.. Duh.. The people who matter have said the f-111 would fulfill it's role to 2020 and beyond, they're the are the ones I'll listen to. I didn't know they could not be scrapped(US F-111s).. You know why the f-111's are part of that agreement? They were so capable and feared.. That shows how useful they can still be. The ex Eastern Blok(Russia) hated them because they were the plane that could nuke 'em without knowledge flying under radar. Yes times/tech have moved on but still the super hornet does not and cannot "fill the gap" of the f-111.

[vr94ss]

Science class should be for teaching facts? Evolution is not fact, Evolution has more holes in it's theories than a bloody colander. Darwin himself said that Evolution is not a plausible solution to the World's existence and that there must be some form of higher power to have created life. Evolution is a theory, nothing more. It is not fact. Evolution is not a incontrovertible truth, it is a theory, written by a man....it gives little value to life.

if you want a full synopsis on how this theory has affected our society, Gary Ablett senior has hit the nail on the head

Gary Ablett Sr warns of drug, booze crisis in exclusive article | Herald Sun

Children are not born athiest, athiesm in itself is a belief in the fact that 'there is nothing else out there'.

Edit: Oh.. Forgot.. Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology and how the earth got here. Darwin's evolution is about biology. It also has nothing to to with abiogenesis, how life came about before evolution could influence it.

Liar, liar pants on fire.. Atheism is a belief like not collecting stamps is a hobby.. What is the atheist belief system? It's a lack of belief.. like "I do not believe there is a god". In fact atheism has nothing to do with evolution. One can, and there a are many, be a scientist and acknowledge evolution as a fact and be a theist. Evolution is a fact and Darwin never denied his theory. That's a creationist lie. You should read a wider range of material. I suspect you don't read, not even your own bible, but.. You should. In fact I'd happily have a PM or some other chat with you to show you where/why you are wrong.

Children are born having "no belief" in gods or anything else like father xmas.. It's all imposed on them after the fact. All children are born atheist as much as you don't like hearing it..

edit: Forgot.. Evolution only addresses changes over time, not how organisms came into being(abiogenesis). Let alone how the earth came into being.. That comes under cosmology not evolution.

edit2: A f'd up my edit.. Meh..