F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped

[Crusader2000]

I must say I am a bit surprised that the Rafale and Typhoon are not considered as well. These aircraft are considered the 'best of the rest' after the F-22 and would give the RAAF air superiority in the region, while the JSF would be the strike aircraft.

However if the US could un bend enough to exclude development from the F-22 price, 20-25 F-22s would not be unrealistic for the RAAF.

"Best of the Rest"?nfloorl: I think not.........that honor clearly will belongs to the JSF for the forseeable future! Its Stealth, Power, and Weapons Systems alone leaves little doubt of that.


FLY NAVY

 

[Crusader2000]

Well, the problem won't go away unless Australia spends more?

 

[Dr Phobus]

"Best of the Rest"?nfloorl: I think not.........that honor clearly will belongs to the JSF for the forseeable future! Its Stealth, Power, and Weapons Systems alone leaves little doubt of that.


FLY NAVY

I think your seriously over-rating the dog figthing power of the JSF, its max speed is 1.8, it can not super cruiser, its stealth features will be down graded by exturnal weapon carriage. It's avonics are excellent, so are typhoon and rafale's. Look at the JSF thread and this one also, lots of debate on this interesting issue.

 

[Crusader2000]

I think your seriously over-rating the dog figthing power of the JSF, its max speed is 1.8, it can not super cruiser, its stealth features will be down graded by exturnal weapon carriage. It's avonics are excellent, so are typhoon and rafale's. Look at the JSF thread and this one also, lots of debate on this interesting issue.

No, I don't think so............aircombat rarely happens at speeds anywhere near Mach 1.8 regardless. Further, who says the JSF can't fly at super cruise speeds???? May I ask your source? While it may not fly at super cruise speed as fast or as long as a F-22 Raptor can. That doesn't mean it can't either! As for the JSF RCS being lowered by external stores. True, yet in most Air Superiority Missions in would not! Either way in would be much lower than any current generation fighter. We know for a fact that any F-35 can carry at least 4-AAM internally. (Note: Some sources claim six!) Giving it a very low RCS. Your Typhoon and Rafale would not have that luxury! They would have to carry at least one external fuel tank (maybe more) and all of there AAM's externally!!! So, in reality during a typical fighter mission. The JSF would likely be faster and have a much lower RCS than either of the two! In the real world of aircombat the JSF is faster than most not slower! With the exception of the F-22 Raptor of course..........

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think your seriously over-rating the dog figthing power of the JSF, its max speed is 1.8, it can not super cruiser, its stealth features will be down graded by exturnal weapon carriage. It's avonics are excellent, so are typhoon and rafale's. Look at the JSF thread and this one also, lots of debate on this interesting issue.

F-35's are not being designed with the ability to "supercruise" (at least initially). You can find that out at the official JSF website.

As to it's max speed, maximum dash speed has little or no influence on A2A capabilities and besides it's as quick as the F/A-18 series fighters and they have proven to be no slouches in A2A combat...

JSF's stealth and avionics are what will separate it's A2A abilities from every other fighter bar the F-22.

It's avionics capabilities are what Typhoon and Rafale hope to achieve in their Tranche 3 level, if this ever exists... (ie: AESA radar, integrated sensor/process packages, integrated EWSP etc).

It's stealth can never be matched by Teen series, any European or Russian/Chinese fighters that are currently known. As discussed earlier, JSF's will be able to carry 6 AAM's internally.

It also possesses significantly greater range than Teen or European fighters and thus will be able to remain on A2A station for greater periods, even without A2A refuelling.

Arguing that JSF will be disadvantaged by a possibility of carrying an external load is a non-sequitur. So is EVERY other fighter bar the F-22. The only difference is that JSF CAN carry an internal load only (and thus keep it's full stealth capability) and the others can't.

The JSF will carry weapons equal to or more capable than the other nominated fighter aircraft.

The JSF is being designed to exceed the level of capability for WVR AND BVR A2A combat that exists with the F/A-18/F-16 series. Presumably so do Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen.

Given the potency of the F/A-18/F-16 fleets in A2A combat the JSF will be now slouch if it's greater than them... I think therefore, it will more than hold it's own against Flanker/MiG-29 series fighters, even without taking into account it's stealth and avionics advantages.

I think the RAAF should pursue a 2 tier fleet. IF F-22 is definitely proven to be unaffordable than a fleet comprising F-35A/C's and F-35B's should be chosen. I think Typhoon's, Rafales and Gripens are good aircraft, they just don't offer enough of an advance over what we already have, to justify the cost, in my opinion...

The West and North of Australia is indeed a massive place to try and defend. It's just as well that the Tactical fighter force is assisted by force multipliers including (soon) Wedgetail AWACS, JORN over the horizon radar, A2A refuelling aircraft, RAN Air Warfare Destroyers and long range air defence radars.

No fighter could manage to defend this area on it's own and we've managed fine without a supercruising aircraft so far...

 

[Crusader2000]

F-35's are not being designed with the ability to "supercruise" (at least initially). You can find that out at the official JSF website.

As to it's max speed, maximum dash speed has little or no influence on A2A capabilities and besides it's as quick as the F/A-18 series fighters and they have proven to be no slouches in A2A combat...

JSF's stealth and avionics are what will separate it's A2A abilities from every other fighter bar the F-22.

It's avionics capabilities are what Typhoon and Rafale hope to achieve in their Tranche 3 level, if this ever exists... (ie: AESA radar, integrated sensor/process packages, integrated EWSP etc).

It's stealth can never be matched by Teen series, any European or Russian/Chinese fighters that are currently known. As discussed earlier, JSF's will be able to carry 6 AAM's internally.

It also possesses significantly greater range than Teen or European fighters and thus will be able to remain on A2A station for greater periods, even without A2A refuelling.

Arguing that JSF will be disadvantaged by a possibility of carrying an external load is a non-sequitur. So is EVERY other fighter bar the F-22. The only difference is that JSF CAN carry an internal load only (and thus keep it's full stealth capability) and the others can't.

The JSF will carry weapons equal to or more capable than the other nominated fighter aircraft.

The JSF is being designed to exceed the level of capability for WVR AND BVR A2A combat that exists with the F/A-18/F-16 series. Presumably so do Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen.

Given the potency of the F/A-18/F-16 fleets in A2A combat the JSF will be now slouch if it's greater than them... I think therefore, it will more than hold it's own against Flanker/MiG-29 series fighters, even without taking into account it's stealth and avionics advantages.

I think the RAAF should pursue a 2 tier fleet. IF F-22 is definitely proven to be unaffordable than a fleet comprising F-35A/C's and F-35B's should be chosen. I think Typhoon's, Rafales and Gripens are good aircraft, they just don't offer enough of an advance over what we already have, to justify the cost, in my opinion...

The West and North of Australia is indeed a massive place to try and defend. It's just as well that the Tactical fighter force is assisted by force multipliers including (soon) Wedgetail AWACS, JORN over the horizon radar, A2A refuelling aircraft, RAN Air Warfare Destroyers and long range air defence radars.

No fighter could manage to defend this area on it's own and we've managed fine without a supercruising aircraft so far...

I would have to agree at least initially the JSF wasn't planned to have "Super Cruise". Yet, somethings have come to light recently. First, that the JSF is much more aerodynamically designed than the public was lead to believe. Which, is my understanding to be equal or superior to the current F-16. Also, we now know that the P & W F-135 will at least produce 43,000 lbs of thrust. (Note: Some sources have listed thrust ot be as high as 56,000lbs!) This should give the JSF reasonable drag vs thrust @ Military Power! Of course much of this is speculation on everyones part until more hard data is available. Speaking of Super Cruise.........................a couple of points. First if fighter "A" could fly hypothetically @ Mach 0.95 (at military power) and fighter "B" could @ Mach 1.2. Would that really be such a advantage? More than likely that would be a mute point regardless. Because fighter "B" would have to carry its fuel and weapons externally. Which, would more than likely prevent it from flying at Super Cruise Speeds anyways. Really, the big benifit to "Super Crusie" as I see it. Is when it is combined with Stealth like in the F-22 Raptor! As for Autralia I agree fully.......She will have to make a choice or find more funds. More than likely she will buy a mix fleet of F-35A's (75-10) and F-35B's (25?). Its a outside possibility that a small number of F-22's could supplement the JSF fleet. (i.e. outside chance at best) IMO:unknown

 

[rossfrb_1]

The issue the RAAF has is that the West and North of the country are VERY large, a silver bullet force of 24 odd F-22s will not really help defend that, then again 120 JSF would be stretched pretty thin.

As an expeditionary force 10 F-22s and 20 F-35s would be a potent force.

I'm not sure those above prices include training and spares either, that would usually add 25-35% onto the fly away price:shudder

If the RAAF ever got F-22s I doubt that they would ever be based offshore!
Being so expensive, they would only ever be bought in small numbers and therefore I do not see them ever being part of an expeditionary force.
That's what some F-35Bs would be for, based from the two LHDs the RAN are getting
cheers
rb

 

[rossfrb_1]

Well the JSF will not need the range of the F-111, in flight refulling along with JASSM with give the RAAF the strike range they require. Yes, the F-22, JSF threads are all talking about the ability of JSF to go toe to toe with Flanker variants. I can not conceve a day when the RAAF will buy F-22. Not that the aussies are as hard as nails because they are.

Remember the RAAF are only getting FIVE MRTT A330s. That will be the total number of aerial refuellers for the ADF. [Dragging in my argument from the C-17 thread - an increased buy of MRTT A330s really makes sense (to me) you get a medium/heavy weight lifter plus additional refuelling capacity.]
Five aerial refuellers would be hard pressed providing anything more than a limited refuelling capability for small numbers of aircraft recquiring time on station or extended range, north of continental Australia.
In addition, JSF is single engined. I believe twin engine is preferred for aircraft performing maritime duties. I believe that a part of the future RAAF fast jet strike fleet will have be tasked with maritime strike as a core part of their envisaged duties, as the F-111s currently are.

cheers
rb

 

[Crusader2000]

If the RAAF ever got F-22s I doubt that they would ever be based offshore!
Being so expensive, they would only ever be bought in small numbers and therefore I do not see them ever being part of an expeditionary force.
That's what some F-35Bs would be for, based from the two LHDs the RAN are getting
cheers
rb

Of course much would depend on how many F-22's the RAAF had? That said, even 8-12 could have a big impact. Let's say the RAAF sent 12-24 JSF to aid her Allies in a conflict like Iraq. Then sent another 8-12 F-22's as escort......even a force as small of four would be better than nothing to any strike package.

 

[Crusader2000]

Remember the RAAF are only getting FIVE MRTT A330s. That will be the total number of aerial refuellers for the ADF. [Dragging in my argument from the C-17 thread - an increased buy of MRTT A330s really makes sense (to me) you get a medium/heavy weight lifter plus additional refuelling capacity.]
Five aerial refuellers would be hard pressed providing anything more than a limited refuelling capability for small numbers of aircraft recquiring time on station or extended range, north of continental Australia.
In addition, JSF is single engined. I believe twin engine is preferred for aircraft performing maritime duties. I believe that a part of the future RAAF fast jet strike fleet will have be tasked with maritime strike as a core part of their envisaged duties, as the F-111s currently are.

cheers
rb

Well, maybe the RAAF should consider a fleet of all F-35B's? These can be forward deployed during any conflict or based on ships nearby! Further, regardless what model Australia orders. They will need Tanker Support...............


FLY NAVY

 

[rossfrb_1]

Of course much would depend on how many F-22's the RAAF had? That said, even 8-12 could have a big impact. Let's say the RAAF sent 12-24 JSF to aid her Allies in a conflict like Iraq. Then sent another 8-12 F-22's as escort......even a force as small of four would be better than nothing to any strike package.

I seriously doubt that the RAAF could afford to buy more than about 20ish F-22s in total. 30 maximum. Assuming a hi-lo F-22/JSF mix. With such a low number, I doubt that they would ever be based on foreign soil (well maybe NZ) - way too valuable otherwise. If the ADF was in a postion where it warranted sending 8-12 F-22s off somewhere OS, that could almost be half the F-22 fleet. Then chances are the same circumstances would dictate that Australia would want every fighter available to be stationed on its own shores.

 

[Crusader2000]

I seriously doubt that the RAAF could afford to buy more than about 20ish F-22s in total. 30 maximum. Assuming a hi-lo F-22/JSF mix. With such a low number, I doubt that they would ever be based on foreign soil (well maybe NZ) - way too valuable otherwise. If the ADF was in a postion where it warranted sending 8-12 F-22s off somewhere OS, that could almost be half the F-22 fleet. Then chances are the same circumstances would dictate that Australia would want every fighter available to be stationed on its own shores.

Well, how many F/A-18's are currently available to the RAAF and how many did she send during both Gulf Wars?

 

[rossfrb_1]

Well, how many F/A-18's are currently available to the RAAF and how many did she send during both Gulf Wars?

Slightly tangential, but....
Dunno about GW1.
Google tells me that fourteen F-18s were sent to GW2
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/andrewbrooks1/rond65.html

Originally 75 FA-18s were purchased, 57 single-seat A models (designated A21-1 to A21-57) and 18 two-seat B models (A21-101 to A21-118).
http://www.boeing.com.au/YearOfHornet/History.html

With attrition, I believe this number may now be down to 71.

 

[coolieno99]

Just to put it into perspective the cost per unit of the F-22A is US$133m, including the development cost, the cost per unit for 180 is US$354m!!

Does this mean three F-22A is equal to one 90,000 ton USN Nimitz class aircraft carrier(empty)? It seem a bit overpriced.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Does this mean three F-22A is equal to one 90,000 ton USN Nimitz class aircraft carrier(empty)? It seem a bit overpriced.

A US Carrier is typically $4-6bn USD - nowhere near a comparitive price - let alone mission issues.

 

[LancerMc]

A carrier would be an ineffective investment for the Australia's military forces. The ocean the carrier would have to cover is just too vast for one CVN to patrol. The FA-22 is a better choice for the replacement of the F-111's currently in service. It would provide a fighter and attack aircraft that can cover most of the country and surrounding coastal regions. There were also rumors the RAAF was interested in retired B-1B's. This idea on paper is good, because of range and weapons loads (both dumb and smart). The latest variants can carry 80 500lb JDAMs. This idea while grand is also ineffective because the B-1B logistic costs are huge because parts are in such short supply. I personally know since I have been at Ellsworth A.F.B. twice and talked with numerous maintenance personal about the situation in supplying parts to the fleet. The RAAF would end up with a worse situation then the current situation the F-111 fleet is in now. I think the FA-22 is best solution for a long range fighter/attack aircraft for the RAAF. That by no means does that make the Eurofighter or Rafale bad choices as well.

 

[Crusader2000]

A carrier would be an ineffective investment for the Australia's military forces. The ocean the carrier would have to cover is just too vast for one CVN to patrol. The FA-22 is a better choice for the replacement of the F-111's currently in service. It would provide a fighter and attack aircraft that can cover most of the country and surrounding coastal regions. There were also rumors the RAAF was interested in retired B-1B's. This idea on paper is good, because of range and weapons loads (both dumb and smart). The latest variants can carry 80 500lb JDAMs. This idea while grand is also ineffective because the B-1B logistic costs are huge because parts are in such short supply. I personally know since I have been at Ellsworth A.F.B. twice and talked with numerous maintenance personal about the situation in supplying parts to the fleet. The RAAF would end up with a worse situation then the current situation the F-111 fleet is in now. I think the FA-22 is best solution for a long range fighter/attack aircraft for the RAAF. That by no means does that make the Eurofighter or Rafale bad choices as well.

The RAAF is better off to stick with the JSF. The F-22A Raptor is just to expensive to be ordered in the numbers required. Further, the F-35 will be superior to both the Typhoon and Rafale. Especially, in the Strike Role.....

 

[gf0012-aust]

The RAAF is better off to stick with the JSF. The F-22A Raptor is just to expensive to be ordered in the numbers required. Further, the F-35 will be superior to both the Typhoon and Rafale. Especially, in the Strike Role.....

I can't find the official link (but Aussie Digger might be able to provide a stored copy from somwhere)


But the official RAAF response on why we chose F-35 over F-22, Rafale, Typhoon, Su-30 derivatives is quite clear.

In the case of F-22 cost - even though cost burden was a factor - it wasn't the single largest determinant - the F-35 won on a number of other significant factors that the F-22 couldn't cover off wrt our regional/threat matrix.

 

[Crusader2000]

I can't find the official link (but Aussie Digger might be able to provide a stored copy from somwhere)


But the official RAAF response on why we chose F-35 over F-22, Rafale, Typhoon, Su-30 derivatives is quite clear.

In the case of F-22 cost - even though cost burden was a factor - it wasn't the single largest determinant - the F-35 won on a number of other significant factors that the F-22 couldn't cover off wrt our regional/threat matrix.

Yes, read the article a little while back.(intersting) Do you think the RAAF will order stickly landbased F-35A's? I have heard rumors it was considering a mix both CTOL (A's) and STOVL (B's)?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yes, read the article a little while back.(intersting) Do you think the RAAF will order stickly landbased F-35A's? I have heard rumors it was considering a mix both CTOL (A's) and STOVL (B's)?

At IDEX 2005 Chief of Nav was intensely interested in the Spanish offering of our LHA requirement. The Spanish LHA would allow better opportunity for JSF-B's.

At this stage I'd say CTOL's only. But I don't think that the stollies are out of the game - there's definitely a cohort within Navy that want a defacto0 carrier role.

The issue is support units and costs. Thats a huge imposition currently.

Unless the region turns "hot", I think we're out of the carrier business for another decade or so.