Not my logic. Sounds more like that of a physics major!
So you want Australia to buy the proven F-22 instead of the hypothetical F-35. Yet I counter your argument with how many wars has the F-22 won? How many weapons has it delivered in anger in the region? Is not the F-22 also untested? Wouldn't the most tested aircraft be the best for Australia, and thus the F-18 and the F-111 should be the only aircraft concidered and thus a circular argument?
It seems you will conveniently claim the F-22 as a absolutely robust platform, yet even acknowledge that many muntions we would want to use have never been fired from it and are still undergoing development. It has not fired in situtations likely to be called apon. As far as risk go, adapting the F-22 for Australia seems to have more risk than purchasing the F-35.
Now you claim the principal american contractors are laughing all the way to the bank! Are not these many of the same contractors being used on the F-22? Perhaps we should buy soviet era equipment and fight capitalisim?
Now why is that, pray tell? Is there some limitation in the software or in the systems which says, "Nah! Not allowed to do that for Australia".
Well judging from some recent software bugs that may be exactly it. Certainly the USA would be highly protective of the technologies and specifics of the F-22 including source code and technical particulars which could be identified as weaknesses, or copied and adopted. Not to mention the USA would be forced to choose between all of its "very close allies" for F-22 approval.
Don't need to and why would you want to? Don't see this requirement in any of the strategic guidance of the Government or in any of the stated strategic needs of the DoD. Do you know something that no-one else seems to know?
Sometimes we have to ignore the pink elephant in the room. F-35B's off the LHD are indeed that pink elephant. It is a entirely feasable plan which Spain for one intends to follow. Certainly far more realisitic than evolved F-111. It seems to find much favour with members in these forums, so take that as you see it. Australia did see purpose in having carriers previously.
The limitation is the size of the weapons bay (principally the length), not weight. The hardpoints are stressed for far more.
Regardless, if it can't fit a 2,000lb. It can't fit a 2,000lb. Unless you have some secret chemistry to increase the density of the explosive, in that case do tell.
Interesting to observe that back in 2000/01 when it looked like the JSF CTOL would likely only carry 1,000 lb stores internally, the RAAF were using the contra argument against retaining the F-111 with its large stores weight carriage capability (more than 2,000 lb stores) because, with the high precision, smaller stores that were under development, the maximum weight store they would need to carry was the 1,000 lb-ers.
Indeed very interesting. The JSF F-35B is also limited to 1,000Lb devices. But the fact the F-35A can handle 2,000 lb class weapons is still in its favour. External weapons are falling out of favour, after all if you didn't need stealth just drive in the hornets.
Curious qualifications statement - particularly the 'merely'. Are you suggesting physics is somehow a lesser science?
Well, you origionally asked
Just out of interest, what are your qualifications and experience in matters of an aerospace nature? . My qualifications are merely broadly physics. I have done some work with aerodynamics, materials, and have studied several aerospace subjects. I am not a expert in this field, but that is not to say I am ignorant. You were asking in terms of specific qualifications and experience in relation to aerospace. My qualifications relate directly to physics and indirectly to aerospace. So yes, in that context, my physics is lesser than a specific qualification and experience in aerospace.
Answering the question is physics a lesser science? Well physics is a broader subject than the specific topic you listed. However broader does not mean inferior, many physicists are highly adaptable and are able to effectively work in other related fields. But this is getting just a tad off topic.
Then why is the present government prepared to spend over A$30 Bn on air combat capabilities with such an emphasis on dealing with air borne threats using networking with AEW&Cs and the like? Look at the threat scenarios they are basing their planning on. The majority are air threats which might just have something to do with the air-sea gap, don't you think?
Perhaps I haven't been clear. I do belive Australia needs a credible airforce. I certainly believe we can make one involving the F-35. I don't belive the F-22 should be high on the Australian aquisition list ahead of more pressing aquisitions. I do think its too much airplane, not entirely suited to our needs, is too costly. But based apon historic fact, proven evidence, which seems highly important to you and your F-22, Australia could infact get no combat aircraft and be perfectly safe. I make this statement to highlight its limitations.
Proven hardware is not always the best. Nor is unproven always the worse. We have to involve some sort of risk management in these sort of dealings.
Being physics qualified, I assume you would be familiar with the scientific method. Can you prove this statement about 'strike aircraft dressing' and explain why, in the process, the F-22 has four internal weapon bays and 4 x 5,000 lb rated external hard points plus the provision for an EOTS plus provision for sideways looking antennas plus ..... ?
Fitted for but not with. Yes, maybe the americans should have gone through with the FB-22 project. It would have resulted in effectively a larger F-35. Then you would have your strike aircraft. External hardpoints would lose most of the F-22 advantages in speed, stealth, range and manouverability. So now we are back at stage one.
In this environment, not being 'mind blowing brilliant' is what will get people killed and, more over, from a defensive posture perspective, make Australia a second or third rate power in the region.
How does 100 F-35 make Australia a third rate power in the region? Curious? I would have thought ~75 F-35A's and ~25 F-35B's would have made Australia one of the most powerful nations in defence measures. We are infact upgrading our capability and targeting for a 1:1 replacement of existing aircraft puts us in a very exclusive club.
Of course, you will not reply to my post, and I will not reply to yours. This conversation seems to be repeating itself. I think you have some interesting points, but you aren't seeing the big picture. Government seems to agree with me and disagree with you. Many other countries also disagree with you.
So I will quite happily sit out here, with Denmark, UK, Norway, Italy, Canada, the dutch, Spain, Turkey, the USA, the main contractors and the Australian government and the many board members here all alone. We will all look into the fishbowl of APA zealots and yourself who have truely found the righteous path in the form of the F-22 and try to work out how we all got it so very wrong and how easily each of our pathetic airforces will fail when tasked with defence.
Tschüs.
