RAAF Stopgap air plan is 'dumb'

[daisy_cutter]

Actually the thrust to weight ratio of the JSF is the single biggest problem with the entire project at present

Thats not true, especially of the F/A-35A. If you look at the figures, the JSF's TWR is competitive. Its mainly its aerdoynamics (from what we can tell) that compromise its manouverability. And only the F/A-35B cannot carry 2000lb bombs. Kopp tends to state F/A-35B problems as being problems for the JSF as a whole.

Re AAM load, I don't see why, if needed, the F/A-22's load of 6 BRAAMs and 2 WVRAAMs couldn't be carried internally.

Basing your defence on the hope that your EW and tactics are better than your opponents, when your platform is not markedly superior is the height of foolishness in my view.

There is more to it than just those two, and when you say superior, you are talking about one aspect of the platform: manouverability.

Regional SU-30 series fighters are being equipped with French and Israeli avionics, which have demonstrably high levels of capability.

Regional air forces are equipping themselves (or have plans to do so) with modern AWACS platforms, advanced air search and track radars and modern datalinks.

Yes but they are still behind the US (in terms of AWACS, ESA's and datalinks). Israeli and French avionics too are far behind the JSF's incredible data fusion. Don't forget that while Carlo always talks about up-and-coming Russian projects, the US hasn't stopped R&D either, for example AIM-120D and electronics updates throughout the JSF program.

A small force of F-22's, combined with a predominant JSF force, would alleviate so many problems for the RAAF, that it deserves serious consideration...

I consider the JSF perfectly adequate. Even were the JSF's costs to escalate and the F/A-22 to have such a turnaround that the F/A-22 is around twice the price of a JSF, the extra logistics and smaller bomb load would still make it less attractive than an all-JSF buy.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Well I unfortunately think the JSF is less than adequate as the sole combat aircraft for the RAAF for quite a number of reasons. The main one is that it is primarily being designed as a second tier strike/fighter for the USAF and USN. Other Countries have chosen to adopt it as their primary fighter mainly because of it's perceived "cheapness".

It is not being designed from the outset as a top level fighter/strike aircraft because the USN and USAF don't need another one. They already have other types performing this role. They are acquiring a new fighter to replace their legacy fleets and round out their force structure and support their "high end" fighters. Not to specifically acquire a high end warfighting capability.
In addition to this it's cheapness is extremely debatable.

It's often compared favourably to the F-22 but only on the basis of it's "expected" individual platform cost. Not when the cost of the developmental program is factored in. The F-22 on the other hand is only ever considered on what a platform costs NOW, not what a mature production run Raptor will cost. Statements like, "forget the Raptor, we'll never be able to afford it", (a direct quote by Defence Minister Robert HILL) don't really put much faith in the fact that they've conducted an actual detailed assessment on the subject.

Name a modern (ie: 4th gen+) new build fighter program that hasn't run into unexpected delays and massive cost increases? Yet apparently the "wonderful" JSF won't suffer any of these problems. Apparently the fact that it will be the most software intensive aircraft of all time (17 million + lines of code) won't prove to be a problem either, (to put this in perspective the extremely complex Wedgetail AWACS has about 2.5 million lines of code!!!) nor lead to any cost increases.

On top of all this the USAF and USN have already slashed their planned buys by 1/3rd and the first F-35A hasn't even flown yet, let alone got close to developing any sort of capability.

i'll finish now with one last statement as I have to run. The JSF (every variant) has been designed from the very outset to carry 2 BVRAAM's and 2 WVRAAM's internally ONLY, or 2 AAM and 2 air to ground weapons. Tha's why it can't carry the Raptors warload. The internal bays have been specifically designed for that load.

Kind of makes you wonder the intended role of the aircraft doesn't it? 2 A2A missiles and 2 bombs. It's going to be a "great" air defence fighter...

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm one of those who doesn't think that the JSF is an adequate replacement for the A2A or strike role. Bear in mind that the USAF is looking at the JSF to undertake the LO portion of their Hi-Lo mix. it's vulnerabilities are minimised when used as part of a paired system.

For a country like Australia - having it for the sole platform under expected doctrine is a bit of a stretch.

I've always been an advocate of a real Hi-Lo combination. Typhoon is a far better carrier - and IMV working with AWACs and its own radar system is a better combination of capability within an aircraft.

Hi Lo for me would be Typhoon/JSF

 

[Aussie Digger]

I agree completely gf, the only debate should be on the "partner" for the JSF and the numbers mix between the 2. The JSF should be primarily acquired for Strike missions (it's primary intended role afterall) and A2A should primarily be handed by a fighter better suited to it.

Eurofighter would be a good choice and would possess all the "networking" capability the JSF will... Personally I hope an actual detailed assessment is carried out prior to the final decision being made. AIR 6000 was actually cancelled (or at least massively scaled down) prior to an extensive comparison was made between the various competing fighters, let alone a "flyoff".

This lack of process has concerned several otehr noted defence persons. This project irregardless of which aircraft is chosen WILL be the largest defence contract ever undertaken in Australia, and probably the Southern Hemisphere and they are not even undertaking a rigorous detailed analysis. It has disaster spelt all over it... There is no apparent backup plan should the JSF not prove as capable or viable as hoped...

 

[daisy_cutter]

It's often compared favourably to the F-22 but only on the basis of it's "expected" individual platform cost. Not when the cost of the developmental program is factored in. The F-22 on the other hand is only ever considered on what a platform costs NOW, not what a mature production run Raptor will cost.

Even the most optimistic of estimates puts the F/A-22's unit cost at $US130 million. Prices increase with inflation, but in today's dollars, the F/A-35A is estimated to cost about $45 million. There are many reasons why the JSF has less risk than most previous fighter programs: leveraging of research and lessons from the F/A-22 program is one of them, whereas the F/A-22 program involved extensive bleeding-edge research. The engine for instance is basically a development of the F/A-22's F-119. The sourcing of components is driven very much by cost for a given quality, and less to giving each partner country a fair share. That's why Norway was so unhappy with the work it has got out of the SDD phase.

There is, of course, significant risks for costs to increase, but I think far less than previous fighter programs.

Also, there's no guarantee that we would be given access to the F/A-22.

The JSF (every variant) has been designed from the very outset to carry 2 BVRAAM's and 2 WVRAAM's internally ONLY, or 2 AAM and 2 air to ground weapons.

Yes but there should be enough room to carry 8 AAM if you compare to the F/A-22's bays. I don't see any reason new racks could not be developed, its been done many times before...

The main one is that it is primarily being designed as a second tier strike/fighter for the USAF and USN.

Just because it is not as capable as the F/A-22, or the B-2, does not make it not good enough for the RAAF. Could we debate the qualities of the plane apart from how to describe it, which critics will always say 'Second tier STRIKE/fighter' as though this label puts a limit on its capabilities.

Lastly I would have to agree that the lack of due diligence in making this decision is deplorable...

 

[Aussie Digger]

The RAAF was extensively briefed on the F-22 by both the USAF and LM whilst AIR 6000 actually existed as a competition. Assurances were given at that time, that the RAAF would be able to acquire the F-22 if it chose to. I can't provide any more specific info about that, but have read it in numerous reputable publications.

As to the eventual cost of the Raptor, this is as much a matter of debate as the JSF itself. The current buy of Raptors is funded to around 180 (177 or 179 depending on who's being interviewed) aircraft already. The USAF STILL has a total requirement for 383. This number is what is required to replace the existing F-15C fleet. Is the USAF going to operate the F-22A and F-15C fleets side by side indefinitely? I seriously doubt it.

In addition to these numbers, the USAF still has a requirement to replace it's 350 odd F-15E Strike Eagles. This is a role the JSF cannot fill. It's legs simply aren't long enough. You'll see an operational "Strike Raptor" one of these days, mark my words...

The JSF's label as a "second tier" fighter, is extremely relevant to this discussion because by definition it DOES limit ithe JSF's capabilities. The JSF is being designed with very specific financial and operational restraints, because it's main customers do not WANT it to be anymore capable. They want to spend their money on making other platforms more capable.

The qualities this process will provide is a strike optimised fighter that will be particularly capable in battlefield strike and interdiction roles. It will have secondary capabilities in both air to air and long range strike capabilities, but these are akin to an "after-thought" not a primary design requirement.

As a direct result of this, the JSF is being designed with a limited stealth design only, when compared to other stealth designs. The basic shaping of the F-35 is slanted towards battlefield radar avoidance, not air to air radar avoidance. It's big round exhaust is a prime example of this. Look at every other stealth aircraft and see what their exhausts look like...

As to the risk in it's development, well it's still in it's infancy, so it remains to e seen. No fighter development within the last 20 years hasn't suffered massive delays and cost increases. It is for this fact alone, that I don't believe JSF costs will remain "reasonable"...

 

[daisy_cutter]

Once again with the labelling of the JSF and saying 'it will do this well but not this', its more interesting if we look at what it is projected to be able to do and how this compares with likely threats...

Its RCS will be far larger than other stealth aircraft from the rear quarter... Generally given its superior situational awareness, it will be engagin aircraft head on, and its better than no rcs-reduction at all. btw before you can be patronising, as opposed to childish, you need to get better sources than Kopp.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The RAAF was extensively briefed on the F-22 by both the USAF and LM whilst AIR 6000 actually existed as a competition. Assurances were given at that time, that the RAAF would be able to acquire the F-22 if it chose to. I can't provide any more specific info about that, but have read it in numerous reputable publications.

I can't find a copy of the transcript, but I'm sure that Tom Schieffer (US Ambassador) made clear comment about the F-22 being available for Aust if it was in Australias strategic interest. This was followed up by the GM of Lockmart making similar references at LWC (of all places!)

There must be a reference to it either on US Embassy (Aust) site or AusDoD somewhere.

 

[knightrider4]

As far as the F-22 goes unless the RAAF can afford the ac numbers to make them a credible force there is simply no point in purchasing them but I'm only an amature when it comes to military affairs. As far as the JSF is concerned one assumes that the powers that be would know a little more than your average joe in regards its capabilities and more importantly what the RAAF expects of it. I guess what I'm trying to say is as long as the RAAF know's its getting a 'Block 2" ac suitable for strike missions against low level regional air defences its not a problem. However a Block 2 going up against a sophisticated intergrated and networked air defence system is a completely different ball game.:coffee

 

[rossfrb_1]

Dr Carlo KOPP does make some very valid points. Unfortunately they are also futile quite often. He is obsessed with the F-111. He even did a series of articles a few years back about turning the F-111 into an AMRAAM carrying interceptor to defeat the regional SU-30 fleet..

Have you got a cite for that? If you are referring to http://www.f-111.net/CarloKopp/F-111_Upgrade_Options_Pt_4.htm then he was talking about giving the f-111 an asraam capability (f-111 is aim-9 capable already) so that in its job as a bomber it would have some measure of self protection. Anyway, an amraam capability would be a useful addenum surely? No one is suggesting that the f-111 is a dogfighter. An interceptor isn't necessarily meant to be a dogfighter, esp if you have bvr type weapons. An f-111 with an aesa and in conjunction with a wedgetail would be quite formidable I would have thought. Actually, amraam capable f-111s would be great minders for wedgetails.

 

[rossfrb_1]

Gerard McManus 05mar04

"DEFENCE chiefs have begun shopping for stopgap fighter jets to fill a growing hole in the nation's defence.

The phase-out of the RAAF's ageing jet fighter fleet and the likelihood that the replacement F-35 Joint Strike Fighters will not be ready when due in 2012 has created a vacuum in air combat and strike capabilities.
Defence sources say attempts to patch up our decrepit fleet of 71 F/A-18s and 33 F-111s will prove too costly and difficult. "

Who does one believe? Dr Kopp thinks that the f-111 can be 'patched' up reasonably cheaply

"This one is a bit of a giggle for people in the RAAF, the journalist has misspelt the proponents name - he's called Dr Carlo Kopp and he is considered to be a pain in the rear..."

Who considers him a pain, politicians who have an agenda to retire the f-111?

"An academic armchair analyst.... "

Are there any other sort?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Have you got a cite for that? If you are referring to http://www.f-111.net/CarloKopp/F-111_Upgrade_Options_Pt_4.htm then he was talking about giving the f-111 an asraam capability (f-111 is aim-9 capable already) so that in its job as a bomber it would have some measure of self protection. Anyway, an amraam capability would be a useful addenum surely? No one is suggesting that the f-111 is a dogfighter. An interceptor isn't necessarily meant to be a dogfighter, esp if you have bvr type weapons. An f-111 with an aesa and in conjunction with a wedgetail would be quite formidable I would have thought. Actually, amraam capable f-111s would be great minders for wedgetails.

An AMRAAM capability would realistically entail an entirely new radar for the F-111. This is not a trivial OR cheap exercise, as Kopp states it would be. For starters, only 17 F-111C's are capable of carrying AMRAAM. The rest of the F-111 fleet is not capable of operating AMRAAM at ALL and would require the same extensive upgrades the "C" fleet has received to do so, and you're looking at a 10+ year billion dollar upgrade program then... Such a fleet couldn't mind Wedgetails AND provide our long range strike capability...

Integrating a modern radar system on a fleet that small then (assuming the "G"s are not upgraded) that is operated ONLY by Australia is going to have a massive non-recurring expenditure cost that is NOT going to be gained back through savings in maintenance costs. We would be soley responsible for every piece of expenditure, the engineering challenges of attempting something the only other operator never even contemplated AND for maintaining this beast. On top of this, original RAAF plans only ever envisaged operating the F-111 until 2020 at most. Due to widely known airframe issues and operating cost, the F-111 would require massive expenditure to simply keep it flying as is....

Given the 4-5 years "minimum" it would take to integrate a new radar (a VASTLY more complicated procedure than integrating the Popeye missile, which itself took 4 years+), this would mean an operational life of 10 years at best, based on RAAF plans. To acquire and integrate this radar (let alone the APG-81 that Kopp wants) would probably cost several hundred million dollars alone, (based on the APG-73 radar upgrade the F/A-18's received).

This massive expenditure would gain us 17 bombers that can fire AMRAAM's. I'd personally rather this money went on additional capabilities for our existing F/A-18's or additional A2A or Wedgetail Awacs aircraft. At least these options, would pose less technical risk. All of Carlo's idea's are completely theoretical, posed by someone with no actual engineering knowledge OR experience on the platform he's proposing for these upgrades. He is afterall a Civilian software engineer and Civilian Cessna pilot. He's never spent a day employed by the RAAF in his life...

Kopp's F-111 interceptor idea also involved re-engineering the F-111 to carry the same F119 engines as the F-22 Raptor. Can you IMAGINE how much this would cost, even if it were technically possible AND we were actualy allowed to acquire F119 engines?

This whole program would cost billions IMHO. We could probably acquire an F-15E/k/T Strike Eagle fleet for less, given that Korea just bought 40 F-15K's for $4 Billion...

I wonder if Kopp would care to argue that his 17 strong AMRAAM F-111 would be a better interceptor force than a new build 40 strong F-15K fleet?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Who does one believe? Dr Kopp thinks that the f-111 can be 'patched' up reasonably cheaply

Dr Kopp is a mobile phone engineer - he's not a pilot, never served and actually is motivated by fear of India and China. hence his obsession with the Su-27, Su-30 and F-111

Who considers him a pain, politicians who have an agenda to retire the f-111?

"An academic armchair analyst.... "

Are there any other sort?

By any sense of risk benefit and cost benefit analysis there are a number of flaws in retaining the F-111. I've got a sentimental streak for the old girl, but that doesn't mean that I'm blinkered by my fascination for her capablities and the reality of what it would cost to maintain and update her.

I haven't worked with Kopp, but I've had substantial dealings with his aviation engineer on a couple of projects. One being the AP3-C upgrades, and the other being the Caribou. I've also sat in a room where his offsider delivered a briefing on how the F-111 could be extended for service and where real pilots and logisticians shot it down in (nice) flames. Not one polly in that room - and Pollies take their advice from various sources - not just mobile phone engineers with an agenda and a selective dissertation on force enhancement.

 

[rossfrb_1]

An AMRAAM capability would realistically entail an entirely new radar for the F-111. This is not a trivial OR cheap exercise, as Kopp states it would be. For starters, only 17 F-111C's are capable of carrying AMRAAM. The rest of the F-111 fleet is not capable of operating AMRAAM at ALL and would require the same extensive upgrades the "C" fleet has received to do so, and you're looking at a 10+ year billion dollar upgrade program then... Such a fleet couldn't mind Wedgetails AND provide our long range strike capability...

It could if the F-111 fleet were expanded. Which is a logical option if the F-111 were to be retained.
[FONT=&quot]An AMRAAM capable F-111 would not necessarily be locked out from being a bomber. It’s just added functionality.

[/FONT]

Integrating a modern radar system on a fleet that small then (assuming the "G"s are not upgraded) that is operated ONLY by Australia is going to have a massive non-recurring expenditure cost that is NOT going to be gained back through savings in maintenance costs. We would be soley responsible for every piece of expenditure, the engineering challenges of attempting something the only other operator never even contemplated AND for maintaining this beast. On top of this, original RAAF plans only ever envisaged operating the F-111 until 2020 at most. Due to widely known airframe issues and operating cost, the F-111 would require massive expenditure to simply keep it flying as is....

Surely upgrading the radars would be for added functionality, it’s not the area you would necessarily be looking at for maintainance savings. Having said that I cannot imagine a new radar necessarily having greater maintainance needs than the existing ones. Maintaining legacy equipment can be quite expensive at times. Your experience with the Caribous would have taught you that?
I believe Dr Kopp has addressed this http://www.ausairpower.net/hu_312-7.pdf, it seems to contradict your opinions.

Given the 4-5 years "minimum" it would take to integrate a new radar (a VASTLY more complicated procedure than integrating the Popeye missile, which itself took 4 years+), this would mean an operational life of 10 years at best, based on RAAF plans. To acquire and integrate this radar (let alone the APG-81 that Kopp wants) would probably cost several hundred million dollars alone, (based on the APG-73 radar upgrade the F/A-18's received).

Yep, one of the reasons I see for not retaining the F-111 is related to the length of time it would now take (starting late 2005) to get all this to happen. Defense seems REAL slow in their ability to do things.
Having said that, some of the issues with the AGM142 were related to its draggy nature, wing fatigue and the desire to carry it externally. As I understand it, virtually all airframe fatigue issues have now been addressed. Surely some of the blame for the time taken to integrate the missile should go to the people who chose the AGM 142 for the F-111 and not the F-111?
Also look at http://www.ausairpower.net/hu_312-7.pdf - which includes a statement that there has already been an industry sponsored study on a radar retrofit. So some of the work has presumably already been done.

This massive expenditure would gain us 17 bombers that can fire AMRAAM's. I'd personally rather this money went on additional capabilities for our existing F/A-18's or additional A2A or Wedgetail Awacs aircraft. At least these options, would pose less technical risk.

AIR 6000 is going to be a massive expenditure one way or the other. We can make guesses about the costs. I don’t believe that a radar upgrade would be prohibitively expensive. Retaining and upgrading the F-111 would change the dynamics of the project. It would also give the RAAF additional options/capabilities over those it would have with an all JSF fleet (a concept that I am nervous with).

All of Carlo's idea's are completely theoretical, posed by someone with no actual engineering knowledge OR experience on the platform he's proposing for these upgrades. He is afterall a Civilian software engineer and Civilian Cessna pilot. He's never spent a day employed by the RAAF in his life...

Two things: 1) http://www.f-111.net/CarloKopp/F-111_Upgrade_Options_Pt_4.htm
“Author's note:
This series was compiled from the best available open source material, and is as detailed and accurate as is possible without engaging in specific engineering proposal development. The draft was reviewed both in the US and locally by a number of experts, including both former USAF F-111 aircrew and design engineers with experience on the F-111 and the powerplants discussed. The author would like to extend his sincere thanks for the support provided and advice given. “

2) And the message that I am getting is “HOW DARE THIS CIVILIAN TELL US HOW TO DO OUR JOB!” I bet a lot of people are really pissed off that this civilian dare intrude on their territory.

Kopp's F-111 interceptor idea also involved re-engineering the F-111 to carry the same F119 engines as the F-22 Raptor. Can you IMAGINE how much this would cost, even if it were technically possible AND we were actualy allowed to acquire F119 engines?

Now REALLY, that is selective reporting of the facts! Here are two articles, and in neither case does he push for the F119 as the prime option.
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-F-111-Upgrades-1998.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/ADA-F-111.pdf

This whole program would cost billions IMHO. We could probably acquire an F-15E/k/T Strike Eagle fleet for less, given that Korea just bought 40 F-15K's for $4 Billion...

Hmmm, like the 30 billion to acquire 16 AAR? Like I already said, we can all speculate on the costs and agree to disagree.
You are forgetting the massive investment we already have in F-111 infrastructure. It’s already there, we wouldn’t be starting from scratch like we would with a new aircraft like the F-15.

I wonder if Kopp would care to argue that his 17 strong AMRAAM F-111 would be a better interceptor force than a new build 40 strong F-15K fleet?

Is the F-15 as good a bomb truck as the F-111?

 

[rossfrb_1]

Dr Kopp is a mobile phone engineer - he's not a pilot, never served and actually is motivated by fear of India and China. hence his obsession with the Su-27, Su-30 and F-111

Surely whatever ADF thinktank that workshops these scenarios would have to consider China, if not India (amongst others). If they only ever operate under the pretext of 'an aggressor from the north', then I don't believe that they are doing their job properly.

By any sense of risk benefit and cost benefit analysis there are a number of flaws in retaining the F-111. I've got a sentimental streak for the old girl, but that doesn't mean that I'm blinkered by my fascination for her capablities and the reality of what it would cost to maintain and update her.

An all JSF fleet has some issues as well!

I haven't worked with Kopp, but I've had substantial dealings with his aviation engineer on a couple of projects. One being the AP3-C upgrades, and the other being the Caribou. I've also sat in a room where his offsider delivered a briefing on how the F-111 could be extended for service and where real pilots and logisticians shot it down in (nice) flames. Not one polly in that room - and Pollies take their advice from various sources - not just mobile phone engineers with an agenda and a selective dissertation on force enhancement.

I've seen individuals get shot down by a group, purely because the group wanted to, nothing to do with the validity of the individual's arguments.
It's easy, deliberately misinterpret something they say, pick on the fact that they used the word 'and' instead of 'or' or something equally trivial and twist what they said. Groups are good, you can have more than one person interjecting at a time, great for getting an individual flustered.......

 

[gf0012-aust]

Surely whatever ADF thinktank that workshops these scenarios would have to consider China, if not India (amongst others). If they only ever operate under the pretext of 'an aggressor from the north', then I don't believe that they are doing their job properly.

Of course they do, there is a clear distinction in the way that the theoreticals are treated though. Kopp is a firm believer in India as an aggressor. As for China, well, every strategist in the region would be doing their sums on China extending their reach. Their force construction, diplomatic language (string of pearls discussions) makes some of the region very nervous. Their very specific intent after GW1 to institute a meaningful RMA means that they need to be considered seriously.

An all JSF fleet has some issues as well!

My views on JSF are pretty well established. I'm not a single platform supporter - esp when that aircraft will be fulfilling a hi-lo mix. other users have force balance of discrete platforms on hi-lo. there's a message there in my opinion.

I've seen individuals get shot down by a group, purely because the group wanted to, nothing to do with the validity of the individual's arguments.

It's easy, deliberately misinterpret something they say, pick on the fact that they used the word 'and' instead of 'or' or something equally trivial and twist what they said. Groups are good, you can have more than one person interjecting at a time, great for getting an individual flustered.......

Well, I'd have to say that I've not been present in forums where its been that unprofessional. tac analysis is an issue of systematic dissection, not systemic advocation.

apart from which, I don't think its entirely approp to discuss some of Australias strategic philosophies on a public forum with respect to her neighbours.

if you want to send the Pig into an uncontested environment as a bomb truck, then it will happily survive. sending it into a contested environment with no other long range aircraft riding shotgun is not going to see them all come home. if there is going to be an assumption of reality that it will most likely get used in a strike role, then that denotes contested and/or protected air space. The further away the target, the more difficult that becomes for an unescorted F-111. To dilute that risk means gunning up the platform, that means sparking it up, and it means that some of the flight need to act as defenders - not a role that they're actually meant to do.

That leaves maritime strike. Probably it's a signature role if its working co-operatively with other multipliers. again the issue is the range to target as the greater the distance on return, the greater the likelihood of it going in unassisted by lighter interceptors and protectors.

It's a semi-B1 platform. There's nothing wrong with any platform as long as it addresses the threat requirement and is able to survive the regional threat matrix, or likely operating theatre. As much as I like the F-111 I don't see it surviving on its own especially, in a modern contested air space.

 

[pepsi]

Have any of you heard of that FB-22 concept, i was reading about it the other day, it would basically be like a bomber version of the F-22

Here is a link: http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21848.pdf

Would i be extremely optimistic in thinking we could acquire something like that to fill the longer range strike role of the F-111 (if it actually did get made that is)

 

[machina]

I think the money would be better spent on an air combat complement for the JSF.

 

[rossfrb_1]

Have any of you heard of that FB-22 concept, i was reading about it the other day, it would basically be like a bomber version of the F-22

Here is a link: http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21848.pdf

Would i be extremely optimistic in thinking we could acquire something like that to fill the longer range strike role of the F-111 (if it actually did get made that is)

Read about the concept. That's all I know. Thing is, Australia is supposed to start replacing its F-111s around 2010-12. Some of the latest gossip has it that the 'release date ' for the JSF is now 2013-14, the F-22B is, for all intents and purposes, still vapourware. If it exists in ANY form, then it's not going to meet Australia's schedule. Will the JSF?

 

[rossfrb_1]

[snip]

if you want to send the Pig into an uncontested environment as a bomb truck, then it will happily survive. sending it into a contested environment with no other long range aircraft riding shotgun is not going to see them all come home. if there is going to be an assumption of reality that it will most likely get used in a strike role, then that denotes contested and/or protected air space. The further away the target, the more difficult that becomes for an unescorted F-111. To dilute that risk means gunning up the platform, that means sparking it up, and it means that some of the flight need to act as defenders - not a role that they're actually meant to do.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Is the F-18 or JSF going to do any better under similar circumstances, given the additional need for AAR that an F-18/JSF would have over an F-111?

[snip]


It's a semi-B1 platform. There's nothing wrong with any platform as long as it addresses the threat requirement and is able to survive the regional threat matrix, or likely operating theatre. As much as I like the F-111 I don't see it surviving on its own especially, in a modern contested air space.

Is the F-18 or even a JSF any more likely to succeed in similar circumstances?