Your mistaking the mistake that all "arm chair generals" make and that is allowing reality to get in the way of an obsession over a pet project don't you know?
All sorts of things are stated about what an F-22 can and an F-35 can't do and fact is besides the actual operators and designers, no-one has a REAL clue about their actual capabilities...
Hi AD, that is a real nice way of trying to downgrade someones statement but it doesn't substitute for putting down any fact. I am pretty comfortable with my diverse industry and military (U.S.) contacts that I interact with on a weekly basis and the things that I see with my own eyes.... for over 25 years.
Hi, Todjager,
F-22 Supersonic Drops with GBU-32 were done already.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=17723&rsbci=1&fti=133&ti=0&sc=400
SDB is still in testing for F-22 certification. SDB supersonic release was performed already using an F-111 for the initial test.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SDB.html
Unless the BRU-61/A rack has any problem or there are some other issues, doing the same with F-22 shouldn't be difficult. However a wait and see until the tests are complete would be a good idea. Thank you for mentioning that.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article2225.html
High Grand, Yes lets talk "meaningful". JSF is made to degrade most weaponeering radars, Fighters, AAA, some SAMs etc. Even more important is that is not all aspect stealth. Overselling it as if it were able to go into a double digit SAM environment is a serious dangerous over-sell. ( see one of the last slides from the April U.S. Navy brief on the download section of JSF.mil. claiming double digit SAM IADS prowess with no qualification. Scary. )
-"The JSF is not a substitute for
the F/A-22A. In fact, the JSF will rely on the F/A-
22A for air dominance. The F/A-22A offers the
aerodynamic performance and manoeuvrability
required to counter advanced ‘double-digit’ SAMs
[Surface-to-Air-Missiles developed in the Soviet
Union during the 1980s and later by Russia with
NATO reporting names higher than SA-10] and
next generation air threats that are growing
throughout the Pacific Theatre of operations. The
F-35A JSF is a low cost, multi-mission aircraft
primarily designed for air-to-ground operations to
replace Air Force F-16s and A-10s. "
That is quote from an interview of General Deptula, in an Australian publication: Defence Today.
That is a big leap from someone claiming or advertising pretty diagrams of a non-all aspect stealth aircraft weaving through a stiff IADS and claiming day one deep penetration into same. For F-22 working the big SEAD/DEAD threats...That includes big SAM and IADS radar hunting with the 30 odd antenna in various places around the airframe skin supporting the AN/ALR-94 RF. JSF will have wonderful sensor fusion however it still won't have an ultimate stealth design needed for stiff threats. So this along with the F-22 battlespace speed and JDAM and SDB, will be very very good at kicking down the door and offering good survival.
The F-22 and JSF are not in the same class of stealth quality. "You did want the low price did you not?" That is want JSF is.
Hi GF0012. Yeah that is interesting. RE: the F-22. One has to consider that F-22 offers seriously limited Australian workshare. That, given the current government, is the big unspoken failing of F-22. Where JSF offers a fair bit... and if the JSF program does well, there is opportunity to do much much more. That was part of the initial brief years ago, opportunity ( note as I am sure you are aware the JSF program vendor selection is based on "best value" ( although I seriously wonder with the Turkey deal ($5billion in offsets by any other name being looked at ) ) .. Anyway, anything ( like different aircraft selections ) that gets in the way of JSF home industry Australian workshare is going to be, belittled by Defence as we are seeing now. Defence comments on meek requests for F-22 are show. And oh by the way Australia jumped on to the JSF program years ago. The JSF program and all of the politicos here in the U.S. certainly don't want to see anyone jumping $hip. In the case of
Japans recent F-22 noise, they at least have advantage of not having already signed up for the JSF program. F-22 does not offer any usable workshare compared to commitments/promises already made to JSF. Lets not forget also that JSF was selected before Air 6000 was completely reviewed. The dollars signs for home industry workshare for Australia were good enough. X, y, z capability of any particular airframe is secondary to that fact. Also the fact that JSF was designed with export as an option. Anyone wanting the War College study at Maxwell for that, let me know and I will email it to you. The PDF link at Maxwell seems to be down and the html copy is dodgy. I have a copy of the PDF that goes into extensive export thinking with the F-22 program. My opinion is that anything that gets in the way of all of the money sunk and future potential workshare for JSF will be minimized at every opportunity. One should read all of the madman
Albright letters (link (PDF)
Cohen are some of many examples) on file from the Clinton era. Not complete by themselves but an indicator of how important the ABC's are. Including our security sharing on SIGINT/COMINT issues etc. Which are crown jewel security assets.
Very illuminating on how much value we then placed on Australian trust for military secrets. The "ABC"s. Australia, Canada, and Britian.... and no matter what anyone else says, no one has the cache with us that those three countries do. Canadian defence spending is and was in the dumps. UK had Eurofighter and other money woes. It is unfortunate that Australia signed on to JSF without at least hearing out AIR6000 to the end. Now that you have signed up for the big cash cow (potential) that is JSF, nothing else is "competitive".
