Its not that there is a shortage of pilots, a lot of pilots go through the RAAF to become commercial pilots so you will have a pretty healthy supply of pilots its the fact that only 1 out of a class of 30 (not an actual figure but you get they point) will actually get through to being a fighter pilot, most go into transport piloting (only some of them by choice).
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
Australia to weigh Lockheed Martin F-22 against Russian fighters
If you haven't already seen this. Article
Threads merged. /GD
If you haven't already seen this. Article
I'm assuming that the Su-35BM and the MiG-35/D are the Russian planes that they're considering against the F-22A. I honestly can't see the US exporting the F-22A at least until after 2015, if ever. IMHO, Australia is saying that it's considering buying Russian planes as tactic to further pressure the US into giving it the F-22A.
Threads merged. /GD
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with your comments. Any decision to overturn the current ban on F-22 sales is unlikely to be made soon (if at all) and every day that passes will make cancellation of the FA-18F deal more difficult.
If the RAAF ever gets the F-22 I would expect it to be instead of some (or all) of the F-35s. I just can't see how it can possibly be considered as an alternative to the SH which has been ordered on the basis that the RAAF needs a new air combat aircraft ASAP to cover the early withdrawal of the F-111 and the rundown of the classic Hornet fleet.
I also suspect you are right re talk of Russian aircraft being used as leverage to gain US approval for sale of the Raptor.
What intrigues me, if the article is accurate, is that, in pushing for access to the Raptor, Joel Fitzgibbon seems to be pre-empting the advice he has asked for from the RAAF re Australia's air combat options. Isn't that the same thing he has criticised his predecessor for?
Tas
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
The RAAF will get the F22 when the USAF has something better. That's not going to happen soon.
The RAAF will get the F22 when the USAF has something better. That's not going to happen soon.
the road runner
Active Member
Politics the game thats played in HELL!
I have always wondered why the F-18 super bugs did not go to tender?
isnt that how you know what plane can do what things and can fly how far,shootin what missles and dropping what bombs?
A tender should always be used to play one compedetor against another!
Well i hope we do get the F-22 we need em in a sukoi rich enviroment where we are outnumbered buy India and China.
Would love to see a hi lo mix of F-22 and JSF in the southern skys
but i know i am dreaming,wellhope this dream comes true
F-22 For OZ?-id like to see that
I have always wondered why the F-18 super bugs did not go to tender?
isnt that how you know what plane can do what things and can fly how far,shootin what missles and dropping what bombs?
A tender should always be used to play one compedetor against another!
Well i hope we do get the F-22 we need em in a sukoi rich enviroment where we are outnumbered buy India and China.
Would love to see a hi lo mix of F-22 and JSF in the southern skys
but i know i am dreaming,wellhope this dream comes true
F-22 For OZ?-id like to see that
I agree that it would have been better if the air combat requirement had gone to tender but the fact that Australia joined the JSF program and later signed the FA-18F deal without doing so is now water under the bridge.
If the RAAF ever gets the F-22 I expect it will either:
1. be ordered instead of the F-35 and serve alongside an enlarged SH force (e.g. 36 F-22/48 FA-18E/F and 8 EA-18G), or
2. replace the SH squadron after its 10 years of supported service and serve alongside the F-35 (e.g. 72 F-35A and 24 F-22A).
Like, I suspect, most Oz posters, I would love to see an F-22/F-35 combination but it's a very big 'if' as the US Government and the RAAF would have to change their thinking. I still think that the two most likely mixes will be an all F-35 force (as favoured by the RAAF) or an F-35/Super Hornet mix (perhaps including 6-8 modified as EA-18G Growlers).
Tas
The F-35 + Super Hornet + EA-18G Growler, Wedgetails, KC-30B.
That is a potent combination, without even talking about that huge island and all the other gizmos they have installed down there.
That is more than enough for anything the RAAF might want to do in the region, why will they be interested in a F-22?
That is a potent combination, without even talking about that huge island and all the other gizmos they have installed down there.
That is more than enough for anything the RAAF might want to do in the region, why will they be interested in a F-22?
Just to put all this in context, Fitzgibbon has NEVER specifically said he would consider Russian aircraft. He told the reporter that all options were on the table, and when pressed by the reporter whether he would consider buying Russian aircraft, he responded that he wouldn't rule it out.
This is the only politically acceptable answer he could have given seeing as he was coming from a very low knowledge base on the subject and was being pressed for an immediate answer, Unfortunately, people are reading between the lines and are either automatically assuming the Su-30/MiG-29 are now viable options, which they aren't isn't and NEVER will be, or are trolling for headlines!
Fortunately we don't all work this way...
This is the only politically acceptable answer he could have given seeing as he was coming from a very low knowledge base on the subject and was being pressed for an immediate answer, Unfortunately, people are reading between the lines and are either automatically assuming the Su-30/MiG-29 are now viable options, which they aren't isn't and NEVER will be, or are trolling for headlines!
Fortunately we don't all work this way...
Good points Magoo!
It is unfortunate that some of the defence reporting in the Australian news media seems to focus on sensationalism and also often appears extremely negative towards the ADF. Fortunately there are still some writers and publications providing reliable, factual information, and reporting stories and projecting future scenarios in balanced, non biased fashion (Australian Aviation for example!
). Tas
the road runner
Active Member
I think Australia has had a very good relationship with the USA.
We have fought a number of wars together and i honestly think that Australia would not buy Russian equipment.
Am i right in saying that most russian aircraft are cheaper than US aircraft but russian aircraft cost more per flight hour to run?
US aircraft are more expensive but have a lower cost per flight hour?
Besides who else but the the USA(boieng,lockheed)can give australia such cutting edge technology,and allow australian industry to be involved in the construction of certain aircraft parts,even boieng would offset the Aussie involvement by making aircraft parts for airliners.
Better to buy say 24 (say F-18 super bugs)aircraft of boieng and have australian industry offset the cost of the fighters in making say wing boxes,wingtips,nacels ect for 737,747,757,767 airliners. who else can do this?(eurocopter i think?)
We have fought a number of wars together and i honestly think that Australia would not buy Russian equipment.
Am i right in saying that most russian aircraft are cheaper than US aircraft but russian aircraft cost more per flight hour to run?
US aircraft are more expensive but have a lower cost per flight hour?
Besides who else but the the USA(boieng,lockheed)can give australia such cutting edge technology,and allow australian industry to be involved in the construction of certain aircraft parts,even boieng would offset the Aussie involvement by making aircraft parts for airliners.
Better to buy say 24 (say F-18 super bugs)aircraft of boieng and have australian industry offset the cost of the fighters in making say wing boxes,wingtips,nacels ect for 737,747,757,767 airliners. who else can do this?(eurocopter i think?)
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
We do NOT need the F-22. Arguing that we might have to fight China or India by ourselves in a war of National Survival in some future scenario is ridiculous.
There is not one reason WHY we would need to do so. If either wanted to "take us out" they both possess nuclear weapons and ICBM's, which we could not defend against with F-22 or ANY other aircraft. Any attack on us by same would attract an immediate response in kind, by others, especially our good friends in the USA.
It is a nonsensical scenario to assume therefore they might attack us like this.
Our geography prevents any serious threat of invasion or threat of extremely long ranged air strikes and therefore this leaves some bizarre sort of "low level" scenario, where another country considered limited strikes for some purpose.
In some sort of fevered dream, perhaps these "rich" numbered Sukhois could be taking off from East Timor, or somewhere in Indonesia or Papua New Guinea.
For what purpose I don't know, nor does anyone else (to launch standoff missiles into the Australian bush perhaps?) so APA have come up with the North West Shelf Gas industry...
There's a few problems with this. First of all is that China is one of THE major beneficiaries of the product developed in these fields. It would be entirely counter-productive for them to attack these fields, and should they conduct some sort of strike to prevent anyone else benefitting from us, it wouldn't make a significant difference to Australia anyway. At best it would cause us some short term economic pain.
It would however cause a significant re-think of our policies in relation to China and that may just cause THEM more pain than we suffered...
On top of this, you must also believe the specious arguments that show our force structure outmatched by regional force structures. Personally I don't on a qualitative and none of our regional compatriots ournumber us individually.
All sorts of "nightmare" scenarios can be created if you wanted to. What if America AND China decided to attack us? For instance.
Reality is our plans will provide a sufficiently comfortable margin of superiority in any LIKELY scenario, not in ANY scenario and as it always has been, this policy will suffice in future years.
the road runner
Active Member
Like always Aussie Digger,once i read what you say i have to agree with you.
All i am saying is you just never know who your enemy will be.
Things can get very sour in political circles very quickly.
I just think we should look out for ourselves(not need any Major support from our allies)remember in ww2 when britan could not defend us and america steped into fill the void,well i think we should be self reliant thats all.
Now that dosent mean massive numbers of aircraft carriers and bombers,just a number of advanced fighters,bombers to act as a deterrent like the F-111 was in the 70's.(ie f-22 in 2020)
All i am saying is you just never know who your enemy will be.
Things can get very sour in political circles very quickly.
I just think we should look out for ourselves(not need any Major support from our allies)remember in ww2 when britan could not defend us and america steped into fill the void,well i think we should be self reliant thats all.
Now that dosent mean massive numbers of aircraft carriers and bombers,just a number of advanced fighters,bombers to act as a deterrent like the F-111 was in the 70's.(ie f-22 in 2020)
I know this is way way off topic but...
Er I think it was more along the lines of the British will do the European side and the US will do the Pacific side, no sense in treading over each others feet etc.
Think of it more like the British were covering the north western flank of Australia (ie Europe), and they weren't really missing from the far east were they! so no 'void' just who was nearest.
Ok sorry rant over, and I don't expect a full blown argument to develop.
TTFN
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
RAAF with 4x operational squadrons of F-35A aircraft (comprising 72x - 75x "operational" aircraft), a PROPER training and support infrastructure (something lacking in our "region") supported by JORN, Wedgetail AEW&C, KC-30B tankers, TPS-77 air surveillance radar, P-8A maritime patrol aircraft, Global Hawk and a robust comms network and C2 system will be a VERY tough nut to crack and one that will be beyond most militaries.
When operated jointly in conjunction with our maritime and land forces whose respective capabilities are to include point / medium ranged and area air defence capabilities and possibly theatre ballistic missile defence capabilities, the force on a qualitative basis will exceed most forces worldwide.
The likelyhood of Australia getting into a war in pacific without American support is so low as to be barely even worth considering, IMHO. A small fact to consider in this light is that the deployment of a SINGLE Squadron of USAF/USN/USMC/USNG fighter aircraft would boost our operational fighter capacity by more than 25%...
It is interesting however to contemplate how we'd fare in a direct war with China or India without American assistance, assuming some magic capability existed that could somehow remove the thousands of kilometres of open sea AND the neighbouring Countries that exist between us (about 6000k's in a straight line between Australia and China and about 8000k's between Australia and India, btw) and these so-called "threat" Countries.
The answer is that even with a "tier 1" fighter such as the F-22, our force is so small that we'd be demolished by sheer numbers alone, in a short space of time.
Getting back on topic, I fail to see how the F-22 is a "better" bomber than the F-35 anyway.
A better fighter, I have no doubt, but a limited strike capability was an afterthought, not a primary requirement, unlike the F-35...
Last edited by a moderator:
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
But, in the event of a regional conflict between the US and China, which is not such an unlikely eventuality considering that PROC leadership consider it a likely scenario, we would most likely be involved. In such a conflict PLAAF/PLAN may indeed launch attacks on northen australia in order to apply pressure on us to withdraw or support for said conflict.
Considering the increasing capability of PROC's conventional strategic air forces, we may well be within strikeing distacnce within 15 years. Now will the currently planned orbat be enough to defend ourselves from such a threat, considering JORN's ISR footprint? Sure, but due to the F-22A's kinematical capability haveing it as part of a hi/lo mix will give us a more flexible and capable air defence system when faceing such a threat, than one equiped only with the F-35A, F/A-18F or whatever else the RAAF decides to buy. Anyway do we NEED the F-35A either? I mean with JORN and Wedgetail F/A-18F would do the job, right? I dont hear similar arguments concerning the F-35A's aquisition. But is this about what we NEED or the best capability we can afford and maintain?
I've allready outlined a scenario, a regional conflict between the US and China in which we were involved. This is probably the most likely scenario concerning a high intencity, technologically sophistocated conflict in SEA envolveing us. Can you think of a more likely one?
If theres nothing worth attacking in northen australia then why did the Japanese launch some 91 attacks on NA in 42-43? There was even less there in the way of targets then than now. Thinking that no enemy would launch air strike on northen australia because its "not worth it" is in my opinion contrary to both the military & civilian infestructure in the area and historical evenidence.
Launching conventional attacks on northen australia could have a significant impact. Much of our military infestructure is in the north, large attacks on Tindall & Darwin would have a significant impact on the ADF's abililty to operate in the area. Also attacks on infestructure (such as the gas fields) and civilian population centres could have a significant impact on public support for the conflict.
Useing current economic ties of evidence of PROC's unwillingness to damage infestructure than currently supplies some of their needs is a tad disengenious. In the event of a regional conflict supplies would have been shut off anyway. Therefore why would they refrain from attempting to inflict damage on said infestructure? Are they that nice?
If your going to argue that the close economic relationship that we currently enjoy with PROC will somehow deter them from launchng attacks on mainland Australia if we entered a conflict on the side of the US is at best nieve. We enjoyed a fertile economic relationship with Imperial Japan in the 1930's, even when no one else would trade with them after '37 we were sending shipments of Pig Iron to tokyo, which lead to Menzies nickname "pig iron bob". However those past economic ties did not stop them from launching amphibious offenceives against Australian teritory, air raids on the Austrlian mainland and sinking Australian shiping of the eastern sea board. I dare say that current economic ties would have little impact on the actions of the major powers in such a conflict, they would probably have a greater impact on our actions.
No you dont. You only need to believe that includeing the F-22A in our orbat will lead to a more flexible and capable force structure, and that it is realistic and affordable. You could argue that an all F/A-18F force structure would not be outmatched by regional force structures, but we are still keen on the F-35A. Why, becasue it gives us maximum capability that we can afford.
C'mon mate dont be silly. A conflict in which Australia and China are on opposite sides (yes which would include other powers) is not just some ridculously silly scenario that is intended to prove a point. There are several points of ignition that could cause such a regional conflict, considering the growing (competeing) influence of the regional powers.
One would hope that ADF planing does indeed include the regional powers which would mean PROC, and any changes in their capability.
But were do we draw the line of sufficiently confortable margin of superiority? To infer that this is what we acheived because of the desisions made misses a vital point, that the F-22A could not have been considered in the previous dessiosion makeing proscess becasue it was not made available for export. Therefore its inclusion into our future orbat may indeed be warrented if it was made available for export. The flexibility and capability of an F-22A/F-35A hi/low mix is hard to argue with. If the platform is indeed a possibility then perhaps we should not be looking at it in terms of do we NEED it, but wether the additional capability and flexibility warrent the additional cost.
One more point i need to adress, because i know this rebuttal is comeing. "If there is a regional conflict with PROC then the US would be involved, if so they why do we need to worry". This may indeed be the case, but in 15+ years if there is indeed a regional confict between PROC and the US then i would think the americans will have their hands full in the primary theater, wherever that may be. Assuming the USAF will be able to deploy units in the defence of Australia is makeing a very big assumption. IMO relying on this as the primary reasoning behind the argument against the aquisition of the F-22A and its inclusion as a part of the RAAF's order of battle is almost a moot point. Sure we need to plan with US involvement in mind, but we should not assume that they will deploy assets in our defence, to do so is foolhardy IMHO.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
But do we want a force structure that is just enough, or the best capability that we aquire and can realistically afford? Hopefully its the latter...
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
It's a possibility that we would be involved, nothing more, just as it is only a possibility that such a conflict will even occur.
Speaking of historical examples, I can not think of one occasion where we have been faced with a scenario where 2 of our allies (one, our best) have fought a war against each other.
I'd suggest it's a not such an unreasonable proposition that we WOULD remain neutral. Other US allies have remained neutral during her wars and not suffered diplomatically for it afterwards.
The real question IMHO is does the F-22 actually bring a sufficient level of capability to the table above other options, to justify the exhorbitant cost? Even USAF's "end of production run" F-22's are costing USD$159m a piece... Factoring in the support costs, and the effect that such an expensive aircraft will have on the budget for the remainder of ADF, I suggest no.
An excellent air to air fighter it might be. However RAAF requires more than that these days and even the USAF budget is being distorted by acquiring this aircraft. To the tune of USD$63.5b for 184x aircraft...
I don't think that is overly likely anyway as I've already mentioned. A high intensity war involving NK is a more likely scenario in my opinion, particularly from an Australian involvement perspective and due to our lack of armoured forces, I'd suggest a small fighter contingent, some maritime forces (and patrol aircraft) and special forces would probably be the limit. In outer years, perhaps Global Hawk, Wedgetail and KC-30B could make valuable contributions as well. I'd suggest that due to the size of our forces, that our level of involvement wouldn't exceed this greatly.
Having F-22's in any case are not going to exceed the "value" these force multipliers will make to Coalition operations...
I noticed you overlooked the fact that the Japanese required 4x aircraft carriers and a massive escort force to do it, too...
However Darwin was being used as a major naval staging base and the attacks were largely intended to destroy the ability to do this.
Should an invasion of the entire South East Asian region by a major power be launched and conducted successfully as far as PNG, then I grant you, Australia may be at risk from air strikes...
Given USA hegemony at present and in the forseeable future, I seriously doubt a foreign power could penetrate that far, before it was "handsomely" stopped...
On the people forced to endure, yes I agree. RAAF Tindal being a further 320k's south of Darwin, is going to be difficult for most opponents to hit...
Some of our military infrastructure is in the North of Australia. 75 Sqn at RAAF Tindal, 1 Brigade and a patrol boat base. I hardly expect 1 Brigade will remain in baracks in any likely confrontation...
The majority of the Darwin population was evacuated in WW2. I don't see that being an issue again...
"North West Shelf" attacks I think I addressed already. I don't see it being a "critical issue" in this debate.
I personally believe providing one extremely remote possibility as the basis for a "strategic threat" is the disingenous act in this "debate". It presupposes that we are at war with China already, that the current force structure as planned or our allies capability is incapable of protecting us anyway and that our enemy has the capability in the face of US attacks to conduct a "revenge mission".
And if not at war, such an attack would however surely "force our hand" and make us declare war against China, whilst simultaneously hurting China itself. No war lasts forever. Are we so likely to deal with China again in the short term after such an unprecedented incident?
Yes, however we had formally declared war against Japan and had fought a large number of engagements against them, before those attacks occurred.
If we declare war on China and start fighting them , we can hardly cry foul at that point if we are attacked by them.
I'd suggest also that Government would be developing a significantly greater capability than is presently the case before any such action was contemplated.
However once again your reasoning assumes the current plans won't be sufficient to deal with any of these threats.
I see the APA line of thinking however that only the F-22 will be capable of intercepting cruise missiles and Russian bombers.
Yet I read recently that even F-16's are conducting ballistic missile interceptions, using IIR missiles...
Assuming F-35 won't be capable in this role, assumes like they do, (as it suits their arguments) that it won't be a capable air to air fighter...
I don't believe the F-22 would provide a more flexible force, capable is arguable when you consider that budget is a very real factor. If F-35 comes in at it's current estimated prices, than F-22's will cost in the vicinity of 2.5x the F-35 per platform...
Even a squadron of F-22's at that price is going to distort the RAAF Air Combat force and some fleet of 70x plus or other ridiculous figure will likely distort ADF as a whole.
I think that such a view misrepresents the multitude of factors for a conflict of such magnitude. Such a conflict in my view would push EACH nuclear armed party to the brink of "madness" particularly if it evolves to a war of "national survival" in which case only 1 outcome is likely, given the US nuclear advantage.
On top of which a conflict of such size hasn't occurred since WW2. I believe both sides would be more than cautious about "kicking it off"...
Agreed. It is my contention that it doesn't.
One more point i need to adress, because i know this rebuttal is comeing. "If there is a regional conflict with PROC then the US would be involved, if so they why do we need to worry". This may indeed be the case, but in 15+ years if there is indeed a regional confict between PROC and the US then i would think the americans will have their hands full in the primary theater, wherever that may be. Assuming the USAF will be able to deploy units in the defence of Australia is makeing a very big assumption. IMO relying on this as the primary reasoning behind the argument against the aquisition of the F-22A and its inclusion as a part of the RAAF's order of battle is almost a moot point. Sure we need to plan with US involvement in mind, but we should not assume that they will deploy assets in our defence, to do so is foolhardy IMHO.[/quote]
And yet, that is exactly what Government's of both persuasion has done since we've been a Country. To defend our Country against a threat such as China, if it were actually capable of striking us conventionally, to a significant degree, would see our force planning change. Perhaps once their conventional strike power DOES begin to increase, and this will include carriers, escort forces capable of protecting them, TU-160 long ranged bombers in numbers and other improvements, our defence capability will too...
F-22 doesn't provide us the capability to fight China. It will provide an increased capability in one operational role and that at a hideous cost. My arguments are that the strategic "threat" we do face is negligible and the cost effectiveness of the F-22 simply doesn't allow it's "pros" to outweigh it's "cons" in my opinion...
How can people say “realistically” and “afford” in the context of an argument in favour of Australia acquiring F-22s? The US Congress has banned the sale of the F-22 to Australia. So its hardly a realistic argument to say they might change their mind if we ask them ‘nicely’. And even if they do allow the export of the F-22 then it won’t be at the prices quoted by the Clown Club of F-22 advocates.
Officials from the USG and the F-22 industry team have stated that any export F-22 would have to be sanitised, redesigned and redveloped. This would cost between USD 1 and 2 billion. This cost would have to be borne by the purchaser, ie Australia with $1-2 billion over 50 units.
Then this new export F-22, call it the F-22B, would have to be produced. Gone would be the efficiencies and savings the USAF are currently enjoying in their late production ‘sweet spot’ F-22As. The new F-22B would have to start at the beginning of the production cost curve at LRIP and Lot 1.
With only 50 units of F-22B to be procured and the full cost of SDD for the new version it is going to cost well over $200 million per unit, if not $250-300 million. That is well over twice the cost of a F-35A and with all the added risk of a new developmental aircraft (the F-22B) which may not achieve F-22A performance in an export cleared version.
And what do you get? An aircraft that can only do some of the F-35A’s missions! With the addition (hopefully) of a very limited M 1.7 speed capability for 100 NM at the end of a 310 NM subsonic cruise mission (radius figures).
No wonder the only people advocating for this are those that made the commercial offer to the Commonwealth of Australia at the Air 6000 RFI of buying F-22s. But of course they – ie the Clown Club of Kopp and Goon - could be expected to keep supporting their own offer. They stand to make money out of it if anyone stupid enough can be convinced to buy the F-22 for Australia.