Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

rossfrb_1

Member
I doubt we've EVER got a "full" American version of any fighter aircraft we've ever bought.
Which begs the question.
What did US FA 18s have that RAAF hornets didn't? And was it because of technology transfer issues, or just not coughing up enough $$ for the full kit?
According to Magoo the supers are going to be virtually identical to the US navy ones.

rb
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Well AD I love to speculate, I don't know if you were refering to me in your post but here is some other speculative points of difference.

US F-35 may have
* Improved RAM coatings
* Able to carry additional weapon types (in particular nuclear, but not limited to just that)
* Latest version of electronic warfare code which would offer different if not superior performance
* Latest communication code

Some of these points would be obvious and not required by other nations. Nuclear capability for instance. Ram coatings may offer marginal improvement, but the trade off is higher maintence, but for the US greater synergy with other aircraft. Electronic warefare I would imagine be fairly specific to each operating nation, given what you are trying to do, and counter.. It might be something the US rewrites everytime for each war, updating to counter(and identify) new threats and ensuring its effective against old ones.

Code is easy(or easier) to change, and the US can keep a lid on its development secrets).

I would imagine the SH OZ/USN are identical. Given no one else seems that interested in buying them. It could be that the SH gives us a more detailed look at some of the components and systems that will later appear in the F-35. Radar, cockpit, weapons, avionics etc. Certainly looking at the source code of the SH would be easier and with less restrictions than the F-35(which appears to be locked up *REALLY* tight). Australia may find the code easier to break, or atleast get deeper access.

I belive the OZ SH are not getting the carrier landing stuff. Not that its a big change, proberly more symbolic than cost/technical..
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Which begs the question.
What did US FA 18s have that RAAF hornets didn't? And was it because of technology transfer issues, or just not coughing up enough $$ for the full kit?
According to Magoo the supers are going to be virtually identical to the US navy ones.

rb
Probably some black bag EA stuff, which is soley reliant on software. Therefore the F/A-18F's can be virtually identical pysicaly and just have a slightly different software package installed.
 

Jissy

New Member
sorry to butt in!!

I know you are all on another subject, but forgive me, I am brand new here, have not a clue how to begin a new thread, if actually allowed to at all.

I read here that some think the Super Hornet would be a perfect fill in, until the F35 delivery. I wonder whether any of you saw the 4 Corners investigation of that aircraft purchase?

It would seem that some USA services did not like the Super Hornet, the suggestion being it would not be good at defending itself against the Russian Sukhoi range (and a layman's comparison I made of 'specs' seem to bear that out, that is, the Sukhoi flies higher, faster and shoots 200ks further than the Hornet).

Also, the F35, according to a US observer, probably won't be ready till 2018, at earliest.

I worry about this, as it seems Oz has well and truly lost local air superiority, considering others in our region have bought the Sukhoi range.

Would the F22 be a safer alternative, if we can convince the US Congress to let their SOLID ally and buddy Oz, purchase them?

cheers

jissy
 
Last edited:

machina

New Member
I know you are all on another subject, but forgive me, I am brand new here, have not a clue how to begin a new thread, if actually allowed to at all.

I read here that some think the Super Hornet would be a perfect fill in, until the F35 delivery. I wonder whether any of you saw the 4 Corners investigation of that aircraft purchase?

It would seem that some USA services did not like the Super Hornet, the suggestion being it would not be good at defending itself against the Russian Sukhoi range (and a layman's comparison I made of 'specs' seem to bear that out, that is, the Sukhoi flies higher, faster and shoots 200ks further than the Hornet).

Also, the F35, according to a US observer, probably won't be ready till 2018, at earliest.

I worry about this, as it seems Oz has well and truly lost local air superiority, considering others in our region have bought the Sukhoi range.

Would the F22 be a safer alternative, if we can convince the US Congress to let their SOLID ally and buddy Oz, purchase them?

cheers

jissy
Much of the criticism comes from the Super Hornet not being the best air superiority fighter in the world. It's not, the Raptor is. This point is moot though. The Super Hornet is, more or less, filling the place of the F-111. The F-111 is not an air superiority fighter, it's role in the ADF is strike, especially maritime strike. The retirement of the F-111's creates the need to carry on the maritime strike capability.

One possible way would be to integrate anti-ship cruise missiles to the Hornets currently in service. This was the plan for a while, if you remember. The benefit of this is that it is cheap, and fulfils the RAAF's wish to move to a single fighter type with the F-35. The problem is that it means that the Hornets, which have the air combat role already, are then required to be ready to perform maritime strike as well, and all the while they are going through a mid-life upgrade. Not enough airframes for the jobs required of them. So the decision to buy the Super Hornets was made. They are already fitted out for the role we want them for, and are available soon, when we need them.

The Raptors are the best air superiority fighters in the world, but they aren't a maritime strike aircraft. Being the best air superiority fighter they doesn't come cheap, and while it's probably possible to add other capabilities to the plane, it would also cost money. And take time.

I can't see the value in forcing the Raptor to be something it wasn't designed to be, when a cheaper and far more readily available plane is ready to do the job.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Much of the criticism comes from the Super Hornet not being the best air superiority fighter in the world. It's not, the Raptor is. This point is moot though. The Super Hornet is, more or less, filling the place of the F-111. The F-111 is not an air superiority fighter, it's role in the ADF is strike, especially maritime strike. The retirement of the F-111's creates the need to carry on the maritime strike capability.

One possible way would be to integrate anti-ship cruise missiles to the Hornets currently in service. This was the plan for a while, if you remember. The benefit of this is that it is cheap, and fulfils the RAAF's wish to move to a single fighter type with the F-35. The problem is that it means that the Hornets, which have the air combat role already, are then required to be ready to perform maritime strike as well, and all the while they are going through a mid-life upgrade. Not enough airframes for the jobs required of them. So the decision to buy the Super Hornets was made. They are already fitted out for the role we want them for, and are available soon, when we need them.
FYI, the Legacy Hornets had the Harpoon anti-ship missile integrate onto them in the 80's, providing them with a substantial maritime strike capability.

What you are referring to I think is the plan to fit standoff off weapons to the Hornet aircraft, by acquiring and integrating the AGM-158 JASSM missile. This project is continuing with the Hornets undergoing flight testing at present with "Captive carry" versions of the missile. The project is under something of a cloud, with issues with the JASSM missile itself in 2007, however they seem to be working through the issues with that missile.

The Raptors are the best air superiority fighters in the world, but they aren't a maritime strike aircraft. Being the best air superiority fighter they doesn't come cheap, and while it's probably possible to add other capabilities to the plane, it would also cost money. And take time.

I can't see the value in forcing the Raptor to be something it wasn't designed to be, when a cheaper and far more readily available plane is ready to do the job.
I agree. I would also add, that as Dr Gates has now publicly stated, the Raptors are STILL not available for export and only Congress changing US law will make them so. Even he is not sanguine of that prospect happening, so even if we want them, and I argue we don't NEED them, we probably won't get them anyway. Need, notwithstanding.
 

eaf-f16

New Member
I would also add, that as Dr Gates has now publicly stated, the Raptors are STILL not available for export and only Congress changing US law will make them so. Even he is not sanguine of that prospect happening, so even if we want them, and I argue we don't NEED them, we probably won't get them anyway. Need, notwithstanding.
I'm not sure if this is what you're talking about but Gates sounds more optimistic than usual about exporting the F-22 to Australia.

Article

CANBERRA (AFP) - US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday he will look into F-22 fighters for Australia but made no promises to lobby the US Congress to lift a ban on foreign sales of the most advanced US fighter.

Gates said he would pursue it when he returns to Washington next week "given the importance that our Australian friends attach to it," but he said he did not know if it was realistic to expect action to lift the export restrictions.

"Because we have not had the ability to sell the F-22, to be honest I haven't delved into all the reasons for that -- what the complications would be, the questions about whether a new design would be required for export," he told reporters here.

"I just need to go back and get better educated on this and in concert with the secretary of state decide if this is a matter that we should pursue with the Congress," he said.

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon said at a news conference with Gates Saturday that Australia wanted the opportunity to consider the F-22 as part of a review of the country's air capabilities.

Gates said then that the United States had no objection in principle, but could not sell the fighter until the law was changed.

"I would have to say, quite honestly, I am not optimistic about that prospect. But we will work on it," he told Sky News in an interview broadcast Sunday.

Japan also has been pressing Washington to release the F-22 for export.

The stealth fighter can cruise at supersonic speeds, has radars capable of detecting cruise missiles, and wideband data links for networked operations.

But Beijing is likely to perceive the fighter's introduction in the region as directed against it.

Fitzgibbon said Australia wanted to maintain air superiority over its northern neighbours, although he refused to say if he was referring to China.


"I don't think it's appropriate for me to talk about a threat but I would make one simple point, there is no question that the key to Australia's defences is maintaining the air superiority we enjoy to our north," he said.

"On that basis we have to make absolutely sure we make the correct decisions as we plan for both the near and long-term future."

The F-22 is only one of a range of issues raised in annual US-Australian security talks hosted here by the new Labor government.

They discussed Australia's plans to draw down combat troops from Iraq by midyear and a change in approach in Afghanistan from strictly combat operations to police training and civil affairs work.

They also shared perspectives on regional issues, including China and southeast Asia, officials said.

Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith, speaking on television on Sunday, said among the issues discussed was whether Canberra would join a United States missile defence system.

In opposition, Labor had opposed the system on cost and the available technology but Smith said the technology had changed and the government was now considering joining the system.

"We'll do that very carefully and do that in a deliberative and sober way," he said.

"It's not a matter of being coy... (but) we don't want to make any decisions which would deprive us of technology which might, in the end, be in our national security interests and be able to protect our forces in the field."

Gates departs Monday for Indonesia, and will make stops in India and Turkey next week before returning to Washington.
He says he will look in to it. I don't think it would be a bad move at all for the US if it sells them to Japan and Australia.
 

F-15 Eagle

New Member
If the USAF can't get all of the F-22s it wants then Australia should have no right to own a single F-22! This could also create a security risk for the U.S. as well.
 

Pro'forma

New Member
I agree Aussie Digger many times.
Haven't been hearing selling is with need to sell.
Public statements combines the respected view of buyer and seller,
products come after reciprocal trust.

No need to sell motherland every day under the raptor
espionage acts.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
If the USAF can't get all of the F-22s it wants then Australia should have no right to own a single F-22! This could also create a security risk for the U.S. as well.
Why not? Kindergaden style "he got the toy mumy, its mine"? Export versions of the F-22A would make any further USAF models cheaper, it would probably mean they will get more. And what risk? Name a single major security breach reguarding US tech/intel (or anyones in fact) by the ADF/DSTO/DMO/ASIS/DIO/Whatever. I bet you cant.

Security risk re the ADF has nothing to do with it, neither does this whole "who's toy is it" argument. GF summed it up quite well, the geo-political ramifications are far too significant to just sell it to us. If there was a desission to sell it to all tier one allies, which means NATO, ABC, Japan, SK & Isreal then sure, but then you would have real security concerns (japan + isreal = PROC know someting they shouldnt). So basically the whole cass cant play becasue a couple of the kiddies were bad. It sucks but thats the nature of the beast.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
The Australian today published a report which suggests that the Super Hornet deal is a good one for Australia and is unlikely to be changed. The report also makes it clear that, contrary to what is generally being reported in the OZ media, there is "not the slightest chance" of the RAAF ever getting the Raptor.

COMMENT, Greg Sheridan | February 25, 2008

HERE'S a hot tip. There is not the slightest chance Australia will buy any F-22 Raptor aircraft, and there is almost no chance that we will ditch the F/A-18 Super Hornets that the previous government was going to buy.

US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates was yesterday polite but dismissive of the possibility of the US selling us the Raptors.

We won't buy the Raptors because the Americans don't sell them to foreign countries, we haven't asked them to sell us Raptors and nor are we likely to, they're too expensive, they don't do the jobs we need them to do and we are committed to an alternative path of phasing out the F1-11s, using F/A-18 Super Hornets as an interim measure and ultimately moving to a fleet made up predominantly, if not entirely, of F-35 joint strike fighters.

The Rudd Government has commissioned a review of the Howard government's decision to buy the Super Hornets, and Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has said he'll write to the US Congress asking for a change inthe decision not to export theF-22.

However, Fitzgibbons's words are quite precise. He has no intention at present of buying Raptors. He just wants to know whether there is any chance the US would sell them if he did want to buy them.

I asked Gates yesterday how realistic the prospect of selling Raptors was, given that it has not been built for export and, to protect the US's most secret technology, it would need to be virtually redesigned for an export model.

Gates answered with admirable candour that he did not know the answer to that; he did not know if any re-design work would be needed. The matter was on the table because the Australians had raised it. Therefore, he said, "it's an issue I intend to pursue when I get back (to Washington) and see what the prospects are and what we'd have to do if we wanted to get the law changed".

As a follow-up, an American journalist pointed out to Gates the Japanese had raised the possibility of purchasing the Raptor a year ago. If in all that time Gates hadn't been briefed on the technical issues, didn't this "kinda" confirm that nothing much was happening here? "That's a fair comment," Gates said.

Later, on Sky TV, Gates said a little more bluntly that he was "not optimistic" about Congress changing the law to allow Raptor exports.

The possibility that Congress might do this on the basis of a purely hypothetical inquiry from Australia - if we propositioned you, would you say yes? - is pretty remote.

As to the Super Hornets, every person in the official Australian defence establishment knows they have many secret and classified capabilities and that, as part of an Australian system, they would be comprehensively able to defeat any other plane in the region.

The debate is hamstrung in part because the classified capabilities cannot be discussed by those who know them, and those who do discuss them don't know them.

There would be at least a $400 million penalty in breaking the contract for the Super Hornets and there would be a serious cost to Australia's reputation.

But more importantly, everyone associated with air force policy also knows the F1-11s are right at the end of their tether. Even if you believed you could keep them flying into their fifth decade, the decision to scale them down and abandon them has already been taken, and actions have followed that decision.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23269471-5013404,00.html

I agree with the comments made by Greg Sheridan. Unusual for me as I normally seem to take issue with most defence reporting in Australia!

Tas
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
The Australian today published a report which suggests that the Super Hornet deal is a good one for Australia and is unlikely to be changed. The report also makes it clear that, contrary to what is generally being reported in the OZ media, there is "not the slightest chance" of the RAAF ever getting the Raptor.



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23269471-5013404,00.html

I agree with the comments made by Greg Sheridan. Unusual for me as I normally seem to take issue with most defence reporting in Australia!

Tas

Thanks tas that one was more enjoyable than the last one you posted. Good to read some common sence from time to time.:)
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Thanks tas that one was more enjoyable than the last one you posted. Good to read some common sence from time to time.:)
Actually, there has been a lot of common sense thats been articulated, the problem has been with some of the lobbyists who have polluted the debate environment with pseudo intellectual rubbish

Everything that Sheridan has said, has also been said by some of us consistently over the last 12 months.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Actually, there has been a lot of common sense thats been articulated, the problem has been with some of the lobbyists who have polluted the debate environment with pseudo intellectual rubbish

Everything that Sheridan has said, has also been said by some of us consistently over the last 12 months.
Unfortunatly "some of us" are not in the mainstream media. There's been too much sensationalism in the TV, broadsheets and tabloids alike, and its good to hear some sense comeing out of the national newspaper.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
I'm not sure if this is what you're talking about but Gates sounds more optimistic than usual about exporting the F-22 to Australia.

Article



He says he will look in to it. I don't think it would be a bad move at all for the US if it sells them to Japan and Australia.
Without wanting the discussion to delve into politics too deeply, it seems to me that Mr Gates was giving Defmin Fitzgibbon a bit of diplomatic face saving here.

Here he is, pandering to interests within Australia (ie: the clown club supported media) publicly with Mr Gates put on the spot. His choice then is to sidestep the issue (as he has done here) or officially rule it out and make Fitzgibbon look stupid, for announcing we "want to be able to consider it".

Personally I think he neatly avoided a diplomatic faux pas, by putting the responsibility back on the Congress. Congress will confirm it's refusal to allow the aircraft for sale in due course, as it has already done when Japan and Israel formally requested the F-22 and as outlined by Mr Sheridan, this stupid irrelevent argument will die a natural death.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Actually, there has been a lot of common sense thats been articulated, the problem has been with some of the lobbyists who have polluted the debate environment with pseudo intellectual rubbish

Everything that Sheridan has said, has also been said by some of us consistently over the last 12 months.
I guess that's why I appreciated this article. IMO, Greg Sheridan's comments reinforced some of the more balanced arguments that have been put forward in this forum in favour of the SH purchase and also for the F-35 rather than the F-22, saying about the Raptor that "they're too expensive" and "they don't do the jobs we need them to do," as well as pointing out (once again) the fact that the US Congress has banned their sale to any other country.

These arguments have been presented previously in publications like Australian Aviation but I agree with Ozzy that the "TV, broadsheets and tabloids alike" have generally gone down the sensationalist route, panning both the F-35 and, even more so, the Super Hornet.

It is great to see some (in my opinion anyway ;) ) balanced, common sense reporting on these issues by Greg Sheridan in The Australian.

Tas
 

Jissy

New Member
Without wanting the discussion to delve into politics too deeply, it seems to me that Mr Gates was giving Defmin Fitzgibbon a bit of diplomatic face saving here.

Here he is, pandering to interests within Australia (ie: the clown club supported media) publicly with Mr Gates put on the spot. His choice then is to sidestep the issue (as he has done here) or officially rule it out and make Fitzgibbon look stupid, for announcing we "want to be able to consider it".

Personally I think he neatly avoided a diplomatic faux pas, by putting the responsibility back on the Congress. Congress will confirm it's refusal to allow the aircraft for sale in due course, as it has already done when Japan and Israel formally requested the F-22 and as outlined by Mr Sheridan, this stupid irrelevent argument will die a natural death.
I wonder now, who in the world would sell Oz an integrated state of the art system, capable of replacing what the F111 did, which is also capable of protecting maritime assets, since our ally the USA refuses to sell us anything but passe weaponry? Their refusal is absurd anyway, as it suggests we could put the USA at risk by having 100 F22s, for instance!

Should we actually be looking at fast paced surface (rocket launching) ships and subs? And what of future protection for PNG? What would be best suited for that, if a regime change happens up north, and proves more acquisative than past admins up north?
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
I wonder now, who in the world would sell Oz an integrated state of the art system, capable of replacing what the F111 did, which is also capable of protecting maritime assets, since our ally the USA refuses to sell us anything but passe weaponry? Their refusal is absurd anyway, as it suggests we could put the USA at risk by having 100 F22s, for instance!
:eek:nfloorl: Mate you've been watching four couners too mutch! Is F-35A passe weaponary? Is JASSM passe weaponary (they refused sale of that weapon to finland)? Is AIM 120D passe weaponary? I'd sujest you read some of the Australian threads on this forum, most of your concerns have been well and truely adressed previously. F-111 is a less capable striker than HUG BUG, so we could have bough F-16's and that would have been an adequate replacement. F/A-18F is a much more capable striker, maritime striker and air superiority fighter than the PiG. The reasons behind the F-22A have been adressed clearly in this thread previously.

Should we actually be looking at fast paced surface (rocket launching) ships and subs? And what of future protection for PNG? What would be best suited for that, if a regime change happens up north, and proves more acquisative than past admins up north?
Why would we be invesing in short range small vessels for warfighting, they will never ever be as capable or flexible as fast movers in a real shooting war? How rocket launching ships help us when faceing PNG? Surely amphibious operations backed up by fixed wing close air support would be able to influence events in PNG in a much more effective way than rocket foreing small vessels.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
I wonder now, who in the world would sell Oz an integrated state of the art system, capable of replacing what the F111 did, which is also capable of protecting maritime assets, since our ally the USA refuses to sell us anything but passe weaponry? Their refusal is absurd anyway, as it suggests we could put the USA at risk by having 100 F22s, for instance!
Believe me, people would line up to sell Australia 100 fighters. Go and read the transcript of that Four Corners show again and see who the first "expert" was who was interviewed.

A rather embittered Dassault salesman, as I recall...

There is nothing "passe" about the systems we are acquiring. If the DCP is followed as it should be, ADF will be a genuine "first tier" (if a bit on the smallish side) combat force in years to come, if they are not already.

Should we actually be looking at fast paced surface (rocket launching) ships and subs? And what of future protection for PNG? What would be best suited for that, if a regime change happens up north, and proves more acquisative than past admins up north?
If you wish to discuss naval matters, the Royal Australian Naval thread is probably the best place for it...
 

thorpete1

New Member
If the USAF can't get all of the F-22s it wants then Australia should have no right to own a single F-22! This could also create a security risk for the U.S. as well.
Come on eagle, the United States Air Force can't get all the raptors it wants, because of funding issue's not production problems/ limited production issues. LM would be happy to make and sell more raptors. Infact, allowing foreign sales would help keep the F-22 production line open, and slightly lower the cost of the aircraft and all in all make it easier for hte USAF to aquire more F-22's. It's in the US's interest to allow foreign sales to close allies (Australia and Japan). The only risk to american securty is if they don't give out the F-22 as it means they have less allies with good planes which means they need to provided more support for those allies causing an risk to amercian security.

The only risk is tech secuirty, and it can be sanitised (ie use same RAM materials as is to be used on partner variant of the F-35, rework computer code etc).
 
Last edited:
Top