Stryker001
Banned Member
Do you mean Israel won't get the JSF or the F-22 or both GF. It is a known fact that Israel are going to get a small number for F-35’s
http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/today/2008n/02/0401.htm
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/today/2008n/02/0401.htm
Stryker001
Banned Member
It is Australian Government/ thus ADF foreign policy that there are no threats in region against Australia. As stated by the former foreign minister and current Government policy. Therefore, the threat level would not meet the requirement of Congress.
Australia by its own admission.
Other than Taiwan China/Japan have little to engage in over conflict for the forseeable future.
Israel is a in different position, in regards to Iran and the enhanced capability of its Arab neighbors. Knowing the Jews any changes to avionics to the JSF, if allowed would role over to the F-22 export model. Which would still be on a case by case nature, in regards to the threat level, and the strategic implications to the US.
Last edited:
And no doubt it will continue to happen again and again and again!:shudder
Still if you think this is bad check out some of the other forums such as WAB or Key!
Tas
Sorry Tas, it wasn't a real question, it was meant to be a barb at the number of them nearby and their relative effectiveness.IIRC, our nearest neighbour, Indonesia has 2 x Su-30 and 2 x Su-27 with few weapons and little support and operational infrastructure. It hopes to get another 6 -8. Hardly a threat against the RAAF even if it also gains new weapons, control and reporting systems, airborne early warning and control units, etc, none of which appear likely to happen soon!
Tas
Its a backfiring joke, I should have added smilies...
I seriously doubt the editorial validity of that article for a number of reasons.
JSF
1) There are 8 cusotmers who will have to be convinced that they should give up their place in the queue for a country that will get FMS rates and has not made any contribution to its development. If Lockmart want to brass off their customer base - then this is a good way to do it
2) Lockmart has not made any ongoing sales comments about IAF
3) Israel is still on the crap list for selling and dealing with China on issues such as Harpy, Lavi onsell and Phalcon. There are still some who don't want Israel to get access to any current US emergent LO tech
4) Other partners have tech development in JSF, they need to give their imprimatur to release their discretionary technology
F-22
See first sentence in Pt 2 and magnify it considerably.
It's OK GF - I realised that. I was trying to reinforce what you were saying to Firehorse.Sorry Tas, it wasn't a real question, it was meant to be a barb at the number of them nearby and their relative effectiveness.
Its a backfiring joke, I should have added smilies...
Cheers
Tas
Going back to the topic..
F-35 will be all the RAAF needs. Both for local threats and for particpating in international missions. The last point is proberly more valuable.
Given the numbers (70+) and support (tankers, possible F-18 SH with growler kits, OTH, Wedgetail, AWD's, etc) it would easily see off any possible threat, even the unrealistic ones.
The F-35 is proberly overkill, but if Australia wants to maintain a viable and sustainable airforce it can't afford to reduce unit numbers.
Which is the problem with the F-22, you cut in and can't support 70 units. It becomes unstustainable. Maintence, training, rotation, sustaining missions etc.
F-35 will be all the RAAF needs. Both for local threats and for particpating in international missions. The last point is proberly more valuable.
Given the numbers (70+) and support (tankers, possible F-18 SH with growler kits, OTH, Wedgetail, AWD's, etc) it would easily see off any possible threat, even the unrealistic ones.
The F-35 is proberly overkill, but if Australia wants to maintain a viable and sustainable airforce it can't afford to reduce unit numbers.
Which is the problem with the F-22, you cut in and can't support 70 units. It becomes unstustainable. Maintence, training, rotation, sustaining missions etc.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Thats why you could not feasibly use the F-22A as the bulk of your orbat, unless a fully multirole version is developed and the unit price is about halved. However this does not preclude a smaller squadron sized purchase (i.e. to replace the Rhino's) should the platfrom be approved for export and annother production run was ongoing at that time. 24x could be affordable and feasible (expenceive but affordable). Considering in general terms 2/3's of the agregate cost of the aircraft is incured after its purchase, and those through life costs should be comperable fro both the F-35A & F-22A, then a 100% increase in unit flyaway price transltes to an additional 25~35% to the agregate (+through life) costs.
~100 platfroms is a minimum. The argument that 1x F-22A can do the jobs of 2x F-18C/F's is a moot one IMO. One platfrom can only be in one place at a time, not to mention (as stated above by stingray) the rotational, maintinance and training stress a smaller orbat puts on the fleet which is still tasked with the same roles over the same geographical area. Since the F-22A is simply to expenceive for the RAAF to aquire in 100+ numbers (not to mention its significant tasking inflexibility) it simply can not be the RAAF's primary fighter.
Capt. Picard
New Member
I suspect that Fitzgibbon is thinking about the F-22 in smallish numbers, say 24. The agrument could be that the Super Hornet in larger numbers (75?) supported by the F-22 would be affordable. The big thing is that I think he wants the F-22 to act as the F-111 did, a huge deterent in the region for 25 years.
I somewhat disagree he is actually thinking about buying the F-22. I suspect a more political approach by fitzgibbon. I noticed Fitzgibbon seems to talk more about asking congress about F-22 acess than actually purchasing them, and when he does its only if the white paper says we need it. I have a feeling he is playing the game I would play it. If its getting played out well it will turn out politically good for the states and Fitzgibbon and give ammunition against "Klopp around the head" and co.
Making a very publiscised request to the states showed you have tried. Getting rejected shows its out of your hands. Ask for Gates to get the congresses rejection out around the same time as the white paper is due (which will say no F-22 needed). Gates gets the advantage of saying Aus didn't get acess so everyone else F@#K off! Aus says thanks for considering we won't ask again as we don't need it. There is now two very hard pieces of evidence that we don't need or will get the F-22. You get the F-22 supporters ammunition out of the way and won't blow out your budget.
Atleast thats the way i would play it, maybe I am just being optimistic here.
I've more or less said the same in other forums. Fitzgibbon was given " a get out of gaol card" by Gates. He is engaging in political colour and movement.
In the current climate, where ADF is being asked to pull the suits to keep the uniforms, then the chances of getting any additional big ticket items has two chances....... buckleys and.......
Whats laughable is that the usual clowns are now trying to make noise through Brian Toohey (todays canberra times) - so you know that they are on their last legs. A number of reporters are now seeking other sources now that they realise that they've been played with by self interested and unqualified dills....
Stryker001
Banned Member
AUS AINT getting F-22s.:smash :smash :smash
U got more of a chance of getting boeings fabulous sh block III
Yeah well, you brief Congress on certain military facts and they will sell them to Australia. Australia obviously is showing the wrong defense briefing to congress. Admin: text deleted. off topic.
Australia doesn’t like to share intel.
You may well be right Jezza
Last edited by a moderator:
No they won't. Its got more than Congress to get through. Read the numerous detailed responses that have been explained in here from not only myself, but others who have dealt with procurement issues.
Hardly. The US is more than aware of our circumstances.
Huh? We share intel at the highest levels. Like all countries we have a specific national classification that restricts some intel to australian nationals only, but we share more intel with the US than any other country - incl the UK. That intel sharing is reciprocated.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,035
Congress does not have the power to sell a system to another country, that power rests in the Executive branch. What the US Congress does have the power to do is to block or deny a sale, since Foreign Military Sales (FMS) need Congressional approval, following certifications and approval through the Executive branch. In the case of the F-22A Raptor, Congress has passed legislation making it illegal for the government to spend money selling the Raptor to foreign countries. This effectively prohibits the Executive branch departs like State, Treasury, Defense, from doing the work needed to process an F-22 FMS so that it can be sent to the Legislature to get congressional consent.
This means that a political/legislative effort would need to be made to repeal or amend the law, with enough votes to pass in the House and Senate so that it is sent to the President to be signed into law, or a two-thirds majority in both chambers would be needed to override a presidential veto. Given that the F-22A Raptor is viewed by many as America's "ace-in the hole" air superiority fighter, I do not forsee any members of Congress, of either party, exposing themselves to political/election risks to secure a sale to a foreign country.
For more information about US laws regarding arms control, see the link here.
-Cheers
Stryker001
Banned Member
Mod edit:
Move on. This topic has run it's course and it's already been addressed. The F-22 hasn't completed the LOEXCOM process for a start. You are talking about things which are far beyond your obvious comprehension.
Talk about other things you DO know something about or don't bother.
AD
Move on. This topic has run it's course and it's already been addressed. The F-22 hasn't completed the LOEXCOM process for a start. You are talking about things which are far beyond your obvious comprehension.
Talk about other things you DO know something about or don't bother.
AD
Stryker001
Banned Member
Mod edit:
Deleted due to repeatedly ignoring mod warnings.
AD
Deleted due to repeatedly ignoring mod warnings.
AD
Last edited by a moderator:
I am sorry i didn't read those posts. I am assuming you are talking about Gates saying in no uncertian terms that Aus was not getting the raptor as a get out fo Goal free card. Where Fitzgibbin thought of this or not I doubt something like that would have shut the boofs up, they would have demanded we go directly to congress.
This is what I mean't by taking away their ammunition. If the governemnt is going along the correct lines they have nothing to complain about; these guys/vultures only get media attention when they have an "explosive" story. No explosive story mean no ammunition and no voice, hence the fade awade(atleast for a while). I just hope there is enough enough ammuntion comming along in the furture to put them down for good if they start comming back from the grave. :nutkick
Change of topic and sorry if this has been disccused elsewhere. "New" news saying looks like 75 F-35's are to be purchased now. Peoples thoughts?
Personal opinion is that its not a big surpirse as i think it would be a strecth anyway in the current climate to have enough pilots for 125 aircraft. I think still 100ish should be brought but 75 sooner and 24 when the superbugs have been retired.
I see something along this line being annouced buy the government as they can do finacial tricks with it to hide it from the budget and make 4 billion in savings weather they actually intend to buy/put on option 24 more on not becuase they won't be around to get grilled. It will probably be smoothed over with:" an air requirements review will be held prior to the superbug retirement to determine the best aircraft at that time to meet our requirements".
I just hope this doesn't give the forementioned crowed any more publicity.
PS:sorry for the bad spelling i am in a rush!
Yep, you'd be standing there with your pants round your ankles in front of the US Congress!
If true thats very interesting, when did that all change?.
I always understood there was an agreement between the UK's GCHQ and the NSA called UKUSA ( the purpose of UKUSA is the full exchange of intelligence), the CIA may still have a separate dept (staff D as it was called)that was created to bypasses the UKUSA, but I doubt the Australia would have anything from Staff D as one of its uses is for spying on UK/Commonwealth countries!! and the FBI were always a law unto themselves but were not so involved in intelligence gathering.
Now this may have all changed in the last couple of years - I could believe that Australia sends more raw signals intelligence into the system, but thats more a function of location than anything else...
I'd be interested in exactly when and if that UK intel exchange shifted significantly.
Cheers