Australia was elevated to similar access levels 2 years ago. Check your PM
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
I think its in English, but i have no idea what it means!!
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,046
What does this post have to do with the RAAF? The RAAF is not particularly interested in the F-22, since it is not a real multi-role aircraft and therefore not well suited to meet different Australian needs. Certainly it would be a nice capability to have in the present design format (VLO, supercruise, AESA, etc) but not at the cost of having other capabilities reduced.
This does not even get into the development costs which would have to be picked up by those who ordered a downgraded for export version, likely increasing cost to purchase to similar levels as that of USAF F-22 Raptors. Or that an export version would be lacking some of the the very capabilities which make other countries want to have a capability like that the Raptor offers.
Lastly, what does the Su-34 have to do with the RAAF? At present no country in the region is operating them or have them on order, with Russian expecting to have 24 operational by 2010. Given that ausairpower.net was cited as a source, I would recommend reading through the archives for RAAF related threads. There have been a number of mentions in the past with regards to the accuracy and assumptions made on that website as well as potential conflicts of interest on the part of those providing the "analysis".
-Cheers
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Yes! Of cource it could, but the real question is will it? Short answer, not in the next 5 years anyway by which time the current production run will almost certainly be over & theline closed. We may have a hope if they start annother production run down the track and the technology is more mature.
:lol3
Why exactly, bacause they can cover ground almost as quickly when they're clean (remember the F-22A aqtually runs clean in combat config)? Supercruise wont make up for the fact that an F-22A can use its (more advanced) AESA in the BVR regime and the Flanker can not. That fact alone will make it a slaughter, AL-41F or AL-31 whatever, & this doesnt take EW into account. At squadron or even organisational level F-22A means they Flankler user can not effectively use his AEW&C aircraft but the F-22A user can. FYI all of the above stands for the F-35A~C.
Mod edit:
Try actually reading this thread before you shoot your mouth off. RAAF has been quoted NUMEROUS times on this board outlining WHY it does not need the F-22.
If you can't be bothered to read for yourself, I can't be bothered allowing you to stir up the same rubbish in this thread.
AD
Try actually reading this thread before you shoot your mouth off. RAAF has been quoted NUMEROUS times on this board outlining WHY it does not need the F-22.
If you can't be bothered to read for yourself, I can't be bothered allowing you to stir up the same rubbish in this thread.
AD
Last edited by a moderator:
75 was always the projected figure given for Australia's buy in the first phase of the RAAF's JSF purchase. A follow on buy of 25 was foreshadowed as a possibility but other alternatives such as UCAVs were also put forward as possibilities. The purchase of the FA-18F gives breathing space to the RAAF so the first phase doesn't need to be rushed and the final phase could easily be put off for some time, leaving the RAAF with 3 squadrons of F-35s and 1 with the FA-18F (perhaps with some modified for EW) as a medium term force (from about 2017 or 2018 until the SHs are eventually replaced).
BTW, if the final phase doesn't include the F-35 then I think the navy's wish (as mentioned in today's news) for some F-35Bs to be included will be even less likely to happen than if all 100 are acquired (even then it will still be pretty slim IMO).
Tas
Okay try mid-class american english. AD don't take too personally, just a
kind reply.
The Australian government for its annual reporting did not reach the
agreement, any Air Force/Militarial need for new generation fighter F/A 22
( as we know U.S law mostly prohibiting ).
If procurement of several next decades has changed as reasons of lower
overall costs; then when U.S/usafe is/has plans to the next F/A 22.
A new international F/A 22.
kind reply.
The Australian government for its annual reporting did not reach the
agreement, any Air Force/Militarial need for new generation fighter F/A 22
( as we know U.S law mostly prohibiting ).
If procurement of several next decades has changed as reasons of lower
overall costs; then when U.S/usafe is/has plans to the next F/A 22.
A new international F/A 22.
what agreement on the F-22??? For goodness sake its not available. Its not the US Govt stopping it - its a congressional amendment and ITARs restrictions. the latter led directly to the former. the former is outside of the purvue of a single govt decision.
there is no international F-22 - it exists in the minds of aviation impotent who live in hope that the prev paragraphs issues will disappear magically into the night.
They spent 1 billion dollars making the JSF tamper proof, whats makes you think they would even offer the F-22 without such a program, this program would
a. add cost to an already expensive program.
b. raise the purchase price of an export variant.
c. take several years to develop.
d. add complexity to maintainance.
e. expose the f-22 to more scrutiny by friends and foes.
f. require an act of congress.
g. damage the JSF program.
Thats the cons - the pros to this would be the allies to the US would feel trusted, so from a US perspective its a bit of a lopsided argument.
Cheers
a. add cost to an already expensive program.
b. raise the purchase price of an export variant.
c. take several years to develop.
d. add complexity to maintainance.
e. expose the f-22 to more scrutiny by friends and foes.
f. require an act of congress.
g. damage the JSF program.
Thats the cons - the pros to this would be the allies to the US would feel trusted, so from a US perspective its a bit of a lopsided argument.
Cheers
Australia's new fighters 'already obsolete'
Apparently at least some in Australia do want them, and US laws can be changed to suit whoever makes/amends export laws! In my prev. deleted post, I pointed out that
- so it's already multi-role!
Grand Danois
Entertainer
This has been discussed so extensively that I cannot even.... not another repeat.
It's total bull. It's comparing UFC with UPC for starters. No, Aust wont get Raptors at an UFC of 116 mn USD. No, the UFC of the F-35A will be approx 50 mn USD, not 95-100 mn USD. No, Aust wont get a sweet spot at the end of the Raptor production run.
And yes, the F-22A can drop bombs. No, it does not make it multirole. It only gives it a narrow A-G mission, essentially taking over the very specialised mission the F-117 used to do. Nothing more than that.
This is re-circulated APA rubbish.
US laws can be changed. The British Parliament can also vote to abolish the monarchy. Doesn't mean it'll happen. To assess the likelihood of a law change you have to look at the political factors, the motives & objectives of the main players, how important an issue is and to who.
I'm no expert on this, but I don't see a big lobby in the USA for F-22 exports. Lockheed Martin is happy not to export it, because it has the F-35. Those Australians & Japanese who want their countries to get F-22 have no clout in the US congress, & in some cases, one might even say have negative clout: the more they ask for it, the more determined their opponents become. On the other side, there's a large and powerful lobby against allowing F-22 exports. The USAF wants to keep its silver bullet to itself, & there's a very powerful group within the congress that is even more strongly in favour of keeping the F-22 US-only. Those congressmen who aren't in that group aren't particularly bothered, & aren't going to push hard for a law change. Nobody in the USA is leaning on them to do it.
Well, if they are so expensive, maybe EF-2000 would do it?
If Austria Selected Eurofighter EF-2000 Typhoon, with
If Austria Selected Eurofighter EF-2000 Typhoon, with
, Australia can surely afford them, with her
, which is more than twice as big! BTW, the RAF already operates them!
Offtopic: Rather debatable. Monarchists often cite the 1848 Treason Felony Act in that regard, which treats the intent to remove the Queen from power as treason against the United Kingdom.
Back ontopic: Umm.
You do know that Austria can only afford to operate a single squadron of Eurofighters? 18 aircraft, and even those only with shaky funding.
Twice that number - with your calculation - would mean cutting the RAAF down to one third of its current and planned future fighter aircraft numbers.
You realize that article is just about 2 years old? If any of it were true we'd of seen more information from more reliable sources by now.