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

[Tasman]

Well, if they are so expensive, maybe EF-2000 would do it?
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!

The RAAF does not want the Eurofighter. It wants the F-35!!!

Firehorse, have you actually read any of the numerous posts in this thread re what the RAAF actually wants and why? Have you read any of the many posts in this and other threads re the capability of the F-35? Have you read the countless posts in this thread as to why the RAAF chose the Super Hornet to fill a possible capability gap rather than any other aircraft?

I suggest you do so before continuing to regurgitate the sensationalist crap coming from the media.

Tas

 

[flyboyEB]

If everyone on this thread is talking alternatives to the F-35, what about the Saab Gripen? Sweden has 200 Gripens, so Australia could afford a similar amount. Surely 200-odd Gripens would make a fairly potent RAAF? I know it ain't going to happen, but I can dream

 

[Aussie Digger]

Apparently at least some in Australia do want them, and US laws can be changed to suit whoever makes/amends export laws!

Again your ability or intent to read is letting you down. I never said "no-one in Australia" wants them.

I said that RAAF has argued repeatedly that it does not need OR want them. Several vocal groups within Australia argue that we need them.

Their opinions are severely lacking in credibility for ANY number of reasons.

In my prev. deleted post, I pointed out that - so it's already multi-role!

The f-22 does not possess an Electro-Optical or Infra-Red targetting system, nor a laser target designator system that will allow it to self designate laser guided weapons.

The F-22 has therefore not had laser guided weapons integrated and qualified on it.

The F-22 has not had ANY anti-shipping missile integrated onto it nor does it possess the software or radar modes to allow it to perform such tasks.

The F-22 currently has 1x type of Air to Ground weapon system integrated and qualified and that is the 500 and 1000lbs JDAM. The F-22 cannot carry 2000lbs weapons of any kind, in it's internal weapons bays.

The Small Diameter Bomb is intended for operational deployment from the F-22, however it is my understanding that it has not achieved IOC with this weapon.

No other air to ground or air to surface weapons are currently funded for integration onto the F-22 to the best of my knowledge.

It is currently armed with the AIM-120C AMRAAM missile and the AIM-9M Sidewinder missile. It has not had the AIM-9X or any other "HOBS" Air to Air missile integrated onto it and it does not have a helmet mounted sighting system.

It's multi-role capability is EXTREMELY limited. It is in effect an air to air fighter with a limited air to ground capability.

Aruging it is what RAAF needs is a little hard to argue in my opinion./

 

[Pro'forma]

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.

Not the question has anything to do with U.S govs willingness to change
the present, deals closed and done. F/A 22 stays where it came from.

Not agreeing with the claims aviation designing today is that old.
You might say designing was made once in a lifetime.

(disappearing magically into the night,, those plans)

 

[Sea Toby]

David Obey, from Wisconsin, is a anti-war democrat, opposed to defense spending. His amendment made it impossible to sell the F-22, therefore, it is his method to stop the madness of buying more $200 million aircraft. While the executive branch of our government has a republican in the white house, both houses of the congress is controlled by democrats. He knows when the line is closed, it will be next to impossible to reopen the line again.
The republicans will have to take control of the congress before that happens. David Obey is an isolationists who doesn't care about other nations. He is opposed to the F-22, and will do anything to kill this expensive aircraft. Every F-15 could drop from the skies and he would still be opposed to this aircraft. This information is for those who don't watch CSPAN.

While the GAO is somewhat luke warm to the F-35, the GAO was opposed to the F-22. As long as the GAO is opposed to the F-22, Obey will have his way.

 

[rossfrb_1]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23426760-31477,00.html
"
Hopes of buying F-22 still alive

Mark Dodd | March 25, 2008

DEFENCE Minister Joel Fitzgibbon will step up pressure on the US to overturn its ban on the sale of the F-22 Raptor fighter, amid growing federal government concern about delays and cost increases affecting the Joint Strike Fighter program.

Foreign sales of the F-22, described by many aviation experts as the world's best air superiority fighter, are banned by Congress, but there are signs that Washington might make an exemption for Australia.

Mr Fitzgibbon told The Australian yesterday he intended to push US Defence Secretary Robert Gates to allow the sale of the world's most advanced operational stealth fighter to Australia at next month's NATO conference in Bucharest.

"Ongoing question marks over the delivery schedule of the JSF reinforces the need we have to look at other '5th Generation' aircraft such as the F-22 Raptor," he said.

"During my bilateral meetings with Secretary Gates at the upcoming NATO meeting in Bucharest, I will again be discussing this issue with him."

More delays and increased costs to the so-far unproven US-designed Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning are driving renewed interest in the previously off-limits F-22. Reliable government sources told The Australian yesterday the RAAF might be able to buy the F-22 "off the shelf" under a congressional waiver, or a modified version stripped of some secretive technology.

Australia is part of an international coalition with purchase options on the multi-role JSF and has flagged an initial order of 100 of the jets, worth a minimum $16billion. But many defence strategists question the wisdom of the deal, given the retirement of the ageing F-111 fleet in 2010.

To bridge the capability gap, the Howard government ordered 24 F/A 18F Super Hornet fighters, at a cost of $6.5billion, to serve as frontline aircraft until the arrival of the JSFs in 2018. Despite misgivings about the procurement process, Mr Fitzgibbon last week confirmed the Rudd Government would go ahead with the controversial purchase."

So is the defence minister making it look like he's trying really hard to get the F-22 as an option, knowing he will fail, but he can say "at least I tried"?

Magoo's two cents worth here would be interesting.

rb

 

[gf0012-aust]

So is the defence minister making it look like he's trying really hard to get the F-22 as an option, knowing he will fail, but he can say "at least I tried"?

Magoo's two cents worth here would be interesting.

well, he's sure going about it the wrong way.

I don't know how many times I've said this, but here goes again:

1) He cannot get the Sec of State to give him a FMS decision. It's got to go through Congress

2) He cannot appeal to Congress directly, he is NOT a head of state, he is a senior minister in australia who would in real terms equate to a "nobody" in the US. They rarely see Heads of State and then it's only cermeonial - not political

3) He has to then to get Congress to overturn the Obey Amendment. Now, with the Republicans already outnumbered and overturned in Congress, what do you think the Dems are likely to do when they get into Govt? change their tune?? I don't think so.

4) He then has to negotiate with State the issue of ITARs restrictions on not only the entire plane, but then also discretionary components. Having been involved with some ITARs items I can tell you it will take years for a plane to get through the process. It took over a year for us to negotiate ITARs lifting on one component - let alone a plane with nn thousands of specialised parts. (and a number of which are sympathetic and symbiotic)

This is all political colour and movement - and what irritates me more than anything is that in none of this debate has there been some acknowledgement on his part that the JSF has some clear advantages over the F-22 in a broader number of critical requirements.

If he was embarassed by the public backflip he had to make on the SuperHornet purchase, he is about to cop another one on his public quest to push for the F-22.

 

[the road runner]

Well i hope Australia buys 100 JSF(but somedays i wake up and think that a 50/50 mix of aircraft would be better ,JSF/F-22,but then i wipe the dribble of my chin and come back to reality ),they will be a great aircraft,just look at all the Research and development costs,number of partner countries,need for the aircraft by all the partner nations,and the prestege of Lockhead Martin on the line.

Still dont know how to quote,but this is from GF post

"This is all political colour and movement - and what irritates me more than anything is that in none of this debate has there been some acknowledgement on his part that the JSF has some clear advantages over the F-22 in a broader number of critical requirements."

Gf can you elaborate on this what qualities ths JSF have over the F-22?
Here is my 2 cents worth=
Well i know the JSF is far superior in the air to ground(strike missions)
The JSF also will have a greater sensor package,and alot of othe goodies still in development.
Also dose anyone know if australia and norwegians(i think)will be developing
an anti ship missile capability on the JSF.Madness for Australia to purchase a fast jet capability without an anti ship missle IMHO

MEEP MEEP

Mod edit:

It's a tad hard to explain how to quote using HTML, so I'll use the word quite instead of quote. For HTML purposes you use quote.

You need to "wrap" the start of every sentence or paragraph you wish to quote with this: [quite]

and end every sentence/paragraph you wish to quote with this: [/quite]

A sentence therefore looks like this when you type it (except it has the word quote instead of quite)

[quite]this is how you quote in HTML[/quite]

but actually looks like this when you've done it correctly

 

[rossfrb_1]

well, he's sure going about it the wrong way.

I don't know how many times I've said this, but here goes again:

[snip]

If he was embarassed by the public backflip he had to make on the SuperHornet purchase, he is about to cop another one on his public quest to push for the F-22.

If you know this, then how come HE does not know this?
The guy is the Minister for crying out loud, is he not getting advised by "experts"?

What you are effectively saying is that the defence minister of Australia does not even know his own job. Or for some reason is abandoning logic and reason?

rb

 

[gf0012-aust]

If you know this, then how come HE does not know this?
The guy is the Minister for crying out loud, is he not getting advised by "experts"?

some of his experts are idealogically driven - and they're not always ex uniforms with a direct appreciation of some of the issues.

What you are effectively saying is that the defence minister of Australia does not even know his own job. Or for some reason is abandoning logic and reason?

rb

I've worked indirectly with 5 prev defence ministers in various guises, on a balanced score card assessment must of them were administrative and managerial dills - and all of them had a tendency to think that they could come in and do a robert macnamara and bring light and sunshine into a complex portfolio.

so yes, to my mind, he is demonstrating poor political colour and movement judgement.

 

[lobbie111]

We All need to calm down here...:vamp

Well, lets just summarize what was discussed, NOTHING...:nutkick

Can we stop yammering on about the F-22, yeah sure it would be a great but but Australia does not need such an aircraft, the Government and the defence force even have some good reasons why, I know its hard to let go I want some too but be realistic people

ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN
​

Now as I hope we can establish the fact the the F-35 is what we are getting, is there any weapon package deal or new weapon systems to be bought with the deal, and although Its not an airforce issue talking about missiles but what are the chances of the Joint Strike Missile (aka Naval Strike Missile) I believe it is the only anti ship missile that can fit into the F-35's Internal Bay going into production.

 

[diggumsbang]

does anyone know the details as to the development (or study) between australia and norway with regards to a 'Joint Strike Missile' that is happening?
i believe that it will be able to be incorporated into the F-35 internal weapons bay...
how would this compare to Harpoon Bk II? and if the RAAF was to purchase this, would it spell the end of Harpoon for RAAF use on Orions (and P-8 if we choose to get this capability)?

 

[Sea Toby]

Australia is helping fund the research. Its still in its planning stage, no where near production. Its the next generation Penguin missile. It doesn't have enough range to really replace the Harpoons, and has half the weight of explosives. Its a smaller missile.

 

[swerve]

Australia is helping fund the research. Its still in its planning stage, no where near production. Its the next generation Penguin missile. It doesn't have enough range to really replace the Harpoons, and has half the weight of explosives. Its a smaller missile.

The NSM anti-ship version from which JSM is derived is a completely new missile, not related to the Penguin, though a similar size (actually slightly larger & heavier), because it is meant to replace Penguin. NSM has had quite a few successful test firings, & is in production for the Norwegian navy. What's in the planning stage is adapting it to the JSM, by giving it a greater land-attack capability & some other modifications.

NSM has a range of about 160 km, & warhead of about 120kg. Because it's smaller & lighter than Harpoon, greater numbers can be carried, or it can be carried in internal bays, or on smaller platforms.

 

[Grandstrat]

some of his experts are idealogically driven - and they're not always ex uniforms with a direct appreciation of some of the issues.

Do you mean they just don't share your ideologies?

I would shudder in fear if the defence minister were only to receive advice from 'ex-uniforms'. A plethora of veiws and understandings will always provide a more informed decision for people to make. Otherwise you end up with a situation the bush administration ended up with, filling their departments with like minded individuals which ended up hampering any attempt at good governance.

On balance though it's fair to say most ministers are woefully underprepared for the decisions they are expected to take. Brendan Nelson was a doctor, Joel Fitzgibbon owned a small businessman and was on a city council(??), Robert Hill a lawyer of some kind....my memory fades somewhat. It's the nature of democracy I guess.

Then again, people in this forum don't particularly like Hugh White despite seeming to be better qualified than any in here. Maybe it's a matter of ideology after all?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Do you mean they just don't share your ideologies?

that assumes that you see a disconnect and have identified what my ideology vector is... so what is it?

I would shudder in fear if the defence minister were only to receive advice from 'ex-uniforms'. A plethora of veiws and understandings will always provide a more informed decision for people to make. Otherwise you end up with a situation the bush administration ended up with, filling their departments with like minded individuals which ended up hampering any attempt at good governance.

Most ministers recognise that they cannot rely soley on uniforms just as much as they soley rely on suits - its an issue of balance. MacNamara (as a US example) and a swathe of Mindefs prior to Fitzgibbon have also thought they they were smarter than all prev executives/ministers ....

Then again, people in this forum don't particularly like Hugh White despite seeming to be better qualified than any in here. Maybe it's a matter of ideology after all?

You're joking? Hugh White has done more damage to the structure and future proofing than anyone else in his position in recent history. Now he struggles to keep himself relevant to justify his mistakes from the past.

Its easy to blame the organisation, it's harder for ex Execs to recognise their own policy failures

 

[thorpete1]

We simply arn't going to get the F-22, it simply is to hard. The F-35 is an excellent aircraft. It has a much better situational awarness system, better air-ground capabilities etc. The only reason the F-35's air-air ability is tbeing talked down is because lockheed wan'ts to milk the USAF for as many F-22's as they can.

The F-35 JSF is an excellent aircraft and recieves way to much flak because its not called the F-22

On the politcal defense department stuff, no goverment is going to have complete handle on defence, it involves spending money on something that you may or many not need and is thus seen as a waste of money by a lot of MP's as it's money which could go to getting them re-elected.

When is the next Defence whitepaper due?

cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

When is the next Defence whitepaper due?

cheers

Unclassified version is scheduled for release in December

 

[Grandstrat]

that assumes that you see a disconnect and have identified what my ideology vector is... so what is it?

You've attacked them for being ideologically driven, if you shared their ideologies you would be less vituperative - is the only comment i'm making. It all depends on what you class as an ideology, can you give some examples of (serious) government advisors, their ideologies, and how this has shaped their advice?

Most ministers recognise that they cannot rely soley on uniforms just as much as they soley rely on suits - its an issue of balance. MacNamara (as a US example) and a swathe of Mindefs prior to Fitzgibbon have also thought they they were smarter than all prev executives/ministers ....

I agree.

You're joking? Hugh White has done more damage to the structure and future proofing than anyone else in his position in recent history. Now he struggles to keep himself relevant to justify his mistakes from the past.

How has he done so? There is always certainly alot of consternation on this forum whenever it is mentioned in the public domain that australia may not need this or that warship etc. Looking back on former posts it seems that the same thing happened with the Abrams tank. The most problematic thing he appears to advocate is that Australia does not need significant levels of power projection across the world/region, which seems to conflict heavily with the world veiw of many pro-military individuals. Certainly he is far from my ideal strategy lecturer at the anu but it is certainly fun seeing the controversy he stirs in some corners.

 

[lobbie111]

How has he done so? There is always certainly alot of consternation on this forum whenever it is mentioned in the public domain that australia may not need this or that warship etc. Looking back on former posts it seems that the same thing happened with the Abrams tank. The most problematic thing he appears to advocate is that Australia does not need significant levels of power projection across the world/region, which seems to conflict heavily with the world veiw of many pro-military individuals. Certainly he is far from my ideal strategy lecturer at the anu but it is certainly fun seeing the controversy he stirs in some corners.

I agree that we do not need a significant power projection ability, we don't want to control the world here... But having said that Australia stills needs a force that will ring alarm bells and sound sirens when the mention of Australia getting involved is revealed, A force that can stand up for itself, which I believe we have already...

Although I cannot stress the fact that IMO we need a larger defense force irregardless of what I just said