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

[Beagle]

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

Which is what the whole small debacle over him or gates approaching congress on the issue was about. In the end gates is meant to be doing it on his behalf.

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

See note above.

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.

If he is not intending to get permission not an issue if he is I am no longer optimistic as before.

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)

as before

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.

I somewhat disagree here. The backflip on the superhornet was actually politically better for him.

With the superhornet he made a big mistake badmouthing it in opposition. This gave him political liability. The review allowed him to claim a 300 million "saving" (note the quotes) which reduced his liability politically on the subject. If anything I would say both side came out looking the same. Weather this was intentional or not is the big question on his competence.

Unfortunately, we have to remember a politician’s main goal is to look good to get reappointed in the end so political colour and movement is part in parcel with the job like it or not.

It will be interesting to see how hard he pushes. As I said before the goal would have to been “seen” to be trying to get access. At the moment he is moving into video taped territory which is not good.

I agree that a clarifying comment like ”both the F-22 and the F-35 are very capable aircraft and each appear more than capable to serve our future needs. First let’s see what aircraft is available before we make judgments on what aircraft is best” would not go astray if he actually is not serious about the F-22. But he can't be seen to be pro either aircraft. He must be seen to be following procedure.

Taking away my optimism here, maybe he is really an uptight minister who looks and follows procedure to the book as a way of diverting flak and covering his butt. If that’s the case he will make the correct military procedural decisions but won’t survive as defense minister for very long as it doesn’t work well in this portfolio and will get him eaten alive on the F-22.

One thing is for sure, we will find out what he is by december, a good polictian, an uptight procedural one, or a GF seems to suspect; a downright fool who actually thinks we can get the F-22 or one that commits suicide for no apparent reason.

 

[Firehorse]

Is there a possibility of jointly developing F-22- style fighter with Japan and ROK? Then Uncle Sam can keep his F-22 related secrets intact- until one crashes or shot down, and pieces are recovered by non-friendlies!

 

[Todjaeger]

Is there a possibility of jointly developing F-22- style fighter with Japan and ROK? Then Uncle Sam can keep his F-22 related secrets intact- until one crashes or shot down, and pieces are recovered by non-friendlies!

Quick answer, yes, it is possible. IMV though it is not a very likely possibility. A large amount of resources (money, scientific, engineering, production, etc) would need to be dedicated to the effort. Also, time would be needed. The ATF started in 1986 and achieved IOC as the F-22A Raptor some twenty years later. Given the timeframe the RAAF has on aircraft, plus the acceptability on risk, the effort would not be initiated. Then there is also the question on whether Japan would actually develop such an aircraft, given that the F-35 is expecting to come online within a decade.

I feel an important point to raise amongst those who would question the usefulness of a Raptor-like aircraft in RAAF/ADF inventory. When comparing the Raptor with other combat aircraft like the F/A-18F, the upcoming F-35, or the Rafale, how would it compare for Australia's overall mission needs? It is expected that it would be the superior air-to-air fighter, but would be an inferior multi-role aircraft due to limits to munitions carried and sensors fitted. Given that the RAAF is a relatively small air force that needs to cover a number of air combat roles, it cannot afford to dedicate so much of its resources on an aircraft that is of limited use.

Hence the need for multi-role aircraft for the past ~25 years and into the foreseeable future.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Is there a possibility of jointly developing F-22- style fighter with Japan and ROK? Then Uncle Sam can keep his F-22 related secrets intact- until one crashes or shot down, and pieces are recovered by non-friendlies!

Nope. ABSOLUTELY zero chance. Australia has not designed a fighter aircraft since the 1940's. Given we won't operate more than 100 aircraft in total, have a limited budget and our major defence industries are currently aimed at naval work, limited vehicle related opportunities, small arms and component work, at best we can join "other" programs and negotiate workshare components from that.

Talk of us designing an "F-22" equivalent with 2 other Countries that aren't exactly the "best" of friends and indeed are rivals in some areas is utterly ridiculous.

Get over your Australian/F-22 fascination. It's not going to happen.

 

[Sea Toby]

I don't get this all of a sudden attitude of nothing but the best. When F-15s were available, Aussie's bought Hornets, when Phantoms were available, Aussie's bought Mirages. Australia has always bought multi-role fighter-bombers in the past, and I suspect the same in the future. Only because the F-111s were late, did the Aussie' buy F-4s, and then for only as a stop gap measure. While the F-111s were not great fighters, they were great bombers.

Australia also needs a great maritime strike aircraft. Again, the best aircraft for Australia is the F-35, an all rounder. It will more than hold its own in the air, and do much more damage on the ground. Australia needs the better multi-role aircraft, and that is the F-35.

 

[Capt. Picard]

Get over your Australian/F-22 fascination. It's not going to happen.

Are you going to tell the minister that?

I think the "Australia is not going to get the F-22" crowd here may end up being suprised. The simple fact is that aircraft purchases for the military are also political decisions. If the govt. wants the aircraft and they can secure it they will get it, regardless of the airforces wishes. I bet your bottom dollar the airforce would be very happy to get it, in the end.
On the US end if sales to Japan and Australia help reduce the unit cost and allow further purchases for the USAF they could be tempted. If the political situation the US finds itself in lends itself to having strong allies and more jobs they could be persuaded. There are a lot of situations where the aircraft may be released.
It's interesting to hear peoples views on this subject and practically banning discussion of it on this board is bizarre. The is certainly a chance this aircraft COULD be purchased by OZ especially if the minister wants it! Why not get over you obsession about not discussing it and see where the conversation leads?

 

[Sea Toby]

But the F-22 crowd won't be able to purchase it, as I know the US Congress won't sell it. There are more in Congress who wish to kill this unaffordable aircraft than there are to produce more.

I am sure if both aircraft were developed and ready at the same time, the US Congress would never have bought the F-22.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Are you going to tell the minister that?

As a matter of fact, I have made my thoughts known to the Minister of defence yes. Not quite as bluntly however...

You can too, right here:

[email protected]

What I'm fed up with is uninformed comments that are pervading the boards at present and to a large degree on this topic.

This topic has been done to death and there are 73 PAGES of discussion on this topic in this thread alone. People are asking the same questions over and over when there are literally hundreds of posts on the SAME topic addressing the SAME questions already.

I think the "Australia is not going to get the F-22" crowd here may end up being suprised. The simple fact is that aircraft purchases for the military are also political decisions. If the govt. wants the aircraft and they can secure it they will get it, regardless of the airforces wishes. I bet your bottom dollar the airforce would be very happy to get it, in the end.
On the US end if sales to Japan and Australia help reduce the unit cost and allow further purchases for the USAF they could be tempted. If the political situation the US finds itself in lends itself to having strong allies and more jobs they could be persuaded. There are a lot of situations where the aircraft may be released.
It's interesting to hear peoples views on this subject and practically banning discussion of it on this board is bizarre. The is certainly a chance this aircraft COULD be purchased by OZ especially if the minister wants it! Why not get over you obsession about not discussing it and see where the conversation leads?

Think what you like buddy. My opinion is Mr Gates was being very polite and diplomatic in his comments to Mr Fitzgibbon and neatly avoided being forced to public humiliate his Australian counterpart on their very FIRST meeting...

Mr Fitzgibbon has already suffered one very public humiliation with the Super Hornet decision and his attempts to focus on the alleged "lack of process" by the previous Government were a pathetic attempt at trying to regain some lost ground on the issue. If the decision the previous Government made was "wrong" his argument would have had some legs. It doesn't however and HE looks like a fool for refusing to remove his foot from his mouth prior to speaking to RAAF about air combat matters...

As GF has pointed out at length Secretary Gates is NOT able to personally petition the US Congress in his role as Secretary of Defence.

Obey is a Democrat. The Democrats CONTROL Congress and have a fantastic chance of taking Executive power at the next election. There is no sign whatsoever that they have ANY interest in overturning the "Obey Ammendment" in fact the opposite is true, because ammendments to the bill have been placed before Congress in recent years and have been defeated. Repeatedly.

All of your speculation also totally ignores the ITARS process including State Department's input into this process.

Whether Government OR RAAF want it, is very much irrelevent I'm afraid unless the USA decides to release it for export. I don't think they will.

Arguing about the "cost reductions" to the USA is nonsense. The development costs are "sunk". The USA could have released it 5 years ago when the cost WERE at their highest and minimised the cost then. They chose not to.

Arguing the F-22 will be released now when it's at it's cheapest (to the USA) is ridiculous in light of the continuing blocking of it's sale in the Congress. It ain't the current platform cost that's blocking further sales to the USAF anyway, it's Congress that has capped the acquisition of a program that has spent USD$65 BILLION to acquire 187 operational aircraft...

The very same cap that is resulting in the F-22 production line commencing it's shutdown in October 2008 unless further orders (and at this time, this means USAF orders) are placed.

Discussion hasn't been banned on the topic for a long time now, but it's heading that way again because no NEW discussion is happening. Only the same thing that has been talked about ad infinitum over the past 3-4 years. The same thing that I and others have said in the last few pages have been repeated in multiple threads over hundreds of posts.

Unless the Obey Amendment IS overturned it IS pointless talking about it. We might as well talk about acquiring X Wing class fighters for RAAF.

 

[Sea Toby]

Wake up to reality! The US Congress agreed to purchase 187 Raptors to replace the Nighthawks. Not many of the large numbers of F-15s has been replaced by the Raptors. While the USAF may wish to do so, this congress and this president's pentagon don't. Obey wanted the program killed, domestically and internationally. In October of this year, Obey will have success.

Back during the Clinton years, he was for development but not for new construction. That changed during the Bush years to development and construction. Thank the 9-11 terrorists. But the Raptor's price has killed itself. Not even the Bush administration or the Democratic congress wants to put another cent much less dollar into this program, development or construction.

If you are willing to pay up to $200 million per aircraft, are you also willing to pay a third of the total development costs too? Some $20 billion?

 

[thorpete1]

Lets talk about something other then an Aussie raptor, its just a pipe dream.

Are we getting enogh KC-30B's or Wedgetail AEW&C aircraft or C-17's, will the numbers we are getting fullfill our defence needs. We buy a lot of aircraft which are heavily reliant on Force multipliers, good examples are fighter size aircraft (F-35, E-2000, F-15, F-16 etc). They require tankers to get them to where they are going, AEW&C aircraft to increase their chances in in Air to Air Combat and improve situational awarness, J-Stars to help them improve there air to ground capability and improve situational awarness and finally cargo aircraft to quickly deploy the fighters support personal and spare parts.

Will we have enogh force multipliers to support our airforce in a world where there presence can make the difference between a crushing defeat and and a smashing victory?

Thanks gf0012-aust for the white paper data, it will make for interesting reading as to were defence thinks its heading.

Cheers

 

[lobbie111]

Well my question is why the defence force chose the wedgetail in a 737 configuration when it could have ordered it with a 787 airframe or would this have cost too much? or the timeframe was not good? and why a common airframe was not chosen across air refeuling tankers, AWACS, Command and Control and executive transport aircraft (beisdes transport).

 

[Sea Toby]

I do not believe Airbus offers everything as Boeing does. For example, I have yet to hear of a Airbus AWACs plane. And as far as cargo aircraft is concerned, Airbus is offering a prop plane while Boeing offered its jet, the C-17. Airbus is getting there, scaring the hell out of Boeing, but Airbus still has a way to go. Fortunately, for Airbus, Boeing didn't offer a 777 version for the tanker deal to the USAF. Keep in mind the C-17 was a McDonnell Douglas design, bought by Boeing after Boeing monopolized American jetliners.

In the future I see continued strife between Boeing and Airbus. While Boeing will accuse Airbus of heavy subsidies, Airbus will accuse Boeing of US defense industrial monopolies. So its a good thing to see Boeing lose every once in a while. I am of the belief competition guarantees quality.

In the past its been a case for airliners the last one to design an aircraft plans the best aircraft. It does make sense too. While the 747 has been around many years, Boeing was in no hurry to build a bigger jet, wel, until the Airbus A-380. While McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed attempted to build a smaller wide body than the 747, Boeing and Airbus went even smaller with the 767 and A-300. When Airbus decided to take a significant lead with the A-330 and A-340, Boeing stepped up with the 777 and 787.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Wake up to reality! The US Congress agreed to purchase 187 Raptors to replace the Nighthawks. Not many of the large numbers of F-15s has been replaced by the Raptors. While the USAF may wish to do so, this congress and this president's pentagon don't. Obey wanted the program killed, domestically and internationally. In October of this year, Obey will have success.

Back during the Clinton years, he was for development but not for new construction. That changed during the Bush years to development and construction. Thank the 9-11 terrorists. But the Raptor's price has killed itself. Not even the Bush administration or the Democratic congress wants to put another cent much less dollar into this program, development or construction.

If you are willing to pay up to $200 million per aircraft, are you also willing to pay a third of the total development costs too? Some $20 billion?

True but what will replace the F-15s? The AF had oringinaly planed to keep 177 F-15c and 224 F-15E until 2025 but it looks like their going to keep all 700 or so F-15s even there already on average 25 years old execpt for the F-15E which are more like 10 years old. If their going to replace them with F-35s then they better add 700 addittional F-35s to the 1763 for a total of 2463 F-35s for the USAF alone plus the 680 for the Navy and USMC. Otherwise your looking at a major reduction in the USAF fighter force which will not sit too well with the USAF or congrees for that matter. Whether it be more F-22s or F-35s they better come up with something ASAP to replace those F-15s.

 

[swerve]

I do not believe Airbus offers everything as Boeing does. For example, I have yet to hear of a Airbus AWACs plane. And as far as cargo aircraft is concerned, Airbus is offering a prop plane while Boeing offered its jet, the C-17.

Nor does Boeing match everything Airbus/EADS offers. What prop-driven transport aircraft does Boeing offer, to compete with the EADS-CASA C-212, CN-235, C-295 & A400M? What low-end MPAs does Boeing sell?

Fortunately, for Airbus, Boeing didn't offer a 777 version for the tanker deal to the USAF......

The B777 would have lost by a bigger margin. It can't use anywhere near as many airfields as either the B767 or the A330, & costs too much to buy and operate. Bigger is better - up to a point.

 

[swerve]

Well my question is why the defence force chose the wedgetail in a 737 configuration when it could have ordered it with a 787 airframe or would this have cost too much? or the timeframe was not good? and why a common airframe was not chosen across air refeuling tankers, AWACS, Command and Control and executive transport aircraft (beisdes transport).

Wedgetail was ordered 3 years before the 787 was launched. You can't choose something which doesn't exist.

It would have been possible to buy both tankers & AEW based on the B767, but the RAAF clearly preferred the 737-based Wedgetail to the 767 AWACS, & the A330MRTT to the KC-767. Since both airframes are in airline service worldwide in large numbers, & are likely to remain in production longer than the 767, the logistical advantages of a common airframe are probably heavily outweighed by other factors.

 

[Aussie Digger]

True but what will replace the F-15s? The AF had oringinaly planed to keep 177 F-15c and 224 F-15E until 2025 but it looks like their going to keep all 700 or so F-15s even there already on average 25 years old execpt for the F-15E which are more like 10 years old. If their going to replace them with F-35s then they better add 700 addittional F-35s to the 1763 for a total of 2463 F-35s for the USAF alone plus the 680 for the Navy and USMC. Otherwise your looking at a major reduction in the USAF fighter force which will not sit too well with the USAF or congrees for that matter. Whether it be more F-22s or F-35s they better come up with something ASAP to replace those F-15s.

The F-35 will be replacing their F-15 and F-16 fighters to various degrees. Hence WHY I am so confident the F-35 won't be "axed" as some would have us believe.

Some former F-15 users have already switched to F-22A, as will the former Nitehawk users.

The F-15E's have PLENTY of life left and won't be needing replacement before 2030 at least... AS to which aircraft will be in production then, one can only guess, but I suspect it will be F-35, UCAV's or nothing...

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The F-35 will be replacing their F-15 and F-16 fighters to various degrees. Hence WHY I am so confident the F-35 won't be "axed" as some would have us believe.

Some former F-15 users have already switched to F-22A, as will the former Nitehawk users.

The F-15E's have PLENTY of life left and won't be needing replacement before 2030 at least... AS to which aircraft will be in production then, one can only guess, but I suspect it will be F-35, UCAV's or nothing...

I agree with you.

187 F-22s and 1763 F-35s is enough to replace the F-15s and F-16s and F-117s but I really don't think they should replace the A-10. In fact the A-10s have been upgraded to the A-10C and can now carry JDAMs and should remain in service until 2028. If the A-10s wear out then build new ones such as a A-10D possibly.

 

[Sea Toby]

When the USAF suggest their forthcoming needs, they build the numbers from the ground up, not as replacement planes. Simply put, after 30 years, many of the first F-15s aren't any better than later F-16s, or the new F-35s.

I will repeat, when it comes to a multi-role fighter bomber, nothing will beat the F-35. As a fighter only, then the F-22 will beat it. Unfortunately, the F-22 line will close this fall..... I suspect the closure will have to happen first, before the Raptors delegation will admit defeat.

As the Lockheed Martin video claims, its easier to place more bombs on a single engine aircraft and get better performance with a double engine aircraft. This is just a simple rule of thumb, it does not mean that a single engine aircraft can't be a fighter, or a double engine aircraft can't be a bomber. But this is what the USAF and Lockheed are going with.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Mod edit:

After discussions between the Administrator and the Mod Teams any further discussions in relation to the Exportability of the F-22 and related subjects are requested to cease until such time as a MAJOR announcement is made by an appropriate authority confirming that the F-22 is available for export outside the United States.

An appropriate authority would include: the USAF, Lockheed Martin or an official US Government (Executive/Congressional) announcement.

The arguments back and forth about this have become entirely circular and are no longer providing the quality discussions we are seeking for this site, merely rehashing the same old ground.

Please continue to enjoy the site and discuss any defence related topics that appeal to you. Just give this one a rest. All similar discussions will be monitored closely from now on.

regards

AD

 

[lobbie111]

I believe that the raptors need fewer numbers but have same capability, they are a huge leap over existing fighters, unmatched really...(well so far). So before anyone starts on about the USAF needing more F-22's than it bought is well erm, a little wrong... If this aircraft can take down more planes with less aircraft the USAF does not need to supplement ALL the F-15's it is simply not cost effective...

Australia is not looking for a dedicated fighter capability, imagine the costs associated (excluding the cost of the aircraft) with maintaining two types of such advanced aircraft... Secondly, the F-35 has the exact same capabilities (minus "supercruise") and can carry similar payloads and fuel loads and has the same LO characteristics of the F-22 although one thing that could be added to both aircraft is 3D thrust vectoring.

In fact, you could almost say the the F-35 is a better aircraft overall because of its more capable "5.1" (raptor being 5.0) architecture and the above characteristics, only outmatched in a dogfight or against an F-22 (or comparable) aircraft.

SORRY AD WAS POSTING AS YOU WROTE THAT...

Mod edit:

That's okay. Topics on the F-22 itself are fine, but we would like these endless (and pointless) what if discussions to cease until there IS a point to them.