I agree with what you have said to a point, in the Australian Example halving our fighter force leaves us with an almost non existent capability Australia is currently at our bare bones as such in terms of force, we have the smallest force possible to remain effective, with the F-35 purchase of 100 we are essentially putting meat on our bones.
One platform can only be in one place at a time. 80~100 platforms or 4 squadrons, (no matter the generation) are the minimum needed for the RAAF. This holds true for Mirages, Hornets, Rhino's, Lightning's or Raptors. Effective capability is
always dependant on the threat environment, therefore even though the new fighter they have may be 3 or 4 times as capable as the previous gen, you can not have 1/4th the orbat and expact to have comperable capability simply because the threat has evolved too. Therefore the "it can do the job of 3 XX's" argument is a moot one IMO.
The US however has an on overkill number of fighters designed for a cold war scenario, this can work for the US in that they may have say 1000 F-15's but to keep the same effectiveness nowadays it only needs say 500 (just throwing figures around).
Thats a subjective assesment of the US's strategic requirements. Put simply if the USAF replaces 3000 F-16's, F-15's and A-10's with 2000 F-35's and F-22's they will suffer a loss of capability in
contemporary terms rather than agregate. This is what i mean by the whole "3x more capable than last gen" argument which seems to be the basis for the above statement. You cant view your agregate capability alone and expect to be realistic, everything needs to be weighed against the threat.
Now does the USAF of 2020 need a fighter force the size the current beast to maintain its contemporary capability? Maybe not, considering the generational edge it enjoys now and evolveing strategic aims. But once the threat evolves to a similar level (i.e. post 2020) then (all else being equal) they will suffer a capability decline.
The cost of operating two types at once in a budget where the hornets only occasionally get to come out and play (ie it has to be budgeted for) I heard the figures of 500 000 to fully fuel (and arm?) one F/A-18. Imagine trying to maintain an effective unit across three types of aircraft when just fueling those beasts costs half the defence budget...not to mention maintenance.
Somehow i doubt aviation fuel is that expensive (not withstanding the hidious price at the local servo :mad ). That would mean over $100 a kg.
It would cost more than that to fully arm a Hornet, AMRAAM's alone are over $100G's a pop. But again how often do they actually fire one? Anyway we are operating a 2 platform fleet now and will be out to 2020 and possibly beyond so i'm sure we can manage it.
As I mentioned in my previous post, an F-35 could beat an F-22 one on one but they would most likely both go down and in a dogfight an F-35 is useless. F-35 has the advantage of EOTS, ie being a 50 mile Sniper, and F-22 however needs an external pod that compromises stealth.
A one on one is a poor judgement of capability. When are they ever going to fight one annother? Were they designed for that? No. Therefore whats the point of such a comparison (apart from the fact that they can be fun once in a while)? What matters is which platform can do the task it has been set in the most effective maner, in the current threat environment. Therefore what is best is conditional on the tasking and operational requirements you have as the user.
In any case if they were to go one on one EOTS would be an advantage, but current BVR weapons would probably bu near useless in a head on shot anyway considering their respective EWSP suites and frontal X band RCS. It would degrade to WVR mighty quickly and there its would be near even. The EODAS + AIM 9X BII combination would more than equate for the F-22A's superior instentainious turn rates, but the Raptors superior kinematical capability would also be telling. Too close to call IMO.
F-35 uses different easier to maintain materials than the F-22 which gives it another advantage over the F-22.
I understand it has a smaller baseing footprint as one of the design goals, but just how much smaller than the F-22A (which has similar measures compared to the F-117) remains to be seen. The logistical costs would be comperable anyway.
Oh and Btw, an F-16 has fly by wire an F-15 doesn't, this to an extent gives it an edge, only limited by range and payload, F-22 and F-35 share similar fuel loadouts and payload.
The later design of the F-16 means it has a few more modern features than the F-15, such as an unstable designe. However the F-15's superiority is ot only dependant on range and payload. The F-15 has been the most capable air superiority asset in the last 30 years for a reason, even if airframe design and some avionics componants of the F-16 were more modern, the superiori radar missile combination and kinematical performance meant that the F-15 was and is a far more capable air superiority asset. The same can be said for the F-22 vis a vis the F-35 even though some componants of the latter weremore advanced. Of cource the F-16 was far more flexible than the F-15A~D but this can be atributed to its design goals.
