The Yanks knew they were forgoing a lot of cash by not making the F-22 available for export but they did so to secure their technology base. There was some talk about an export standard F-22 but anyone who was interested balked at the idea of spending at least a billion dollars to develop this aircraft and the high cost of initial low rate production of a new F-22.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
weegee
Active Member
They also wouldn't have the same overall performance benefits of F35 would they?
I know the F22 is an air superiority fighter and that it does this very well (better than anything) but what sort of Air to Ground capabilities does it have if any? Does it compare to the F35? Correct me if I am wrong but the F35 is a kind of jack of all trades to some degree.
The problems with the F-22 in an export model with an eye to A2G are several fold:
1. No FLIR/IRST (would cost additional R&D dollars).
2. No EODAS (LM has stated that the F-22's MLD can get SOME of EODAS's capabilities with more development).
3. Internal bay limited to 1k weapons.
4. No HMD
5. To be export friendly, the entire avionics (Radar, RWR, etc) package would have to be replaced (most likely with F-35 derivatives).
6. Short legs (less range than F-35) is still a problem.
As you can see there is quite a lot of work to be done that would cost a lot of money for export orders that would never be able to pay back the needed R&D.
1. No FLIR/IRST (would cost additional R&D dollars).
2. No EODAS (LM has stated that the F-22's MLD can get SOME of EODAS's capabilities with more development).
3. Internal bay limited to 1k weapons.
4. No HMD
5. To be export friendly, the entire avionics (Radar, RWR, etc) package would have to be replaced (most likely with F-35 derivatives).
6. Short legs (less range than F-35) is still a problem.
As you can see there is quite a lot of work to be done that would cost a lot of money for export orders that would never be able to pay back the needed R&D.
the principle problem for any F-22 acquisition would have been systems integration into the overall force structure - and primarily battlespace management issues.
the widget issue in the end is irrelevant as the above would drive everything first.
the logistics side of the house dwarfs any of the wish lists
the widget issue in the end is irrelevant as the above would drive everything first.
the logistics side of the house dwarfs any of the wish lists
According to an Air Forces Monthly article, the F-22 will not be integrated with Link 16 for a number of years. Very curious as to why Link 16 integration has not been done, as air superiority was the main reason that led to the F-22 being developed. Sure, it can achieve air superiority without a data link and rely on voice transmissions but wouldn't a data link be useful?
If I remember correctly the F-22 is equipped with a datalink, but it's designed to exchange information only from one F-22 to another, therefore not in the same "network" as Link-16 equipped platforms. There's a bit of information about it at the following link:
F-22 Enters the Network - Linking IFDL, TTNT, Link 16
From time to time I've heard mention of plans to integrate the MADL datalink from the F-35 onto the F-22 but I don't know the status of this program, with funding being the way it is the effort might have been shelved at this point.
There are plans underway for the F-22 to be kitted out with "mainstream" TADL
it says quite a bit about the level of conficdence to bring the F-22 out of the "fighting with own kind" and getting pulled into the open battlespace and not lose any edge.
the latter blocks of F-22 when wired up for Link22 will be a formidable adjunct to the USN (where most of the Link22 development will be used.). Link 22 is also projected to end up on a number of future skimmers as well as some roll up mods to earlier block tranches, and at a land level is sleighted for heavy armour. Its a serious mass foray into a common tactical layer in the joint space.
A thought just crossed my mind, if the proposal that the US bases some significant assets in Australia actually comes to pass is it conceivable that the USAF could forward base F-22s in Australia?
Thanks for the interesting link. The article mentions data links can be picked up SIGINT and installing Link 16 on the f-22 would comprimise its stealthiness. Wouldn't the same apply to TACAN and IFF transponders which can also be picked up by stuff like Kolchuga and VERA?
I recall reading somewhere that Russian AF Su-27s are equipped with a data link which enables Su-27s to only share data amongst themselves. This was reportedly offered for the IAFs MKIs and the RMAFs MKMs. I'm not sure if this is the same data link fitted on the Foxhound for long range intercepts. The Swedish AFs Gripens if I'm not mistaken are fitted with a Swedish made data link which is not compatible with Link 11 or 16. Last months AFM has something about the SAAFs Hawks being fitted with Link Y to share data amongst themselves and from the SAN Valour class corvettes.
Last edited:
Regarding the Force Posture Review, I found it very odd that over the years we only had one squadron stationed in northern Australia.. but 2 sitting in NSW (seems a bit useless). I know there is probably a reason for this and there isn't too much threat to the north, but having only 1/4 of our fighter force actually defending Australia seemed a bit weird for me. This posture review is very welcoming.
Could someone elaborate on why we have two squadrons in NSW but only one actually in a position to defend the country. (disregarding tankers, Australia is a big country and even getting from one side of Queensland to the other is a very long distance)
Could someone elaborate on why we have two squadrons in NSW but only one actually in a position to defend the country. (disregarding tankers, Australia is a big country and even getting from one side of Queensland to the other is a very long distance)
Because Williamtown was initially established from a civilian airfield in 1941 as a base to provide air defence for Australia's main shipping port in Newcastle and also Sydney if need be, our biggest population centre.
Williamtown continues to do this but it was kept as our main operational base in Australia for fighter operations until the current day.
There is also a military concept known as defence in depth. It is not a good idea to base the majority of your military assets in the location that is most likely to be within reach of an enemy, for obvious reasons...
The strategy of providing bare bases in the north and west to be activated in a time of higher threat scenarios is an extremely good strategic idea.
Let's face facts, what industrial and population base is there on the north west shelf to support a capability similar to that which exists at Williamtown today?
The answer is none. For the population side of things it will always be none. For the industrial side of things, it would cost billions to relocate our industrial and support system there and billions in on-going logistical costs above the normal costs of running such a capability for the dubious benefits of "permanent" basing in that region on top of which it wouldn't even provide greater security for Australia given we maintain the capability to deploy to that region if we need to anyway...
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,512
Something which AD left out, but IMO would also be quite important is who within the RAAF or ADF would choose to be stationed or live in the NW shelf for long periods of time? If the RAN is having some issues with retention due to limited choices on postings and where crew/family can live between FBE and FBW, how popular would the RAAF be if there was a major base just outside Broome where personnel and families would end up being stationed at.
It is one thing to have a number of bare bones bases with perhaps a small caretaker force that can be rapidly ramped up for operations. It is quite another to have several hundred/thousand or more people stationed out in the middle of nowhere. People do not like that, and if that becomes a regular occcurence with the RAAF, then people would leave the service.
-Cheers
Agreed. And as can be seen from photos put up just today:
Illegal parameters
All of our big air exercises are conducted up North and West anyway. It's not as if ADF actually ignores that region.
It's just not based there for the very good reasons already outlined recently in this thread.
In a time of national emergency our forces will be wherever they are needed to address the threat.
Putting them in the absolute middle of nowhere on a permanent basis is not a good solution and will be to ADF's very large detriment if this Government decides to do that....
Last edited:
I do not think it is an issue of where potential threats are coming from, as Australia faces limited real threats and if any eventuate can reposition forces quickly enough if those real threats materialise and infrastructure has been invested in.
The key question is how do we raise and sustain our forces. I do not believe it is by relocating them or further concentrating them in remote or isolated areas. They need to be predominantly based near population centres.
This will allow for closer community connections between our forces and families, job opportunities for partners, education for children and less feeling of displacement.
Remote or isolated posts will always need to be manned but coudl be filled by shorter rotations.
All of this would aid retention, lower overall training and recruitment costs and lead to more balanced social lives of service members.
The logistics costs of supporting our troops closer to major population centres is probably better also.
Retain members, lower costs and redirect of that into improved and expanded capabilities.
Please note that I recognise investment will need to be made in Perth and other remote areas disproportionate to their size for strategic reasons but we have to get the overall picture right.
I am not sure the focus of this review is focused on that.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
There is a full Army Reserve Brigade based in Perth I believe. (a small one admittedly). In addition WA has a fair chunk of the navy at FBW and the RAAF has a Squadron of Hawk trainers, and PC-9's at RAAF Pearce north of Perth (along with a Squadron of RSAF PC-21's).
And on top of that, don't forget that TAG(W), otherwise known as 'them' or the SASR are also based in Perth.
I think Perth will live for now.
The Northern Territory has a full Regular Mechanised Brigade along with a squadron of F/A-18A+'s, a Detachment of AP-3C's, with the Navy represented by a patrol boat squadron and some LCH's.
Plus if anyone landed in one of these areas they'd need a hell of a lot of logistics support to get to any of the other population centres. I'm sure the RAAF would love to shoot someone's 2000+km logistics train from Darwin to Adelaide.....
And on top of that, don't forget that TAG(W), otherwise known as 'them' or the SASR are also based in Perth.
I think Perth will live for now.
The Northern Territory has a full Regular Mechanised Brigade along with a squadron of F/A-18A+'s, a Detachment of AP-3C's, with the Navy represented by a patrol boat squadron and some LCH's.
Plus if anyone landed in one of these areas they'd need a hell of a lot of logistics support to get to any of the other population centres. I'm sure the RAAF would love to shoot someone's 2000+km logistics train from Darwin to Adelaide.....
Half. Half the mechanised brigade moved to Adelaide in an attempt to try and keep some people from leaving the brigade and Army altogether...
It's not half, it's about a quarter. One battalion of grunts, a CE squadron, a gun battery and a CSST does not make half a brigade. The move is as more about opening up a training area in the South that can be used during the Northern wet season more than retention benefits.Half. Half the mechanised brigade moved to Adelaide in an attempt to try and keep some people from leaving the brigade and Army altogether...
If the move was being conducted for retention benefits, they've moved the wrong units. If a grunt, gunner, sapper or CSSB pogue doesn't like Darwin, they can get posted to just about anywhere in Australia. Tankers for one don't have that choice - the only other option is Pucka (hence the oft-quoted Pucka-Darwin-Pucka-Darwin-Pucka-Darwin song). If they moved the tank regiment instead, or as well, they could have year round access to a training area as well as actually having enough soldiers stay in the regiment to have a sustainable capability (when more than half of the qualified tank commanders in a regiment are officers, you know you've got a problem).
You can add to that table the ARH Tiger. Soon the Tiger song will be Oakey-Darwin-Oakey-DarwinOakey-Darwin. Which is much worse. Pucka is an hours drive from Melbourne, Oakey is an hours drive from Ipswich. Toowoomba isn't a bad town for families but on base living at Oakey is a prison sentance.
Its a training no brainer to have the tanks and ARHs at Adelaide. 2 Cav Regt and 5 RAR can guard Darwin from the Outback Cong and the Army's air-mech-strike forces: 1 Armd Regt, 16 AD Regt, 103 SP Gun Bty, 7 EW Regt and 1 Avn Regt can spend their time working together at Cultanna and Woomera.
I am signed up for email notification of Defence Media Centre news releases, I received an email today stating that a RAAF member had been seriously injured during exercise Talisman Sabre, and that he was using a portable toilet at Rockhampton Airport when it exploded and was taken to hospital with serious burns, I would ad the link but when I go to the the site the media release is not listed ? Is someone taking the piss ? it has come from the correct email address