so, have Boeing come back with another interim plan.....?
it will be interesting to see how the numbers all fall.
F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped
- Thread starter LancerMc
- Start date
it will be interesting to see how the numbers all fall.
That would be a good mix, however do you think that the gap between the high-low mix could be greater?
With the F-22 being able to do all the high risk missions it would see the F-35 doing the sort of stuff that a cheaper more conventional aircraft could do.
36 F-22s for a total of $7.92bn) and
48 F/A-18E/F's at 100m each for a total of 4.8 billion
A saving of 1 billion and reduced transation costs as we already operate the hornet. This would allow for 60 Super Hornets to be bought for the same budget as the JSF/ F-22 option. So a dozen additional aircraft.
This would provide a better High-Low mix in my opinion. No need for G model hornets as the super hornets would only be used for low risk missions.
The Super Hornet and F-22 option is by far the best for Plan A. We could buy the Super Hornets now, and then we can monitor the progress of the JSF, if the JSF performs bad we then buy the F-22. If it performs well we could buy the JSF, this would be Plan B. There is even a plan C as we could keep buying more Super Hornets and not even get the JSF or F-22.
So going with the Super Hornet now, actually gives us 3 options all of which are probably some of the best options.
Plan A: 60 Super Hornets and 36 F-22
Plan B: 60 F-22 and 48 JSF
Plan C: 100 Super Hornets including some G models. 20 extra for attrition.
We could even lease some super hornets and buy them later and go with those options. Or give them back if the JSF performs well and go with a JSF only fleet.
We dont want to go down the path where we have only one option left.
Hey G, yep but it's really a progression of what they've always had on the table but it's now been included under a wider effort also aimed at India and Japan. Boeing has been getting some real face time in Canberra recently so I don't think you could put it in the 'unsolicited proposal' basket any more.gf0012-aust said:
If they can sell another 350-400 Supers in the region (126 for India, 12-18 for Malaysia and up to 175 for Japan, plus there's Australia), that'll keep the Super line open for another decade, thus providing more options for additonal USN buys down the track. Trouble is, Japan wants F-22s then F-35s, Malaysia doesn't know what it wants from one day to the next, and Australia wants F-35s, so much will depend on how F-35 progresses over the next year. Also, in Japan the Super is going to be competing against an up-specced F-15 if the F-22 doesn't happen but I think India is a done deal if they can get the local content right there.
Why make it a greater gap? As I've said before, Hi-Lo is a tactics doctrine, not necessarily a disparity in aircraft performance/capability. The F-22 would do the high end long range strike and air dominance work, and the F-35 the CAS and other 'day two' stuff with the F-22s flying OCA in support. The F-35's greater survivability over the Super will mean that if any surprises were to pop up on 'day two' and there were no F-22s immediately available to support it, it would be more likely to come home.
Further, an F-35 will still be a relevant capability in 2030+...the Super will likely be marginal by then and we'll be looking at a replacement program earlier.
Agreed. If we're going to be operating a majority of Supers, we'll need more jets due to reduced survivability and sustainability compared to F-35.
Don't forget, the US still operates EA-6Bs with its B-2s and F-117s...I think a buy of 6-8 EA-18Gs would be prudent and still provide sufficient flexibility to be incorporated into the general Super fleet and be operated as a flight within a Super squadron (Big E may be able to elaborate?). If it eventuates that we find they're not getting enough 'G time', they can easily be converted back to Fs.
Cheers
Magoo
Even though it takes about a week to read and research through the data in this thread from the beginning, I just wanted to add there is some genuine quality in this thread well beyond the speculation and platform debates. Well done!
What will still be relivent in 2025? I think the SuperBug will still be relivent, and I am almost certain the Growler will be. I'd be interested in Big-E's take, and maybe I am putting too much emphesis on the systems, pods, and weapons and the increased influence they have in a fight, but I don't see anything in production or even near production that 'overmatches' the F/A-18E/Fs from either China or Russia.
More payload, more agile, faster, etc... sure. But overmatch? From what I have seen in watching this debate (mostly by following links and reading the various 'expert' rants), the same people that say the Su-27 or J-11 are vastly superior to the SuperBug say the F-16 is a better option than the JSF.
If I was in the position of Australia, I would take the SuperBug stopgap solution if it became available, but I would insist on getting some EF-18Gs in the deal. While they are extreamly expensive, the debate ended long ago with a resounding cheer to the capabilities of the EA-6B, and from what I have read and seen, the upgrade to the EF-18G in EW can be accurately described as the same difference between the F-16 and F-22 in air combat.
Again, I'd like to hear what Big-E thinks, but I would think facing a squadron of J-11s or Su-27s in an open ocean scenario where both sides have AWACS, a F/A-18E squadron supported by EF-18Gs could be about as effective as a squadron of JSFs by themselves, and considering the heavy use of EA-6Bs to support 'stealth' operations in the opening moves of OIF, it seems those EA-18Gs would come in handy if the JSF turns out to be as good as advertised anyway.
I could be wrong though, I have never been very good at the mythical air combat matchup game.
If the F-22 is used as a high level aircraft then i believe the F-16 would be a great option instead of the JSF as the low level aircraft. Cheap, easy to maintain and multi role. The F-16 could be bought in great numbers and perform all the daily low risk stuff and close air support.
How much did Singapore pay for each of their F-15SG's?
I wonder where that sits in terms of suitability for the RAAF. Its range is quite impressive even compared to the JSF and F-22.
I think going with Super Hornet now and UCAV buy later would be my pick of the bunch.
Single Points of Failure
Ladies and Gentlemen,
An observation that you might find of some interest is that what continues to evade some people in this debate are the single points of failure in each of the air power force structures that are being proposed, whether they be a single type or mix of JSF, F/A-18 Classic or its lesser aerodynamically performing bigger sibling, the Super Hornet, F-16, and even a mix of F-22 with any of these.
In Force Structure planning, single points of failure represent high risk and should be avoided. Attempts to mitigate single points of failure while retaining the same force structure invariably lead to high costs of operation which in turn result in less than optimal preparedness being achieved in peace time operations/training due to the inevitable budgetary constraints applied by bureaucrats. Since the single points of failure continue to exist in this scenario, it becomes a double whammy for conflict operations ie. low preparedness and still exposed due to the single points of failure.
'tis far better not to have single points of failure in the Force Structure.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
An observation that you might find of some interest is that what continues to evade some people in this debate are the single points of failure in each of the air power force structures that are being proposed, whether they be a single type or mix of JSF, F/A-18 Classic or its lesser aerodynamically performing bigger sibling, the Super Hornet, F-16, and even a mix of F-22 with any of these.
In Force Structure planning, single points of failure represent high risk and should be avoided. Attempts to mitigate single points of failure while retaining the same force structure invariably lead to high costs of operation which in turn result in less than optimal preparedness being achieved in peace time operations/training due to the inevitable budgetary constraints applied by bureaucrats. Since the single points of failure continue to exist in this scenario, it becomes a double whammy for conflict operations ie. low preparedness and still exposed due to the single points of failure.
'tis far better not to have single points of failure in the Force Structure.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Occum, could elaborate on what you mean by "Single points of failure" in Force Structure planning? I'm not quite sure I get your meaning. Are you referring to things like the F-16 & JSF both being single engine aircraft, and loss of engine = loss of aircraft? Or are you talking about something completely different?Ladies and Gentlemen,
An observation that you might find of some interest is that what continues to evade some people in this debate are the single points of failure in each of the air power force structures that are being proposed, whether they be a single type or mix of JSF, F/A-18 Classic or its lesser aerodynamically performing bigger sibling, the Super Hornet, F-16, and even a mix of F-22 with any of these.
In Force Structure planning, single points of failure represent high risk and should be avoided. Attempts to mitigate single points of failure while retaining the same force structure invariably lead to high costs of operation which in turn result in less than optimal preparedness being achieved in peace time operations/training due to the inevitable budgetary constraints applied by bureaucrats. Since the single points of failure continue to exist in this scenario, it becomes a double whammy for conflict operations ie. low preparedness and still exposed due to the single points of failure.
'tis far better not to have single points of failure in the Force Structure.
Not wishing to put words in another’s mouth, but in essence ‘Single failure point” means that with only one combat type, the entire air force can be nullified by one flaw; be that mechanical, tactical, or by technological succession.
An example would be the RAAF F-111C fleet being grounded when a wheel fell off. If that was the only combat jet operated by the RAAF, it would in essence, have ‘grounded the air force”.
Similarly, the F-117, which relied entirely upon ‘stealth’ technology & doctrine to achieve tactical success. What if it no longer had stealth, could it still achieve it’s intended strike missions? By having multiple capabilities & or asset types, this nullifying flaw, it is hoped, can be avoided.
Regards,
WaterBoy
An example would be the RAAF F-111C fleet being grounded when a wheel fell off. If that was the only combat jet operated by the RAAF, it would in essence, have ‘grounded the air force”.
Similarly, the F-117, which relied entirely upon ‘stealth’ technology & doctrine to achieve tactical success. What if it no longer had stealth, could it still achieve it’s intended strike missions? By having multiple capabilities & or asset types, this nullifying flaw, it is hoped, can be avoided.
Regards,
WaterBoy
bjskyhorse
New Member
F-35 or F-22, Japan's choice
We know F-35 will be sold to the US allies such as Austrlia,UK.Then how about Japan?It is said the PLAAF'S SU-27,SU-30 will be a threat to Japan's F-15 now.And F-35 maybe not a good choice for them.So,They want to buy F-22,and as an important country in West Pacific.US will be glad to do so.But the congress has decied that F-22 can't be supplies to any allies?Then F-35,the only choice of Japan?
We know F-35 will be sold to the US allies such as Austrlia,UK.Then how about Japan?It is said the PLAAF'S SU-27,SU-30 will be a threat to Japan's F-15 now.And F-35 maybe not a good choice for them.So,They want to buy F-22,and as an important country in West Pacific.US will be glad to do so.But the congress has decied that F-22 can't be supplies to any allies?Then F-35,the only choice of Japan?
In recent times Japan has operated a two-tiered combat force, so although they may be interested in F-35 when it becomes available through FMS (>2016), they currently also have an F-X requirement to replace the F-4EJ Kai and F-15CJ.
First choice is reported to be the F-22, but the F-15E+ and F/A-18E/F are also expected to figure prominently if the F-22 isn't available.
Magoo
bjskyhorse
New Member
YES,I know.But Japanese have cut down the amount of F-2,at first,they want to buy 130 ,but now only 98.It also said they are interested at F/A-18E/F and F-15E and Eupope fighter,but if this is a long term plan,they will select F-22 or F-35,if not,F/A-18E/F will be possible.
I want to know their current plan.And can they buy F-22?The US government will sell it to them?
I want to know their current plan.And can they buy F-22?The US government will sell it to them?
At present the US cannot sell the F-22. The cut in orders for the F-2 comes as it is WAY to heavy and WAY to expensive than what was originally planned. It would have been wonderful if they had waited and bought 100 JSFs with that money. I think JSF is a superior purchase when they must face PLAAF. The F-15 only gives them parity in an AA role and the Super Bug is disadvanteged due to slow speed. Without stealth speed is life, JSF can afford to be slow as it has stealth, Super Bugs don't.
What money? Tax money received & spent in the 1990s isn't available to spend 20 years later. The JSF wasn't even planned when the F-2 project began. Japan would have had to buy something else if not the F-2. F-18, maybe. Or more F-15. Or had a much smaller air force.
Actually, the US CAN sell the F-22; the Obey amendment only forbids the USAF spending money on FMS activities for the jet. That said, there is reportedly much work to be done in clearing the jet for foreign sales, so even if that work were to be commenced tomorrow, the time this would take may yet kill off any potential foreign sales before production is wound down.
The F-2 is a dog - no question!
I believe a hotted up F-15E+ would likely be superior to J-10, J-11, Su-30 etc, as these are all fourth gen designs without the benefits of AESA, integrated EW and sensor suites, and a mature AWACS support etc, although there's little doubt the F-15 is at its aerodynamic and performance limits. The Super Hornet, although probably aerodyamically inferior to the F-15 and the Chinese jets I mentioned, has even more advanced avionics/sensor/EW suites and more growth to come.
Super Hornet also has some stealth aspects added, and is certainly more LO than any near term potential competitors in northeast Asia, so that's all it needs for now. However, it doesn't come close to the F-22 or the F-35.
Japan could do alot worse than the Super Hornet.
Magoo
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
I think Japan may consider a few squadrons of F-22s, but certainly they would only be an elite part of a future airforce. They would probably be backed up by larger numbers of F-35s.
contedicavour
New Member
What sort of industrial partnership can be offered to Japanese industry for the F22, or for the F35, or indeed for F18E/F or F15E ?
I know that Japanese industry participates in Boeing production for civilian airliners and that its defence industry is sophisticated enough to heavily adapt foreign designs.
Several foreign manufacturers are setting up shop in Japan with commercial offices (Finmeccanica just arrived, hoping to leverage current EH101 and AB139 orders by several civilian and Coast Guard agencies).
I think the answers to my question will help identify which model could be selected.
cheers
I know that Japanese industry participates in Boeing production for civilian airliners and that its defence industry is sophisticated enough to heavily adapt foreign designs.
Several foreign manufacturers are setting up shop in Japan with commercial offices (Finmeccanica just arrived, hoping to leverage current EH101 and AB139 orders by several civilian and Coast Guard agencies).
I think the answers to my question will help identify which model could be selected.
cheers
It is my understanding the Obey Amendment says the F-22 may not be marketed overseas. Obey (D-Wis.), said "it makes little sense to sell the Air Force’s top technology to foreign countries if there is a chance the US could someday come up against it in battle." Considering the Senate subcommittee shot it down and Obey will be chairman of the House Appropriations committee I see foreign sales coming next to never.
contedicavour
New Member
Hmm what is the opinion of the Reps and Senators from the areas where the F22 is being produced... and who may soon feel the effect of the closure of the production line after the approx 180 ordered for USAF are delivered ?
cheers
Who cares.. if they aren't on the right committees it doesn't matter. It will never make it to the floor for a vote.