F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped

[Tasman]

Don't apologise W800i. I found this to be a fascinating post and I also found myself agreeing with practically every point you made.

Now I think we have to accept the reality that the RAAF is locked into the F35 but that it will almost certainly be late. The F111 will be retired before the F35 is in service. We need an aircraft to plug the capability gap that will be created and that aircraft will be the FA18F.

We can and should look at mistakes in the selection process and learn from them in order to reduce our chances of repeating them in the future. I think the process was hindered by funding issues that forced the RAAF to try and make too big a jump to a 5th generation aircraft, rather than making a decision 4/5 years earlier to replace the F111s and classic Hornets with a late 4th or a 4.5 generation combination before going to a truly 5th generation aircraft later. Funding issues probably also prevented the air force from replacing the F111 with one type (e.g. the F15E) and then looking at the Hornet replacement as a separate issue. IMO we also need to continue to develop a greater understanding of the problems associated with computer software integration.

I suspect that both the RAAF and the government will have learnt a huge amount from this project as well as other projects that have stalled (e.g. Wedgetail) or even failed (Seasprite).

The FA18F, if the procurement goes ahead as seems almost certain, will give valuable breathing space to re-evaluate what ought to support the F35 beyond 2020. Whether that be UCAVs to supplement the strike force or perhaps an air superiority fighter to establish air dominance, at least Australia will have bought valuable time to make properly evaluated decisions.

Cheers

 

[Waylander]

One thing you should remember.

Armed forces and MoDs do not learn anything.

Nothing.

They make the same mistakes again and again!

 

[Magoo]

In response to informal queries, to make it clear there's no point putting in a formal request & being embarassed by a formal refusal. Pretty normal diplomatic stuff.

So, in order to save embarrassment, the Minister leaks the DefSEc's letter to The Australian newspaper???

Besides, why would you make an informal query for an aircraft which "isn't suitable?"

Magoo

 

[Magoo]

If the Americans are worried about third parties learning the secrets of the Raptor I think it almost a foregone conclusion that a leak would come from within there own camp. I am as confident as an outsider can be that the very tight lipped RAAF could of adequately secured the Raptor and will continue to do their already thorough job at maintaing secrecy at any rate.

I don't think it's so much they're worried about us being "tight lipped" or not, but how we safeguard our technology, either on base, or if an aircraft crashes while on an overseas deployment (e.g. Butterworth in Malaysia etc).

So Gordon Englands letter is a political statement for his mates down under.

I would say this is almost certainly the case.

The yanks took the best part of ten years to de bug the raptor losing several air frames in crashes due to these bugs.

Not quite - They've lost just one YF-22 early in the piece due to a FCS failure, and an F-22 in late 04 at Nellis due to a FCS computer hardware fault.

Keep in the mind that the current CDF, a man whom has flown over 5000 hours on Blackhawks and is in charge of this nations magnificent men and women in uniform has stated words to the effect that any Australian fighter pilot would give his right testicle to fly the raptor.

5000 hours in Blackhawks??? More like about 500, but anyway...

Was Kopp correct in stating at least a year per airframe?

About 10 months for the strip down and rebuild, but each airframe will likely be offline for about a year. The issue is, because there will be a couple of dozen or more airframes undergoing the upgrade process concurrently,we will have a capacity issue within air force, and THAT'S one of the main reasons why the Super Hornets are being bought. Yes, it covers the gap between the F-111 and the F-35, and gives us some breathing space to take later build F-35s, but it also covers a loss in capability while the 'classics' undergo their centre-barrel rebuilds.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Smythstar]

No F-22 Raptors for Oz

Recent comments in the local media (Australia) are reporting the Americans are unwilling to sell Australia the F22 Raptor.

One would expect that one of the benifites of jumping on the American bandwagon would be access to certain sensor and technology platforms etc certainly Australia does its bit eg JORN, Intell Humanint/Sigint, Echelon, American bases etc and unflinching political and military support.
Indeed the could be few closer allies to America than Australia, it seems we support them no matter what even sometimes when it goes against our own long term interests and all this despite the fact that the Americans frequently screw us over on trade issues.

Are we assessed as a security risk?

Political risk?

Or is this to do with propping up the potentially flagging F35 Lightning program?

 

[Rich]

Recent comments in the local media (Australia) are reporting the Americans are unwilling to sell Australia the F22 Raptor.

One would expect that one of the benifites of jumping on the American bandwagon would be access to certain sensor and technology platforms etc certainly Australia does its bit eg JORN, Intell Humanint/Sigint, Echelon, American bases etc and unflinching political and military support.
Indeed the could be few closer allies to America than Australia, it seems we support them no matter what even sometimes when it goes against our own long term interests and then theres the fact that the Americans frequently screw us over on trade issues.

Are we assessed as a security risk?

Political risk?

Or is this to do with propping up the potentially flagging F35 Lightning program?

What recent comments? And where are your links and supporting evidence? There are rules here for rumour mongering and posting baseless and unsupported Intel. I guess your new here. Or is you purpose another, "America screwed us thread"?

The last I heard the US congress has supported the idea of eventually exporting the Raptor.

 

[Schumacher]

What recent comments? And where are your links and supporting evidence? There are rules here for rumour mongering and posting baseless and unsupported Intel. I guess your new here. Or is you purpose another, "America screwed us thread"?

The last I heard the US congress has supported the idea of eventually exporting the Raptor.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21222473-2,00.html

 

[dioditto]

I think what Smythstar is refering to is the US-AUS free trade agreement. Many here feels the US screwed us over big time.

 

[Smythstar]

Thanks Schumacher for the link.

Yeah Rich clearly they are not going to sell it to us and after all we do for America id like to know why?

If America is worried about its stealth tech leaking out our OTH radar can already defeat stealth infact we are so nice we have giving America the technology to integrate into your own systems likewise we give the NSA a freehand with the Echelon system spying on our own population and several "soon to be more" intelligence ground stations that happen to also make us a nuclear target when we wouldnt be otherwise.

Australia is an apex allie and we have always punched above our weight in both fighting ability and tech contributions, Oliphant one of the main guys who invented "your" bomb was Australian.

So yeah why dont we qualify for an aircraft whos technology our technology has already defeated to a large extent are we festooned with Chinese spies or something because if we are then they have JORN tech and they have JORN tech your F22s lost its major advantage anyway.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Thanks Schumacher for the link.

Yeah Rich clearly they are not going to sell it to us and after all we do for America id like to know why?

If America is worried about its stealth tech leaking out our OTH radar can already defeat stealth infact we are so nice we have giving America the technology to integrate into your own systems likewise we give the NSA a freehand with the Echelon system spying on our own population and several "soon to be more" intelligence ground stations that happen to also make us a nuclear target when we wouldnt be otherwise.

Australia is an apex allie and we have always punched above our weight in both fighting ability and tech contributions, Oliphant one of the main guys who invented "your" bomb was Australian.

So yeah why dont we qualify for an aircraft whos technology our technology has already defeated to a large extent are we festooned with Chinese spies or something because if we are then they have JORN tech and they have JORN tech your F22s lost its major advantage anyway.

For one thing the (in)famous letter did not refer directly to Australia, so you don't need to feel quite so slighted. What it said was, the US is not prepared to release the F-22A for "foreign sales".

Ie: no-one will get it besides USAF. Canada, Britain, Israel and Japan are ALL at least as "trustworthy" as Australia and NONE of them are eligible to receive it.

This is not the only piece of military hardware the US wouldn't sell to us. How many nukes do you reckon they'd be prepared to sell us?

We are in a VERY priviliged position WRT to the USA. An example I used earlier of this is our JASSM purchase. To date this weapon has been sold to no OTHER Country besides Australia (and of course the USA).

Finland a NEUTRAL, but friendly Country to the USA was refused JASSM just last week, but we've been allowed to buy around 260 JASSM's already and have a follow-on project to acquire the 1000k ranged "ER" variant in years to come...

Unfortunately politics is playing a MUCH bigger part in this than we can appreciate and not only Australian politics. If The US sold the F-22 to a foreign Country it'd have major political ramifications in the US. The USAF was only ever funded to buy the aircraft ITSELF, because US Congress was "sold" on the advanced technology contained within it and the need to "protect" the USA's technological edge, erroded due to F-15/F-16 and of course future JSF sales.

On top of this, this policy is only relevant during the Bush administration, due to end next year. The next Administration may not hold this view, may maintain it or may make it IMPOSSIBLE, via a Presidential directive or some such for us to acquire it.

To me, it does not show that the USA doesn't "trust" us or consider us un-reliable, moreso that such a sale (even IF affordable, which it is NOT, IMHO) but rather that there is insufficient need to justify such a complex, not to mention costly situation.

The "hoards" of Indian and Chinese Flankers are hardly on our doorstep are they??? nfloorl:

 

[jaffo4011]

tell you what,why not send some australian dollars back to your mother country and make your head of state happy by buying the equally talented but much cheaper typhoon instead!
theres nothing else in the world which would realistically stand a chance against a typhoon other than the f22 anyway and the us wont sell them to the enemy,so why bother wasting money?
the typhoon would complement the f35 perfectly as it will in the raf in the near(ish) future.......

 

[Smythstar]

Jeeze I dont know if id trust Israel not to sell its own Grandmother.

Wasnt it Israel that sold China all that hush hush yank tech inclueding nice little devices like blanket lasers?

 

[tphuang]

Jeeze I dont know if id trust Israel not to sell its own Grandmother.

Wasnt it Israel that sold China all that hush hush yank tech inclueding nice little devices like blanket lasers?

So, you basically came here to rant on your anger toward USA and spread the good old Carlos Kopp message.

- Australia is in no security danger considering what it's neighbours have and what it has.
- Australia is in no security danger considering that America will protect it in times of a conflict.
- Australia probably has the highest level of defense clearance for American defensive hardware, same level as UK and Canada I'm sure.
- And if Australia is upset it can't get F-22s, it can always get the typhoon and rafale to complement F-35. Although, I don't see the point at all.

 

[Smythstar]

I think your putting words in my mouth mate.

Considering the relationship the two nations are supposed to have, it was simply a question of if not why not?

Aircraft usually take a long time to aquire especially something like the F22 and your assertion that Australia will face no threat in that time frame to be based on faith and little else.
The only thing that is certain is that things will change, the American empire is on the wane and new empires are begining to rise and we are going to be smack bang in the middle of the growing pains no matter on which fence we sit.

Remember Singapore was Inpregnable and going to save us from the Japanese!

 

[tphuang]

I think your putting words in my mouth mate.

Considering the relationship the two nations are supposed to have, it was simply a question of if not why not?

Aircraft usually take a long time to aquire especially something like the F22 and your assertion that Australia will face no threat in that time frame to be based on faith and little else.
The only thing that is certain is that things will change, the American empire is on the wane and new empires are begining to rise and we are going to be smack bang in the middle of the growing pains no matter on which fence we sit.

Remember Singapore was Inpregnable and going to save us from the Japanese!

You are clearly not happy with America's decision over not selling F-22s to Australia. You clearly think that Australia actually needs F-22. I don't think I'm putting words into your mouth.

As for Australia facing no threat in that time frame, it's not based on faith, but based on the capabilities on militaries around Australia (including the aforementionned Indonesia, China and India). None of these countries have the capability at the moment to launch any kind of meaningful offensive against Australia.

 

[Rich]

I'm a little torn over both views. On one hand its simple fact that the more that a technology leaves your control the higher the odds it will fall in the hands, somehow/somewhat/someway, into the hands of those hostile to my country. It would be the same way if it were Aussie high tech being sold to us. The more nations you sell it to the higher the exponential chances it will be compromised be it software or hardware. Yaknow we thought we could trust the Israelis too. We are living in an age of technology theft.

On the other hand we have a special relationship with Australia on the level of our British relations. Even more so I believe the American people genuinely like the Aussies. In no way should this decision, indeed if it actually happens, should be viewed as a slap in the face.

This is an extremely sensitive weapons system of a war winning potential. Should Australia ever be attacked you would see them in your skies one way or another.

We dont have an Empire Smyth. And if we did I sure as hell wouldnt be going into work on my day off today.

 

[Tasman]

For one thing the (in)famous letter did not refer directly to Australia, so you don't need to feel quite so slighted. What it said was, the US is not prepared to release the F-22A for "foreign sales".

Ie: no-one will get it besides USAF. Canada, Britain, Israel and Japan are ALL at least as "trustworthy" as Australia and NONE of them are eligible to receive it.

This is not the only piece of military hardware the US wouldn't sell to us. How many nukes do you reckon they'd be prepared to sell us?

We are in a VERY priviliged position WRT to the USA. An example I used earlier of this is our JASSM purchase. To date this weapon has been sold to no OTHER Country besides Australia (and of course the USA).

Finland a NEUTRAL, but friendly Country to the USA was refused JASSM just last week, but we've been allowed to buy around 260 JASSM's already and have a follow-on project to acquire the 1000k ranged "ER" variant in years to come...

Unfortunately politics is playing a MUCH bigger part in this than we can appreciate and not only Australian politics. If The US sold the F-22 to a foreign Country it'd have major political ramifications in the US. The USAF was only ever funded to buy the aircraft ITSELF, because US Congress was "sold" on the advanced technology contained within it and the need to "protect" the USA's technological edge, erroded due to F-15/F-16 and of course future JSF sales.

On top of this, this policy is only relevant during the Bush administration, due to end next year. The next Administration may not hold this view, may maintain it or may make it IMPOSSIBLE, via a Presidential directive or some such for us to acquire it.

To me, it does not show that the USA doesn't "trust" us or consider us un-reliable, moreso that such a sale (even IF affordable, which it is NOT, IMHO) but rather that there is insufficient need to justify such a complex, not to mention costly situation.

The "hoards" of Indian and Chinese Flankers are hardly on our doorstep are they??? nfloorl:

There are a lot of good points in this post.

There have been suggestions in a couple of the other Aussie threads (e.g. Aussie JSF to outcost F-22s?) that 'the letter', which the Australian Defence Minister says did not come as a result of a request from Australia for the F-22 may have been sent as an effort by the Bush Administration to help get critics off the government's back. This, off course, is speculation but the opposition political party in Australia, as well as sections of the media and groups like Airpower Australia, have been pushing for the F-22 instead of, or as a supplement to, the F-35.

Australia has not requested the Raptor, either officially, or, according to the Defence Minister, unofficially. The RAAF has repeatedly stated that it is too expensive and too specialised to meet the RAAF's requirements and, as confirmed in 'the letter' it is not available to any country outside of the USA anyway.

As well as the JASSM the USA has supplied advanced weapons systems to Australia for many decades. Examples include the F111, which was sold only to Australia (it was to have been sold to the UK but the British pulled the plug) and AEGIS which has been refused to some allies and cleared to only a few, including Australia. The USA is well within its rights to withhold technology from any other country, just as Australia is, but, IMO. It has a good track record with Australia as far as defence co-operation and info sharing is concerned.

Another issue that has been raised is whether the F-22 is being withheld from export to increase the overseas sales prospects of the F-35. Maybe that is the case, maybe not, but whatever the answer it is a decision the US is entitled to make.

I made the point in another thread that I would be annoyed if the US refused to sell the Raptor to Australia but cleared it for sale to another country, but that is not the case.

The RAAF has consistently stated that the F-35 is the ideal aircraft to meet its future needs. Some have argued, and I am one, that the air combat force should include an air superiority type to complement the JSF and that that aircraft should be the best available. At this stage the F-22 is out of the picture so I would be looking at an aircraft like the Typhoon, but the RAAF believes that the F-35 will meet its air to air needs. This could change in the future, if neighbouring air forces begin to field large numbers of advanced aircraft, but at present it seems to be a non issue for the RAAF.

My main points are that:
1. Australia has never asked for the Raptor and it is not on the RAAF's shopping list.
2. The Raptor has not been cleared for sale to any other foreign country.
3. The USA has treated Australia comparatively well in the military technology it has made available over many decades.

Cheers

 

[ThunderBolt]

F-22 Unfair Advantage

I was just reading the news in the news part on this website, and it had a news about F22's participating in the red flag exercises. During this exercise the blue team had F22's along with other aircraft like F15, F16, and planes from RAF and RAAF. If you read the news, about half way through, it says the our allies don't want a fair fight, and because of that we had to make sure that we have an advantage over the red aggressor forces.

Now can some on pleeeeeese explain to me why we don't want a fair fight, woudn't it make much more sense to have a fair fight rather than having an unfair advantage over the enemy. It also says that the aggressor pilots are supposed to use the same tactics, used by the "enemy" which is probably Iran or China. China might put up a good fight but Iran doesn't even have a proper AWACS system. Now if we do train with no advantage over the enemy, then even in the war if we do actually have an advantage, it would be alot easier for us to win. But if we train with the unfair advantage, and lets say thats not the case during actual fighting, than our airforces are doomed. Maybe I didn't understand the news properly but can someone explain this please.

 

[Dave H]

I assume the Nato allies need to train as they will fight. Assets such as an F22 or Tornado dont fights as individual units but as a package with other assets hence so much effort goes into datalinks such as JTIDs, situational awareness etc. Letting pilots train without using their full scope of capabilities is pointless. A NATO fighter will never fight without AWACS support. A fighter bomber will never fly alone to a target but n company with jammers, tankers, SEAD and fighter assets.

The enemy might put up a few fighters with limited ground contol but we wouldnt. The fair fights are reserved fr one v ones etc where parameters are set to allow dogfights etc but these days who actually wants to dogfight? Better to hit them on the ground with cruise missiles and shoot down the ones that do tae off at safe distances.

 

[JWCook]

A NATO fighter will never fight without AWACS support. A fighter bomber will never fly alone to a target but n company with jammers, tankers, SEAD and fighter assets.

Thats not quite what happened in the Falklands

Ok I'll shut up now