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

[Tasman]

(BTW: As soon as my exams are finished (which would be at the end of march) I intend to do a in-depth research and write an analysis just in order to proof to DA that the Typhoon kicks ass and the Super Hornet doesn't )

When you do you ought to start a new thread with it. It should get some reaction!

BTW Good luck with the exams.

Cheers

 

[Falstaff]

BTW Good luck with the exams.
Cheers

Thanks! I definitely need it.

 

[abramsteve]

Hmm thats a difficult question to answer, and its probably better answered by others. However I believe our airpower doctrine was formed in darker days where the threat from Indonesia was real and relevant.

At the moment we have no real regional threats, however this can always change and being prepared is always the best option.

One thing that should be noted is that our airforce is still relativley small, however if a serious threat was to arrise I have no doubt its size could and would be increased.

My personal view is that we are the regional power and stabliser, therefore we should have the tools to do this job properly. We can therefore we should... at least in this case

Why 'waste' energy on cricket????? Dont even get me started!

 

[Tasman]

I'm curious: See, here in central Europe we're quite far from reaching for air superiority over neighbouring countries (that's probably because we're all one big family up here) and so I'm not exactly well informed about what's going on downunder... Are Malaysia or Indonesia hostile countries? Is there/ has there been any threat close to Australia? Do you feel threatened so you have to retain air superiority?

I think its called contingency planning. Who knows what the future holds? Australia and Indonesia are both working hard and with some success, IMO, to improve relations which were strained during the Timor Crisis. Malaysia and Singapore are seen as allies in most things. New Zealand is probably Australia's best friend except in cricket and rugby!

Maintaining air superiority has been supported by the major political parties in Australia at least since the bombing of Darwin in WW2 (65th Anniversary today BTW).

Cheers

 

[phreeky]

I intend to do a in-depth research and write an analysis just in order to proof to DA that the Typhoon kicks ass and the Super Hornet doesn't

Why do research and analysis when you've already made your mind up?

I think maintaining air superiority in the region, without going overboard, is a safe stance - too powerful (and particularly offensive attributes - i.e. lots of long-range bombers) and it causes tension, not powerful enough and it could be a bad move if a regional government has drastic changes. You can't rely on our current neighbours governments remaining in power forever.

As for the decision to purchase super hornets, I think too many people get cause up "capabilities" and specs - not how a the solution eases the problem at hand.

We have current hornet pilots and ground crew, so familiarity is there (to the exact extent I'm not aware). We have the appropriate links setup with the manufacturer, for spares etc. On top of that, the US operate them and I imagine can provide a great deal of information and experience in their use - most likely similar to how it worked with the current hornets.

 

[Falstaff]

Ok, so there's a trauma from the past, a current role as regional power and a potentially unstable environment. Well, it makes sense. Thank you guys for the information, I'll pay some more attention to Australian politics in the future. However, I'd like Australia having air superiority a lot more than the other guys.

BTW why don't you guys play soccer like anyone else on this planet does? I spent some time in England and I didn't even understand what happened during a cricket match.

Why do research and analysis when you've already made your mind up?

Well, you know, the outcome of a research mostly represents the opinion of the researcher...

 

[shimmy]

I think Plato had it right when he said that what is right is to help friends. Australia has helped the US in many ways-sell them whatever they want up to nuclear weapons. What would be the harm ? We sell weapons , they get what they want and the world sees that helping the US helps you.
Yes there will be a problem in selling the raptor to other allies. Deal with it!

 

[abramsteve]

Because Falstaff mate, soccer sucks!

 

[Falstaff]

Well, then I will have to do some research as well on the topic of soccer vs. cricket and prove to you beyond any doubt that soccer kicks ass and cricket doesn't nfloorl:

What would Plato say about this?

 

[Waylander]

Wasn't there a discussion cricket vs soccer vs rugby vs american football in a thread here sometime ago?

I think soccer won.

 

[rickshaw]

What are the three occasions that you are referring to rickshaw?

Cheers

The West New Guinea Dispute of 1958-60;
Konfrontasi 1965;
East Timor 1999.

In the first two, the US Government outright refused to intervene or guarantee Australian security. In the third, the US Government failed to provide much in the way of material means during the crisis, despite being requested to do so. In all three, the Australian Government approached the US Government and while we did not attempt to invoke the A**US Treaty, it did form the basis of the approach.

I do not include the 1975 Indonesian Invasion of East Timor, as the Australian Government aquiesed to that after learning of the backing the Indonesians had already received from Washington.

Australia and Australians IMO all too often fool themselves that the A**US Treaty is some magic blanket which provides a foolproof means of ensuring US protection. It does not. It is a very poorly worded (from our viewpoint) non-Guarantee of security consultion and nothing more.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The West New Guinea Dispute of 1958-60;
Konfrontasi 1965;
East Timor 1999.

In the first two, the US Government outright refused to intervene or guarantee Australian security. In the third, the US Government failed to provide much in the way of material means during the crisis, despite being requested to do so. In all three, the Australian Government approached the US Government and while we did not attempt to invoke the A**US Treaty, it did form the basis of the approach.

I do not include the 1975 Indonesian Invasion of East Timor, as the Australian Government aquiesed to that after learning of the backing the Indonesians had already received from Washington.

Australia and Australians IMO all too often fool themselves that the A**US Treaty is some magic blanket which provides a foolproof means of ensuring US protection. It does not. It is a very poorly worded (from our viewpoint) non-Guarantee of security consultion and nothing more.

An interesting POV I suppose, but NONE of those incidents threatened Australian mainland in ANY way. Konfrontasi was the only instance of the 3 where Australian forces conducted "real" combat operations and those were definitely at the LOWER end of the spectrum of warfare in an extremely low level counter-insurgency operation. We did not NEED assistance from the USA for those instances.

FYI, the USA did a LOT more than provide "materiel" assistance in Timor in 99. We could not have conducted the operation without the logistical support provided by the USA and the USMC MEU sitting off the coast of Timor, ready to deploy if necessary probably did MORE to ensure the "peaceful" withdrawal of Indonesian forces from Timor, than did the presence of F-111's at RAAF Darwin... The USA provided us with exactly what we needed to conduct the operation (though it was a close run thing) and what WE pride ourselves on, the ability to provide: "relevant" niche forces...

Anyhoo, this hasn't much to do with no F-22A's for Australia so let's get back to that topic. I'm all for continued discussions on this matter, just in a dedicated thread...

Cheers

AD.

 

[rickshaw]

An interesting POV I suppose, but NONE of those incidents threatened Australian mainland in ANY way. Konfrontasi was the only instance of the 3 where Australian forces conducted "real" combat operations and those were definitely at the LOWER end of the spectrum of warfare in an extremely low level counter-insurgency operation. We did not NEED assistance from the USA for those instances.

Whether or not the Australian mainland was threatened is immaterial. If you read the A**US Treaty, you will find that it is intended to cover not only our own continent but also our territories and forces in the Pacific region. At the time of all three incidents, either our territory (ie PNG) or forces (stationed in PNG and/or Singapore/Malaysia or on our continent) were potentially under threat from Indonesian attack. In all three incidents, we made informal inquiries of the US Government whether or not it would come to our aid, if the "balloon went up". On all three occasions, it stated categorically that it would not, seeing this purely as a matter of regional concern between two nations, to which both it was allied. Therefore, one is forced to question the value of this "special relationship" we supposedly enjoy with Washington.

FYI, the USA did a LOT more than provide "materiel" assistance in Timor in 99. We could not have conducted the operation without the logistical support provided by the USA and the USMC MEU sitting off the coast of Timor, ready to deploy if necessary probably did MORE to ensure the "peaceful" withdrawal of Indonesian forces from Timor, than did the presence of F-111's at RAAF Darwin... The USA provided us with exactly what we needed to conduct the operation (though it was a close run thing) and what WE pride ourselves on, the ability to provide: "relevant" niche forces...

The US was once again, has it had been in 1960 and 1965, loath to become engaged in what it perceived as a "regional dispute". You will note that indeed, it did not deploy combat forces to directly aid us nor did it make itself clear to our government that it would view any attack on our forces or territory in the Pacific region as being of sufficient concern to do more than as it was required to do, under the A**US Treaty, to "consult" with us over the issue. Therefore, one is forced to wonder if the A**US Treaty is indeed worth the paper it is written on and whether or not as was the original premise that the US will "always protect us".

Anyhoo, this hasn't much to do with no F-22A's for Australia so let's get back to that topic. I'm all for continued discussions on this matter, just in a dedicated thread...

Cheers

AD.

Sure. Which forum would you suggest?

 

[Todjaeger]

An interesting claim. On what basis do you make it? Considering that the US has thus far failed to "protect us" in times of our need. Three times we have called upon the US for its aid and twice it has failed completely to help us and on the third its material commitment to our cause was parsinimous at best.

With regards to the Australia-US component of the ANZUS treaty, which three occassions are you referring to? Following the end of WWII, I'm unaware of any Defence of Australia events that have materialized.

I do agree though, with the 2000 White Paper, which IIRC essentially said, while Australia has a mutual defence treaty with the US it would be unreasonable to rely on US to defend Australia. Situations exist where the US might be unable or unwilling to defend Australia, and therefore the primary defenders of Australia should be Australia itself. Or words to that effect.

-Cheers

 

[phreeky]

For the purpose of this discussion, I'm sure most of us agree that relying on a foreign force for our own protection is a crazy idea, and so we ought to be acquiring the needs - hardware, personnel and training etc - to protect ourselves.

 

[Tasman]

For the purpose of this discussion, I'm sure most of us agree that relying on a foreign force for our own protection is a crazy idea, and so we ought to be acquiring the needs - hardware, personnel and training etc - to protect ourselves.

Absolutely! I come back again to 1942 when Australia found itself without the British defence umbrella that it had always expected to be there. Fortunately the Americans stepped in and saw the value of Australia as a base from which operations against Japan could be carried out, but when Darwin was bombed 65 years ago from yesterday, the RAAF had to send up half a dozen Wirraways (similar to the US Texan advanced trainer) against approx 200 modern aircraft. The total allied air defence was mounted by just 10 aircraft.

http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/darwinbombing/

Since that time there has been a determination that RAAF combat pilots should have the best aircraft available. Unfortunately, at present, the F-22 is not on the table for consideration, but I think it can be argued that the F-35 is the best to meet Australia's needs that will available.

Cheers

 

[Rich]

China is 4,000 klms from Australia. Why are we even talking about China? I'm sorry if our friends down under get insulted by our not selling the most revolutionary airplane we ever made but keep it real, OK?

The West New Guinea Dispute of 1958-60;
Konfrontasi 1965;
East Timor 1999.

I didn't know any of these nations could threaten Australia? Should we have sent the Pacific fleet to protect the Netherlands in 1958 too? Konfrontasi? I cant believe you'd even mention that? East Timor?? How in hell was Australia threatened there? We dont send aircraft carriers to every failed Euro-empire bush war.

This is ridiculous and is turning into another "waaa-waaa-waaa We want F-22s" thread.

The reason we arent selling the thing is because we dont want anyone stealing the technology behind it. AND we dont want anyone having as ggod a fighter as we do. Live with it! Also you are fighting the GWOT for America. Your fighting it for Australia.

 

[Tasman]

China is 4,000 klms from Australia. Why are we even talking about China? I'm sorry if our friends down under get insulted by our not selling the most revolutionary airplane we ever made but keep it real, OK?



I didn't know any of these nations could threaten Australia? Should we have sent the Pacific fleet to protect the Netherlands in 1958 too? Konfrontasi? I cant believe you'd even mention that? East Timor?? How in hell was Australia threatened there? We dont send aircraft carriers to every failed Euro-empire bush war.

This is ridiculous and is turning into another "waaa-waaa-waaa We want F-22s" thread.

The reason we arent selling the thing is because we dont want anyone stealing the technology behind it. AND we dont want anyone having as ggod a fighter as we do. Live with it! Also you are fighting the GWOT for America. Your fighting it for Australia.

Actually Rich I think the majority of Australian members responding in this thread have accepted the US decision not to sell F-22s and are very supportive of the US and the US alliance.

China came into the discussion because the RAAF could, in some circumstances, find itself fighting alongside the USAF in a future conflict over Taiwan for example (unlikely but necessary for contingency planning).

I agree, though, with your comments relating to the non intervention by the USA in the conflicts mentioned by rickshaw. I think the comments made earlier by AD sum up the situation well in relation to these.

Cheers

 

[Rich]

Thanks for the thoughtful post tasman. I hurried thru my post and meant it light-heartedly, tho maybe it didnt come out that way. I was going to change it, but hey, I'll let it stand. Its no secret here in this forum I am a grateful Yank when it comes to the Aussies. Thank God we have such friends.

I had a lot posted here, didnt like some of it, and have to leave, so I'll return to it later. Thanks for understanding I wasnt trying to flame anyone. Maybe we here in America, or at least our Govt., needs to re-look at the entire situation. I dont think the "one aircraft" option is necessarily the best for the RAAF.

 

[smoke20]

Back to the topic at hand.

The F-22 is new tech and its expensive to produce. I'm only guessing here but I would guess that there are three reasons why the US is unwilling to sell the F-22 to Oz.
1) Money. The numbers needed to produce a profit on the F-22 through sales are ridiculously high. I'd have to go back and search through the old forums but the numbers I saw were well upwards of what Oz would be buying.
2) Personal Defense. This is the best A2A combat plane in existence, I just don't see the US selling its top tech after only 5 years.
3) High hopes for the F-35 program. The lightning II is a much cheaper to produce and given that the US is attempting to get out of debt taking large hits on an anticipated Air Force sale seems unlikely.

With countries like Russia now out of debt money will become a large issue when facing the sale of military aircraft, even to our allies.