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

[alexsa]

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 .

By virtue of its design JORN does not give the accuracy required for localisation. It indicates an aircraft in a 'grid' but this must then be localised by other means, here the stealth feature continue to provide protection. In other words OHS does not 'defeat' stealth.

Another little thing that is being missed here is the F-22 is the worlds best A2A aircraft but is not a strike aricraft. If we buy the F-22 we still need a strike aircraft and the best around should be the F-35 if it lives up to expectations.

Sadly we cannot afford both and even if the F-22 was for sale we would have to go with the multi role capability. The interim F-18F buy (if required) gives us a great strike potential (with JSSM), given the systems the aircraft carries, assists in transition to the F-35 and reduces costs due tot he need not to buy the LRIP aircraft. Seems sensible.

 

[old faithful]

Hey Rich....we just waa waa want the best aircraft for our small airforce, no matter who builds it. But because the USA builds it at the moment,we feel that we (Aust) should be entitlled to be able to buy from the USA whatever the F--k we want, considering that the US has "joint facillities" Pine Gap, North West Cape, Nurrunga to name just 3 vital bases in the south for US intelligence gathering,and submarine communications in the South Pacific region. Personally, i have confidence that the best aircraft for RAAF needs will be aquired,be it JSF,F18f or whatever....JSF was and still is the front runner, filling the RAAF needs better than F22 at the presant time, and i beleive that even if F22 was available, that the RAAF would still wait for the JSF. IMO.

 

[Tasman]

Personally, i have confidence that the best aircraft for RAAF needs will be aquired,be it JSF,F18f or whatever....JSF was and still is the front runner, filling the RAAF needs better than F22 at the presant time, and i beleive that even if F22 was available, that the RAAF would still wait for the JSF. IMO.

That has certainly been the consistent stance from the RAAF senior brass. Pressure to acquire the F-22 has come from outside the air force hierarchy ( Airpower Australia and Federal Opposition to name two). The RAAF leadership has said from the beginning that it wants the JSF and has continued to argue that way whenever the F-22 has been put forward!

Cheers

 

[Schumacher]

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.

Good points. I'd add another reason is simply Australia needs US more than the other way around & the US knows this.
Some may think it's unfair given the contributions Australia has made to the alliance. But international relations is rarely abt being fair.
If Australia really wants F-22, which I doubt, the only way I think is somehow to bluff the US into believing they'll go for EF if US won't sell. But chances of success are low, given US will easily see it as a bluff, as would most I think who knows the nature of the US-Aust alliance.

 

[Magoo]

The interim F-18F buy (if required) gives us a great strike potential (with JSSM), given the systems the aircraft carries, assists in transition to the F-35 and reduces costs due tot he need not to buy the LRIP aircraft. Seems sensible.

The F/A-18F will probably not be equipped with JASSM, as this is not a US Navy baselined weapon. We'll probably get JSOW instead, and possibly SLAM-ER... not quite the same unfortunately!

Cheers

Magoo

 

[abramsteve]

Countries are like people, I dont share everything with my mates (unless they need it of course), I think its unfair to just exepect the US to share the F-22 with us.

According to Global Security the F-18E/F are JASSM compatable, however Im willing to take the word of a professional.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jassm.htm

So is there any possibility of JASSM integration with the Hornet? Or would the costs be better spent on future F-35 (or other) platforms?

 

[rickshaw]

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?

China is a potential threat, not to Australia directly but rather to our interests, particularly in the Taiwan Straits, the South China Sea and the Straits of Malacca, all potential "Flashpoints" where the PRC could come into direct conflict with those nations which Australia is directly allied to or has declared an interest in. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to conclude that China is a threat to Australia, albeit I admit a relatively remote one.

I didn't know any of these nations could threaten Australia?

Again, you are assuming that Australia's only interests in its region is its own territorial intregity - why?

Should we have sent the Pacific fleet to protect the Netherlands in 1958 too?

Were you allied to the Netherlands in 1958 and did that treaty specifically include or exclude the Dutch colonial territory of West New Guinea?

Konfrontasi? I cant believe you'd even mention that?

Why ever not? Australian forces and territory was threatened by an aggressive Indonesian dictatorship. I'm sorry but I was under the impression that the A**US Treaty specifically mentioned attacks on our forces and territory, within the Pacific Region and last time I checked, Borneo and Malaysia where Konfrontasi occurred (as well as New Guinea, which was threatened) were within that region.

East Timor?? How in hell was Australia threatened there? We dont send aircraft carriers to every failed Euro-empire bush war.

Again, I would suggest a very selective reading of the A**US Treaty which the US is a signatory to. Obviously this treaty is not intended to be a security guarantee in your view, correct?

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

You demand that we defend ourselves and then refuse to provide us with the tools to do it with. Mmmm, am I starting to detect a pattern here?

The reason we arent selling the thing is because we dont want anyone stealing the technology behind it.

So, you don't trust us and fear that we will allow others to steal the very technology that (a) we paid hard cash for and (b) we depend for our defence on?

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.

Are we? Why then are we in Iraq?

 

[hybrid]

You know, I guess it really comes down to the swereness of the "unfair advantage", which I really don't know. Can someone tell me how bad is this advantage. What I mean to say is that, what exactly do they mean by this "unfair advantage", if its just the fact that the enemy doesn't have AWACS than thats just fair to not give AWACS to the red forces, but if its the fact about being outnumbered heavily, than the blue forces sounds like wussies.

What if some other country, other than and more capable than lets say Iran was to end up fighting against the US. How about (no-offence here) lets say Britain, or France or Germany. What do you do than, please don't tell me that its not going happen, there is a possiblity of everything. So what do you do than, cause USAF only trained with the "unfair advantage". And Darth, I thought that you could afford ferraries, what happened to the infinite resources and why are we talking about less resources now. I think it only makes sense to train with atleast the same game, fair play, if not actually being at disadvantage. I mean surely these exerscies would be great moral boosters, but when the shit really hits the fan...

Severe unfair advantage? Anytime Blue Force has to face OPFOR Red Force at NTC. Its not even usually a question of IF you're going to lose but rather how well you retain control as your force is torn to shreds.

But realistically a lot of training is done at training centers like NTC/JRTC/CMTC. The situations the troops are thrown in are dependent on whos making the scenario. Sometimes they game to show lack of assets on a field, sometimes its a heavy fog of war scenario where a company is sent in to retrieve vehicles and crew from another company that has recently been ambushed, under those kinds of conditions what is considered a realistic scenario of what resources you have available? Its different each time. Sometimes you have Blue Force being in total network sync, right up to the point Red Force comes along and puts a boot in your face by ambushing your cleverly thought out plans you spent the last 12 hours working out. :lul

 

[old faithful]

Countries are like people, I dont share everything with my mates (unless they need it of course), I think its unfair to just exepect the US to share the F-22 with us.

According to Global Security the F-18E/F are JASSM compatable, however Im willing to take the word of a professional.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jassm.htm

So is there any possibility of JASSM integration with the Hornet? Or would the costs be better spent on future F-35 (or other) platforms?

If you invited a mate into your house,to live rent free, indefinatly, and allowed him to carry out secret buisness from your garage,no questions asked, when you wanted a favor from him,you should expect that favor to be granted unquestionably. If you backed him up in an arguement,even though you knew he was wrong, you should expect loyalty from him in return. Even if he is a d--khead,he is still yor mate.Even when you try to sell your car ,he sells his to the same customer for a cheaper price.But he is still your mate. Yep,mates are like countries.nfloorl:

 

[Grand Danois]

If there was a clear need for Australia for the F-22 then I'm certain exports would be allowed promptly.

From my perspective, and if you'll allow some speculation on my part and from an outsider, this is not a snub to Australia.

The Aust govt and the decisionmakers in the defence establishment have made their choice. The F-35 is deemed proper across the criteria set up. How this has been done has been discussed ad nauseam. However, the decision is a de facto certainty.

Now, you have a very vocal lobby who wants the F-22 and nothing else. They have presented their case as they see it, based on conviction of their analyses and their particular interests. This is all good and fair. Their advice was not taken and the debate (and criticism) went on.

Conveniently Mr. England sends a letter to Dr. Nelson stating that the F-22 is not for export, which is subsequently leaked.

Case closed on the F-22. So who is the real target audience? And what is the message sent?

If this is the context, then the US decision is not really based on ToT issues* or lack of trust.

Very much two bits.

*Unless Australia wishes to do avionics and weapons integration on its own, which with the UK/US ITAR row in mind is a definite no go. Basically the F-22 is not for export in a version that cover the Aust requirement as is, and restrictions wont allow this to be fixed subsequently.

 

[Magoo]

Countries are like people, I dont share everything with my mates (unless they need it of course), I think its unfair to just exepect the US to share the F-22 with us.

According to Global Security the F-18E/F are JASSM compatable, however Im willing to take the word of a professional.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jassm.htm

So is there any possibility of JASSM integration with the Hornet? Or would the costs be better spent on future F-35 (or other) platforms?

That is an old article; the USN pulled out of the JASSM program about 18-24 months ago and it has reverted to a purely USAF program only. USN is sticking with the somewhat inferior SLAM-ER for the time being.

Although the Super is compatible with all J-series weapons, specific separation trials of the JASSM from the aircraft would need to be conducted, and this would likely be at Australia's cost.

Personally, I think once the aircraft and the weapon are both bedded down in the RAAF, this may be an option we will take up, although this will depend on how successful the integration work with the Classic Hornet is.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Rich]

No, Australia was not threatened by Konfrontasi. Tho I'm grateful you brought it up because its been years since I boned up on that bush war. Actually America worked behind the scenes to overthrow Sukarno. I will add if Australia ever got into a shooting war, and had things in hand, then what would be the point of activating ANZUS? That we would come to the Aussies aid if they were ever seriously threatened is so accepted here its not even a point of debate.

But every free nation should be capable of defending itself. "I dont want to turn this into anything but a discussion of aircraft". "If you want to discuss those bush conflicts outside your land mass then start a new thread in Gen-Mil".

The aircraft issue for Australia is a complex question. What you need is a super cruise /stealth F-111 that can dog fight. We all know thats silly so lets look at the options. Eurofighter, Rafale, F-35, F-18, F-16, F-15. We will forget the teen series because theres no point in even talking about it. So you have the F-35 and Euros. Well, there is no real comparison is there?

I'd like to see a little more radar on the F-35 personally. The reduction in range from the F-111 can be partially made up by JASSM and air to air refueling. Without question the F-35 is far more survivable then the Euros and the teens. The bottom line is the F-35 is the best option.

Unfortunately we still have analogies and opinions like the one below. A "real masters" version of diplomacy and strategy. "Waaa-Waaa-Waaa"

If you invited a mate into your house,to live rent free, indefinatly, and allowed him to carry out secret buisness from your garage,no questions asked, when you wanted a favor from him,you should expect that favor to be granted unquestionably. If you backed him up in an arguement,even though you knew he was wrong, you should expect loyalty from him in return. Even if he is a d--khead,he is still yor mate.Even when you try to sell your car ,he sells his to the same customer for a cheaper price.But he is still your mate. Yep,mates are like countries.

 

[Tasman]

If there was a clear need for Australia for the F-22 then I'm certain exports would be allowed promptly.

From my perspective, and if you'll allow some speculation on my part and from an outsider, this is not a snub to Australia.

The Aust govt and the decisionmakers in the defence establishment have made their choice. The F-35 is deemed proper across the criteria set up. How this has been done has been discussed ad nauseam. However, the decision is a de facto certainty.

Now, you have a very vocal lobby who wants the F-22 and nothing else. They have presented their case as they see it, based on conviction of their analyses and their particular interests. This is all good and fair. Their advice was not taken and the debate (and criticism) went on.

Conveniently Mr. England sends a letter to Dr. Nelson stating that the F-22 is not for export, which is subsequently leaked.

Case closed on the F-22. So who is the real target audience? And what is the message sent?

If this is the context, then the US decision is not really based on ToT issues* or lack of trust.

Very much two bits.

*Unless Australia wishes to do avionics and weapons integration on its own, which with the UK/US ITAR row in mind is a definite no go. Basically the F-22 is not for export in a version that cover the Aust requirement as is, and restrictions wont allow this to be fixed subsequently.

You might be an 'outsider' Grand Danois but I think this is a very fair and balanced summing up of the position between Australia and the USA in relation to the F-22!

Cheers

 

[old faithful]

No, Australia was not threatened by Konfrontasi. Tho I'm grateful you brought it up because its been years since I boned up on that bush war. Actually America worked behind the scenes to overthrow Sukarno. I will add if Australia ever got into a shooting war, and had things in hand, then what would be the point of activating ANZUS? That we would come to the Aussies aid if they were ever seriously threatened is so accepted here its not even a point of debate.

But every free nation should be capable of defending itself. "I dont want to turn this into anything but a discussion of aircraft". "If you want to discuss those bush conflicts outside your land mass then start a new thread in Gen-Mil".

The aircraft issue for Australia is a complex question. What you need is a super cruise /stealth F-111 that can dog fight. We all know thats silly so lets look at the options. Eurofighter, Rafale, F-35, F-18, F-16, F-15. We will forget the teen series because theres no point in even talking about it. So you have the F-35 and Euros. Well, there is no real comparison is there?

I'd like to see a little more radar on the F-35 personally. The reduction in range from the F-111 can be partially made up by JASSM and air to air refueling. Without question the F-35 is far more survivable then the Euros and the teens. The bottom line is the F-35 is the best option.

Unfortunately we still have analogies and opinions like the one below. A "real masters" version of diplomacy and strategy. "Waaa-Waaa-Waaa"

You are missing the point Rich. The RAAF will make the decision on what A/C best meets their needs. They want the JSF, and i believe that they (the RAAF) are probably a little more aware of its capabilities than any poster on this forum. However, the way the US has AUST jumping through diplomatic hoops at the moment, largely to the disgust of the Australian public, then if Aust wanted to BUY the Space Shuttle or a nuclear Sub,then we deserve a little consideration,not an off the cuff NO! The US bases in Australia were (are) cold war nuke targets. Aust did Not have to let the US build them here. I wonder if NZ would have? I doubt it. Many Australians, myself included are sick of unconditionally backing the US when we get shit on by them in Trade deals,like the subsidised wheat etc. Yes,im no uni grad,writer or even an average speller,so take the piss if you must, but remember where US foregin policy has got you in the 21st centuary....have a happy peace, a time that the US will not have for many many years....Golf Foxtrot to you Rich!

 

[Aussie Digger]

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.



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".



Sure. Which forum would you suggest?

General military I suppose and you're wrong about Timor. USMC Force Recon elements DID deploy on the ground in Timor. Hardly a "big" deployment, but a combat force nonetheless...

Anyhoo that's the last from me about this on this thread.

 

[rickshaw]

Post moved to new thread in gen.mil forum.

 

[rjmaz1]

Australia doesn't need the F-22. None of its advantages over the F-35 are required by the RAAF.

The RAAF need long endurance close air support and surveillance.

The RAAF needs the ability to strike sea and ground based targets, 99% of these targets will be lightly defended.

The RAAF needs to be able to defend itself against Suhkoi fighters.

If Australia went in a war against indonesia, sure we might loose one Super Hornet pilot over Indonesia. We strive to make the RAAF perfect so not a single pilot looses their life, yet if we had a war with Indonesia hundreds of Australians on the ground will be dieing. But thats perfectly fine because the pilots in our F-22's will be safe..

While we are at it, we might have a target in China we would want to destroy lets buy a few B-2 bombers as that would be really cost effective

The Super Hornet can easily strike 99% of sea and land based targets, it could also acheive a 10:1 kill ratio against enemy Suhkoi's. Sure it might not reach the 100:1 kill ratio of the F-22 but it is good enough.

If Australia did loose a Super Hornet in combat we would have twice as many Super Hornets than F-22 aircraft anyway due to the cheaper price.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Australia doesn't need the F-22. None of its advantages over the F-35 are required by the RAAF.

The RAAF need long endurance close air support and surveillance.

The RAAF needs the ability to strike sea and ground based targets, 99% of these targets will be lightly defended.

The RAAF needs to be able to defend itself against Suhkoi fighters.

If Australia went in a war against indonesia, sure we might loose one Super Hornet pilot over Indonesia. We strive to make the RAAF perfect so not a single pilot looses their life, yet if we had a war with Indonesia hundreds of Australians on the ground will be dieing. But thats perfectly fine because the pilots in our F-22's will be safe..

While we are at it, we might have a target in China we would want to destroy lets buy a few B-2 bombers as that would be really cost effective

The Super Hornet can easily strike 99% of sea and land based targets, it could also acheive a 10:1 kill ratio against enemy Suhkoi's. Sure it might not reach the 100:1 kill ratio of the F-22 but it is good enough.

If Australia did loose a Super Hornet in combat we would have twice as many Super Hornets than F-22 aircraft anyway due to the cheaper price.

In relation to the F-22, I disagree slightly. It's air combat capability is required by RAAF, we just can't get it. RAAF is therefore prepared to make do with JSF, Rhino and "legacy" Bugs.

The RAAF needs surveillance I agree. CAS however is not (currently) a big RAAF priority, long ranged strike IS however and the F/A-18F/JASSM combo will be perfect for that.

I'm not so sure that JASSM won't be integrated onto RAAF Super Hornets.This article here shows that integrating JASSM may not prove to be such a big issue:

http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_news/pressreleases/05pressrelease/082405-JASSM.htm

IN any case surely the integrations costs would be significantly less than a new acquisition of a completely separate standoff missile (ie: SLAM-ER). I'm not sure about JSOW either. There seems to be little it offers over and above a JDAM fitted with the ER (Kerkanya) wingkit.

If necessary a JDAM and wingkit could be fitted to a BLU-109/110/111 series warhead for a penetrating" capability and thus even JSOW's warhead varieties don't seem to offer much, given Australia would never use the "cluster" variant anyway...

I WOULD care if we lost a RAAF pilot fighting ANYONE. I'm sure most Australian's would...

 

[TrangleC]

it could also acheive a 10:1 kill ratio against enemy Suhkoi's. Sure it might not reach the 100:1 kill ratio of the F-22 but it is good enough.

Where do you get such ridiculous figures from?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Where do you get such ridiculous figures from?

Simple, he makes them up.

Relax. Within a day or 2 he'll be back to stating the fate of the Australian nation rests upon the acquisition of the F-22 and it's ability to toss supersonic SDB's at anything that might threaten us...