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

[Todjaeger]

I loved the question and answers at the end.

He answered a question with a question regarding the cost of the F-22. His answer was "why do you think the USAF are buying more JSF than F-22?"

Absolute stupidity, does he really believe that the they are buying very little F-22's because it costs twice as much?

The are buying hardly any F-22's because they cannot afford both the JSF and F-22. The F-22 was heavily cut simply so the JSF can be ordered in enough numbers to make it still cost effective.

If the USAF cut the F-22 to only 380 aircraft, they would have then ordered very few JSF aircraft and would have completely stuffed up the JSF program. As Australia shouldn't care if the JSF program was a failure we should buy the aircraft that suits.

Making false excuses is pretty poor form.

I believe the assertion that the US reduced the # of F-22s solely due to cost is incorrect, though it definately played a part. As I see it, the US Defense Dept. has finite resources for fighter aircraft purchases, and needs to cover air superiority and strike roles. The F-22 has a limited capability to conduct strike missions since that requirement was added late in development (much like the addition of a strike role to the EF Typhoon). Given that there was insufficient funds to purchase the desired quantities of both the F-22 and F-35, the numbers were reduced, with more F-35s being expected since they can carry out strike missions better than the F-22. If one looks at current USAF fighter missions for the past 15 +/- years Strike is more common than dedicated Air Superiority.

-Cheers

 

[W800i]

From The Australian website.
Maybe my last point at it being a politically motivated jobs programme was incorrect!

Firms lose F-35 work
Mark Dodd
February 23, 2007

AUSTRALIA has complained to the US about missing out on lucrative subcontract work associated with the $14 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
No estimate was given of the value of the lost work but it was sufficiently significant for Defence Minister Brendan Nelson to confirm he had raised the matter with US aircraft maker Lockheed.
Australia's participation in the JSF project guaranteed local companies industry access, he told a defence business conference in Canberra yesterday.

But one delegate challenged Dr Nelson, accusing the Government of not lobbying hard enough to compete with the nine other countries involved in the project.

The allocation of some of the contracts had been a "surprise" and "Australia had done rather poorly", Dr Nelson admitted.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Seems even Lockheed Martin is getting a little sick and tired of the misquoted and misinterpreted plans and legislation that is used as "proof" by the "pro - F-22, anti- JSF" in the Australian "debate"...


F-35 JSF for Australia

Lockheed Martin Media Release
22 Feb. 2007

Interest in Lockheed Martin’s 5th Generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is high in the Australian media. To assist in promoting fact-based discussions, we believe it would be useful to provide you with information on the aircraft and program. We'll start by discussing some of the misperceptions that have developed around the JSF in the Australian media.

Misperception: U.S. Air Force has cut their buy of F-35 in half

Fact: The U.S. Air Force has always planned to purchase 1,763 F-35 aircraft and these plans have not changed. The US Air Force's budget director validated this position on February 8. Confusion has arose with the release of the latest U.S. Government Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP), which only covers procurement activities planned for the six year period Fiscal Year 2008 (FY08) through FY13. The latest FYDP shows the U.S. Air Force plans to purchase 48 F-35 JSF aircraft in FY13. The US Air Force budget director noted that the U.S. Air Force intends to continue increasing their yearly F-35 purchase rate beyond FY13 to reach between 80 and 110 F-35 aircraft deliveries per year, and that the USAF's commitment to buy 1,763 F-35 aircraft has not changed.

Misperception: The F-35 will be delivered late

Facts: The F-35 is on plan to deliver the first production aircraft to the U.S. Government beginning in 2010, to the first international buyers beginning in 2011, and, if desired, to Australia beginning in 2012. The F-35 JSF development program has consistently received, from the US Congress, all of the development and test funding requested by the Defense Department, indicating strong bi-partisan Congressional support. The development program is executing to plan as evidenced by the continuing and successful flight tests of the first aircraft and on-schedule construction of the next 10 test aircraft. By the end of this year, all 20 test aircraft will be in fabrication or assembly. Initial production funding has been approved by Congress, and Lockheed Martin should also be under contract by June for the first lot of production aircraft. Therefore, initial fabrication of production aircraft should also be underway this year. Additionally, this year, the F-35 team should be under contract for long-lead funding of the second lot of production aircraft. The F-35 is on schedule and production aircraft will be delivered to the U.S. Government beginning in 2010 and, if desired, to Australia beginning in 2012.



Misperception: F-35 will not be as stealthy as originally hoped.

Fact: There have been no changes in the stealth requirements and capabilities of the F-35, and the aircraft will be every bit as stealthy as originally agreed upon. Confusion arose last year based on an Australian media report that misinterpreted U.S. Government terminology on low observability. The F-35 JSF stealth requirements and capabilities have not changed and that was confirmed by both the US and Australian governments almost a year ago, to set the record straight on that newspaper's misconception. The F-35 JSF provides 5th generation fighter capabilities far beyond today's 4th generation aircraft, in part due to its significant stealth capabilities.



Additional information about Lockheed Martin and the F-35 are available through the Internet at:

* Electronic Media Kit @ http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/fi...&ti= 0&sc=400
* http://teamjsf.com

 

[W800i]

Thank you Aussie Digger for your post. I dont think they(LM) are sick and tired of anything. They are arguing from their point of view. Good on them. Considering what is at stake for this countires air force and the amount of money involved, LM will be hosing down mis conceptions (in their own words) for some time to come. I have over time learnt to be weary of promises from contractors. I respectfully suggest a healthy dose regarding the promises of this particular one and the massive programme that they will need to deliver on. LM should have a permanent eye on what is being said in Aus and be very sensitive to respond. This is a good sign to me as it shows at least that they(LM) care.

My desire is for the RAAF to have the absolute best equipment that money can buy. I will add that I am sure that AVM Harveys desire is exactly the same. I am sure that this is the desire of government, Carlo Kopp and every other Australian reading this post. The how, what and whom is what is being debated here. Isnt it great that it is

So debating on I would say that equipment should be purchased after rigorous physical and scientific testing. That this equipment fulfill politically mandated strategic requirements is a given. This equipment were practicable be purchased only after a rigorous competition and with the best monetary outcome for the taxpayer remembering the quality concern that I outlined earlier.

I wont re hash the issues from some of my previous posts but this is the crux of the problems with the JSF.
- buying in to early
- lack of competition
- large numbers of potential and I repeat potential problems whther they be production, software or congressional in nature
- puzzling changes in direction eg no interim type needed, now one is.
Blah blah I here you say
I dont have a barrow to push other than relating back in helping to make sure that our fighter pilots bums are sitting in the best kit.. I think healthy argument and putting your view forward to the blow torch that is this forums is actually a healthy thing for the debate overall. In my own very small way I might add.
If as LM states that all is good and works out fine, the JSF will be a kick a_se piece of kit.
I and I am sure many others do not believe in the easter bunny. There will be issues, problems and new administrations in the US. Why expose oneself to this risk during the JSF's infancy.

It is entirely feasable that the RAAF may potentially have to re submit their NACCP proposal to a Rudd administration at the end of the year. Not a certainty but a possibility. Lets just hope Ruddy doesnt go down the path Helen Clarke took NZ's air force.

 

[Tasman]

Thank you Aussie Digger for your post. I dont think they(LM) are sick and tired of anything. They are arguing from their point of view. Good on them. Considering what is at stake for this countires air force and the amount of money involved, LM will be hosing down mis conceptions (in their own words) for some time to come. I have over time learnt to be weary of promises from contractors. I respectfully suggest a healthy dose regarding the promises of this particular one and the massive programme that they will need to deliver on. LM should have a permanent eye on what is being said in Aus and be very sensitive to respond. This is a good sign to me as it shows at least that they(LM) care.

I think you make some good points here and I for one, whilst hoping that LM will deliver on its promises, remain sceptical that they will be able to.

My desire is for the RAAF to have the absolute best equipment that money can buy. I will add that I am sure that AVM Harveys desire is exactly the same. I am sure that this is the desire of government, Carlo Kopp and every other Australian reading this post. The how, what and whom is what is being debated here. Isnt it great that it is

Again you make a really good point. We tend to forget that people with a different point of view are often aiming for the same objective, in this case the best air combat force that Australia can obtain, and yes debate on how this should be achieved is healthy.

So debating on I would say that equipment should be purchased after rigorous physical and scientific testing. That this equipment fulfill politically mandated strategic requirements is a given. This equipment were practicable be purchased only after a rigorous competition and with the best monetary outcome for the taxpayer remembering the quality concern that I outlined earlier.

I wont re hash the issues from some of my previous posts but this is the crux of the problems with the JSF.
- buying in to early
- lack of competition
- large numbers of potential and I repeat potential problems whther they be production, software or congressional in nature
- puzzling changes in direction eg no interim type needed, now one is.
Blah blah I here you say
I dont have a barrow to push other than relating back in helping to make sure that our fighter pilots bums are sitting in the best kit.. I think healthy argument and putting your view forward to the blow torch that is this forums is actually a healthy thing for the debate overall. In my own very small way I might add.
If as LM states that all is good and works out fine, the JSF will be a kick a_se piece of kit.
I and I am sure many others do not believe in the easter bunny. There will be issues, problems and new administrations in the US. Why expose oneself to this risk during the JSF's infancy.

I agree with your comments. Of course we can't turn back the clock so the RAAF now has to move forward from where it is now and make certain that it gets the best possible outcome.

It is entirely feasable that the RAAF may potentially have to re submit their NACCP proposal to a Rudd administration at the end of the year. Not a certainty but a possibility. Lets just hope Ruddy doesnt go down the path Helen Clarke took NZ's air force

The mention of Helen Clarke and the 'solution' that NZ found to the cost of re-eqipping and operating its air combat force sent shivers down my spine. I think the robust debate now going on in Australia will ensure this does not happen. The opposition party has always been pro air force, sometimes at the expense of the other services. It has actually pushed the case for the F-22. For this reason I would be more concerned about the big ticket RAN projects, and I was pleased to read a report in the latest edition of CONTACT that the present government is trying to speed up the tender process for the LHDs so that a contract can be awarded before the election.

CONTACT, Contact Publishers, Dickson, ACT, March 2007.

Cheers

 

[abramsteve]

We tend to forget that people with a different point of view are often aiming for the same objective, in this case the best air combat force that Australia can obtain, and yes debate on how this should be achieved is healthy.



I agree with your comments. Of course we can't turn back the clock so the RAAF now has to move forward from where it is now and make certain that it gets the best possible outcome.



The mention of Helen Clarke and the 'solution' that NZ found to the cost of re-eqipping and operating its air combat force sent shivers down my spine. I think the robust debate now going on in Australia will ensure this does not happen. The opposition party has always been pro air force, sometimes at the expense of the other services. It has actually pushed the case for the F-22. For this reason I would be more concerned about the big ticket RAN projects, and I was pleased to read a report in the latest edition of CONTACT that the present government is trying to speed up the tender process for the LHDs so that a contract can be awarded before the election.

CONTACT, Contact Publishers, Dickson, ACT, March 2007.

Cheers

Some very well summed up points Tasman. I admitt to feeling frustrated when people dont have the same opinion, however in nearly every circumstance they too feel they are trying to prove what would be the very best for our nation.

I often find my self add odds with my own opinion, generaly because I cant decide wether Im a fighter(F-22, Typhoons..) man or a bomber(Evolved F-111, B-1) man...

However I do feel the F-22 push from the opposition was mearly political, one which had they been in power would probably not have considered. But we'll never know hey!

 

[rjmaz1]

My desire is for the RAAF to have the absolute best equipment that money can buy. I will add that I am sure that AVM Harveys desire is exactly the same. I am sure that this is the desire of government, Carlo Kopp and every other Australian reading this post.

I do not want Australia to have the best aircraft money can buy. The best aircraft also happen to cost the most. Sure with an unlimited budget we could operate F-22's and maybe chuck a few B-2 bombers in for good measure.

I want Australia to have the most _firepower_ for the amount of money we have to spend. This is the best way to spend money. Your way and that of Carlo Kopp will see alot of extra money required. If the budget is set then a reduction in capability will result or money will be taken from other area's and then they will be vulnerable.

Thats why the Super Hornet is good option. It is great value for money and with our set budget the Super Hornet will give us probably the most firepower. The Super Hornet is probably the best multi role aircraft available today and probably even better than the JSF due to its buddy refueling, twin seats and electronic warfare capabilities.

Taking moneys from other area's to pay for fancy fighter jets is by far the worst option. With so many soliders deployed oversea's its critical they have up to date equipment and support. I would support a reduction in combat aircraft if it resulted in better survivability for the soldiers oversea's.

If not buying the JSF provided enough money to save one soldiers life due to them having better equipment then it was a good decision in my book.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I

Thats why the Super Hornet is good option. It is great value for money and with our set budget the Super Hornet will give us probably the most firepower. The Super Hornet is probably the best multi role aircraft available today and probably even better than the JSF due to its buddy refueling, twin seats and electronic warfare capabilities.

Taking moneys from other area's to pay for fancy fighter jets is by far the worst option. With so many soliders deployed oversea's its critical they have up to date equipment and support. I would support a reduction in combat aircraft if it resulted in better survivability for the soldiers oversea's.

If not buying the JSF provided enough money to save one soldiers life due to them having better equipment then it was a good decision in my book.

NOT buying JSF in a future war could possibly cost more than 1 soldiers life. There is little doubt in my mind that the F-35A will be a FAR superior air combat aircraft than any Super Hornet variant, even the proposed Block III. The SH can "buddy" refuel other aircraft because it's equipped to do so. I can't think of 1 single reason why an F-35 could not. The Kiwi's ex- A-4K's could and they were single seat also. As to the EW capabilities, I think it fairly safe to suggest that the F-35's EW kit will be far more extensive and more "tightly integrated" than the SH. The fact that a proposed EA-35 has been ruled out as unnecessary, seems to predicate this...

F-35's like every other aircraft will evolve through various Blocks in which it like all the others will continue to improve. It's combination of stealth, networking capability, good aerodynamic performance (though not "great"), excellent range and wide ranging sensor and weapons types will ensure it's future performance. Block upgrades will make it better.

 

[Rich]

good aerodynamic performance (though not "great"),

I remember when they said the same thing about the F-16. And the bloody thing ended up being able to dance with any F-15.

Theres a reason why we always build the more expensive "generational" war plane first. Imagine the indigestion the air generals would get if they built the cheaper one first and it turned out to be as good, or good enough, that we didn't need to build the F-Geewhiz?

The F-35 is going to be a great warplane for you. Don't forget its also going to make up a great percentage of our air forces. The issue I see is getting the damn things into your hands in a timely fashion.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I remember when they said the same thing about the F-16. And the bloody thing ended up being able to dance with any F-15.

Theres a reason why we always build the more expensive "generational" war plane first. Imagine the indigestion the air generals would get if they built the cheaper one first and it turned out to be as good, or good enough, that we didn't need to build the F-Geewhiz?

The F-35 is going to be a great warplane for you. Don't forget its also going to make up a great percentage of our air forces. The issue I see is getting the damn things into your hands in a timely fashion.

True though I feel as do you that the F-35 will end up proving to be magnificent air combat aircraft, the timing leaves something to be desired for us.

I think the Rhino purchase is more about giving us flexibility or "breathing room" with a JSF purchase than to cover any real "gap". Being able to bypass the "early" JSF's and move straight into Block II or III JSF's will allow us to really "mitigate risks" WRT to the development of the F-35.

As is being seen with our Wedgetails, virtually EVERY modern software intensive defence project is suffering delays and I for one cannot see any difference with the JSF. Buying a bit later may prove to be a blessing in disguise and may not effect our IOC date much anyway...

 

[rjmaz1]

NOT buying JSF in a future war could possibly cost more than 1 soldiers life. There is little doubt in my mind that the F-35A will be a FAR superior air combat aircraft than any Super Hornet variant, even the proposed Block III.

So Australia actually has aircraft deployed to the locations where our current soldiers are?

As far as i know Australia relies on air support provided by other countries. So we could have the JSF, Super Hornets, F-22 or even old Spitfires as our main combat aircraft, if they remain on Australian soil they will do nothing to help prevent Australian casualties oversea's.

In Iraq and most urban conflicts air support can do little to prevent casualties, having proper armour and equipment will save more lives. In fact air support has had a fair few friendly fire incidents in the past decade.

Up armouring the vehicles used by the army is one way of reducing casualties though greater air lift and logistics is required to support this. As a result Australia should be spending money in these area's as this will be the most effective way of reducing casualties while retaining firepower.

 

[Aussie Digger]

So Australia actually has aircraft deployed to the locations where our current soldiers are?

As far as i know Australia relies on air support provided by other countries. So we could have the JSF, Super Hornets, F-22 or even old Spitfires as our main combat aircraft, if they remain on Australian soil they will do nothing to help prevent Australian casualties oversea's.

In Iraq and most urban conflicts air support can do little to prevent casualties, having proper armour and equipment will save more lives. In fact air support has had a fair few friendly fire incidents in the past decade.

Up armouring the vehicles used by the army is one way of reducing casualties though greater air lift and logistics is required to support this. As a result Australia should be spending money in these area's as this will be the most effective way of reducing casualties while retaining firepower.

Tell you what RJMAZ1, I promise I won't address the numerous faults with this post of yours too much if you promise to go and read the tender documents for Land 121 Project Overlander at DMO's website okay?

I shall await this with baited breath...

 

[Tasman]

So Australia actually has aircraft deployed to the locations where our current soldiers are?

As far as i know Australia relies on air support provided by other countries. So we could have the JSF, Super Hornets, F-22 or even old Spitfires as our main combat aircraft, if they remain on Australian soil they will do nothing to help prevent Australian casualties oversea's.

In Iraq and most urban conflicts air support can do little to prevent casualties, having proper armour and equipment will save more lives. In fact air support has had a fair few friendly fire incidents in the past decade.

Up armouring the vehicles used by the army is one way of reducing casualties though greater air lift and logistics is required to support this. As a result Australia should be spending money in these area's as this will be the most effective way of reducing casualties while retaining firepower.

One way to lose a war is to arm just for present conflicts or past ones and not look to what could happen in the future. A country with a small airforce would be hard pressed to make up attrition losses caused by committing our aircraft to the close support role when we don't have to. Let's be grateful that coalition partners are doing it for us at present. Also the RAAF did deploy a squadron of FA18As to GW2 where they carried out strike missions as well as escort duties.

I'm finding it hard to work out what you are actually advocating for the air combat force rjmaz1. Not long ago you were suggesting that the RAAF ought to have B1-Bs and F-22s!

10 B1b and 48 F-22 aircraft would be the ultimate mix. I could definitely sleep well at night with that mix

I do agree with you that we need to provide the best possible equipment to troops deployed in combat situations but Australia should not go down the UK track of funding an overseas war commitment at the expense of the future security for the homeland that a properly equipped air combat force provides.

Cheers

 

[rjmaz1]

I'm finding it hard to work out what you are actually advocating for the air combat force rjmaz1. Not long ago you were suggesting that the RAAF ought to have B1-Bs and F-22s!

I still stand by the F-22 and B-1b option.

Two squadrons of F-22's and one small squadron of B-1's would have the most firepower and be within our budget.

The B-1's would completely offload the F-22 for strike missions. Allowing the F-22's to do what it was originally designed to do.

Without the B-1b's there would not be enough F-22's to perform both air to ground missions. We would have to purchase double or even tripple the number of the F-22's to make up for the loss of only a handful of B-1 aircraft. This would then blow the budget completely.

The F-22 is too expensive to operate as a single fleet. The B-1b would be relatively cheap to purchase and would allow very few F-22's to be purchased to dominate our region. So this option provides the most bang for our buck. I believe it would provide so much bang that we could even operate as few as 24 F-22's and as few as 5 B-1b bombers and still have more firepower in every area than 100 JSF aircraft.

The rough purchase prices would see 24 F-22's and 5 B-1b's cost significantly less than 100 F-35 aircraft. Sure the B-1b will have extremely high operating cost but im sure 5 aircraft will be less than 60+ JSF aircraft. Then when you take into account that the need for inflight refueling would be drastically reduced it may end up costing half as much as the JSF option for roughly the same fire power.

The political implications of going with the B-1b could be downplayed by our government with a few excuses saying:

1) The B-1b will halve the fighter fleet saving Australia money,
2) The B-1b offers no extra advantage over our enemy that the F-111 didn't also have when it entered service.
3) Australia being a big country needs the range then bring up a powerpoint presentation showing how heaviliy we use inflight refueling.
4) We could even say the B-1b will be used for Sea patroling in the southern ocean

 

[rjmaz1]

Tell you what RJMAZ1, I promise I won't address the numerous faults with this post of yours too much if you promise to go and read the tender documents for Land 121 Project Overlander at DMO's website okay?

I shall await this with baited breath...

Project Overlander is excellent for providing improved logistic support for any ground operations however i was suggesting more money spent on the front line equipment that get shot at. The M1 is also an excellent purchase however its highly likely they'll stay at home just because they are too heavy to transport quickly.

Dumping more money into Land 125 and take it a step further beyond the basic soldier/unit setup and link it will all the vehicles and even aircraft on the battlefield. This is where i'd spend any extra money saved by RAAF.

 

[Tasman]

I still stand by the F-22 and B-1b option.

Two squadrons of F-22's and one small squadron of B-1's would have the most firepower and be within our budget.

The B-1's would completely offload the F-22 for strike missions. Allowing the F-22's to do what it was originally designed to do.

Without the B-1b's there would not be enough F-22's to perform both air to ground missions. We would have to purchase double or even tripple the number of the F-22's to make up for the loss of only a handful of B-1 aircraft. This would then blow the budget completely.

The F-22 is too expensive to operate as a single fleet. The B-1b would be relatively cheap to purchase and would allow very few F-22's to be purchased to dominate our region. So this option provides the most bang for our buck. I believe it would provide so much bang that we could even operate as few as 24 F-22's and as few as 5 B-1b bombers and still have more firepower in every area than 100 JSF aircraft.

The rough purchase prices would see 24 F-22's and 5 B-1b's cost significantly less than 100 F-35 aircraft. Sure the B-1b will have extremely high operating cost but im sure 5 aircraft will be less than 60+ JSF aircraft. Then when you take into account that the need for inflight refueling would be drastically reduced it may end up costing half as much as the JSF option for roughly the same fire power.

The political implications of going with the B-1b could be downplayed by our government with a few excuses saying:

1) The B-1b will halve the fighter fleet saving Australia money,
2) The B-1b offers no extra advantage over our enemy that the F-111 didn't also have when it entered service.
3) Australia being a big country needs the range then bring up a powerpoint presentation showing how heaviliy we use inflight refueling.
4) We could even say the B-1b will be used for Sea patroling in the southern ocean

This is only half of the force you originally suggested.

Even if it was possible for the RAAF to acquire these aircraft, which IMO, is extremely unlikely, you are now putting forward an option which would see the RAAF with just 29 combat aircraft. I have no trouble with 24 F-22s at the high end for the air dominance role, but just 5 Lancers for overland strike, maritime strike and close air support is far too few. Allowing for at least one to be unavailable (and the age and complexity of this aircraft would make it a maintenance nightmare for the RAAF) it is likely that a maximum of 4 could be deployed at any one time. What commander would risk committing this force to the close air support of ground troops, when the loss of one aircraft would represent 25% of the strike force? How many maritime targets could be targeted by 4 aircraft? Could 4 aircraft saturate the air defences of an invading fleet?

The negative effect that the acquisition of an aircraft like the B-1B would have on Australia’s relations with its regional neighbours has been dealt with by other members in earlier posts.

I think your proposal is flawed but at least you are sticking to your guns with your push for the B1-B!

Cheers

 

[W800i]

Thank you for replying to my post RZmaz1.
In my previous post I referred to the fact "That this equipment fulfill politically mandated strategic requirements is a given".

What this means is that if it is a requirement for the RAAF to be able to bomb targets into Asia at strategic type ranges than your suggestion would have validity. However to my knowledge it has never been and most likely never be a requirement for the RAAF.

I apologise to you if you misunderstood what I meant. Acquiring B-2 stealth/ strategic bombers is clearly unafordable and even if afordable are not required in Australias strategic circumstances. I was certainly not advocating their purchase. I am fairly certain that the line is closed at any rate??

I am not a strategic expert and will leave that to the professionals on this site. My interest is to encourage debate regarding the process of the NACCP project. To learn, observe and comment where I think I can add to the debate. My desire is for a two tiered RAAF fighter strike force with Air Dominance over the Australian mainland and tactical approaches as its(RAAF) central reason for being. For what its worth I am not happy with how this process has been handled by DMO, Government and the RAAF. That is my opinion but as I stated earlier I do not not believe for a second that any of these groups dont have the utmost concern for the security of this nation at the core of their undertakings.

As far sa Iraq and Afghanistan is concerned I do not have any specific expertise that could put your mind at rest. The SAS I know have been in the thick of it in Afghanistan as well as the relatively new commando group. For a serving US vice president to mention these groups by name considering the number of guys they (the yanks) have over their says something in my view. I do not say this light heartedly but that their would be quite a number of very senior El Qadia(I never know how to spell this) leaders very worrried at the prospect of the SAS and commando group returning to Afghanistan this year. I agree with you that when Australian troops ar ein harms way their is no level of support or equipment that should be provided if requested. For what its worth I have not read of any specific allegation that the troops deployed overseas are lacking for anything!

Once again thank you for your reply and those of the other forum members.

 

[W800i]

My apologies the following should read...

I agree with you that when Australian troops are in harms way their is no level of support or equipment that shouldn't be provided if requested. For what its worth I have not read of any specific allegation that the troops deployed overseas are lacking for anything!....

 

[Rich]

Can anyone point me to any material that seriously links an official Aussie request, or consideration, to purchase the B1b? Or, the Yank consideration to sell it? Is this just Internet fantasy?

Imagine the cost of a bakers dozen, hiring and training the crews, the spare parts, the weapons, the basing, the bloody fuel? And when we, as far as I know, have never maintained a 75% operational rate.

 

[Tasman]

Can anyone point me to any material that seriously links an official Aussie request, or consideration, to purchase the B1b? Or, the Yank consideration to sell it? Is this just Internet fantasy?

Rich, I can't find any material, official or otherwise, that suggests that the RAAF has even considered acquiring a strategic bombing force since the mid 50s when the purchase of British V bombers was believed to have been briefly discussed. In 1963, when it was offered B47s by the US as an interim bomber force pending delivery of the F111s, the government, on RAAF advice, rapidly turned down the offer. This demonstrated the air force's thinking about strategic bombers.

Apart from the claim made by rjmaz1 that they are available from the 'boneyard' no evidence has yet been put forward in this forum that that is the case. IIRC there was a magazine article some time ago, when the USAF first began the run down of its B1-B force, about the possibility of Australia getting some, but as far as I am aware, it has never been suggested by the RAAF. I'm not sure about 'internet fantasy' but, IMO, it's certainly 'wishful thinking!'

Imagine the cost of a bakers dozen, hiring and training the crews, the spare parts, the weapons, the basing, the bloody fuel? And when we, as far as I know, have never maintained a 75% operational rate

Exactly, and the proposition here is to do all this for just 5 aircraft!

Cheers