PDA

View Full Version : RAAF to get F-22 Raptor



KG66_Gog
02-25-2008, 10:07 PM
Maybe! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates says 'Australia can be trusted with the aircraft'.

Secretary Gates will be approaching Congress to have the law changed that restricts sales outside the USA.

I wonder if Australia will actually get any? Can they afford it? Questions questions.

PhantomKira
02-25-2008, 10:34 PM
An interesting proposal.

No problems with Australia, but I'm not so sure an aircraft that took 20 years to develop should be given to anyone, ally or not, right off the bat. Then again, the YF-22A is sitting in a museum, and has been, apparently, since the end of flight testing.

Can they afford it? Good question. Dunno. It'd be a cool possibility though!

Skoshi Tiger
02-25-2008, 11:27 PM
I think the US has a policy that is something like - why have allies if can't make a useful contribution in a conflict. Having up-to-date weapon systems is a pritty important part of that.

I knew we had our names down for the JSF but
maybe the delay in its development has put the F22's on the cards again?

(I seam to remember reading some where that the RAAF would love to have them but concidered the Multi-role JSF as being more practical)

berg417448
02-25-2008, 11:37 PM
Just read an article about this yesterday. Seems the Australian government is asking at least for the option to do it if they finally decide they want it.:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23264147-5005961,00.html

WOLFMondo
02-26-2008, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by KG66_Gog:


I wonder if Australia will actually get any? Can they afford it? Questions questions.

For the price and its lack of air to ground multirole/capability compared to other aircraft out there, the question is: Why would they want any?

The-Pizza-Man
02-26-2008, 03:23 AM
The RAAF won't get F-22s for two reasons:
1. The US won't sell them to us, if they sold to us Japan, Korea and Israel would have precident to get them. The US already denied Japan and if any country needs F-22s its Japan.
2. Its not suitable for the missions we want to perform.


This from the SMH is a good run down on the issue.

Super Hornets looking good, Raptors off the radar
COMMENT, Greg Sheridan | February 25, 2008

HERE'S a hot tip. There is not the slightest chance Australia will buy any F-22 Raptor aircraft, and there is almost no chance that we will ditch the F/A-18 Super Hornets that the previous government was going to buy.

US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates was yesterday polite but dismissive of the possibility of the US selling us the Raptors.

We won't buy the Raptors because the Americans don't sell them to foreign countries, we haven't asked them to sell us Raptors and nor are we likely to, they're too expensive, they don't do the jobs we need them to do and we are committed to an alternative path of phasing out the F1-11s, using F/A-18 Super Hornets as an interim measure and ultimately moving to a fleet made up predominantly, if not entirely, of F-35 joint strike fighters.

The Rudd Government has commissioned a review of the Howard government's decision to buy the Super Hornets, and Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has said he'll write to the US Congress asking for a change inthe decision not to export theF-22.

However, Fitzgibbons's words are quite precise. He has no intention at present of buying Raptors. He just wants to know whether there is any chance the US would sell them if he did want to buy them.

I asked Gates yesterday how realistic the prospect of selling Raptors was, given that it has not been built for export and, to protect the US's most secret technology, it would need to be virtually redesigned for an export model.

Gates answered with admirable candour that he did not know the answer to that; he did not know if any re-design work would be needed. The matter was on the table because the Australians had raised it. Therefore, he said, "it's an issue I intend to pursue when I get back (to Washington) and see what the prospects are and what we'd have to do if we wanted to get the law changed".

As a follow-up, an American journalist pointed out to Gates the Japanese had raised the possibility of purchasing the Raptor a year ago. If in all that time Gates hadn't been briefed on the technical issues, didn't this "kinda" confirm that nothing much was happening here? "That's a fair comment," Gates said.

Later, on Sky TV, Gates said a little more bluntly that he was "not optimistic" about Congress changing the law to allow Raptor exports.

The possibility that Congress might do this on the basis of a purely hypothetical inquiry from Australia - if we propositioned you, would you say yes? - is pretty remote.

As to the Super Hornets, every person in the official Australian defence establishment knows they have many secret and classified capabilities and that, as part of an Australian system, they would be comprehensively able to defeat any other plane in the region.

The debate is hamstrung in part because the classified capabilities cannot be discussed by those who know them, and those who do discuss them don't know them.

There would be at least a $400 million penalty in breaking the contract for the Super Hornets and there would be a serious cost to Australia's reputation.

But more importantly, everyone associated with air force policy also knows the F1-11s are right at the end of their tether. Even if you believed you could keep them flying into their fifth decade, the decision to scale them down and abandon them has already been taken, and actions have followed that decision.

Chris0382
02-26-2008, 10:57 AM
I thought Austrailia was getting the F-35 ?

HuninMunin
02-26-2008, 11:02 AM
But the F-35 is years away from realistic day to day duty.
And birds whisper it won't fill the gaps it was intended to fill after so many trusted weaponsystems have been exterminated to make room.

Viper2005_
02-26-2008, 11:04 AM
The USAF want to keep the F-22 line open producing "de-fanged" export F-22s in the hope of getting more full-spec aircraft for themselves at a later date, methinks.

Xiolablu3
02-26-2008, 11:06 AM
The F35 can do so many different roles, for a much cheaper price, I believe.

I guess it depends if you want a plane that is :-

a: FAR above any fighter likely to be used by an enemy, but without much multi-role capability and very expensive

b: Above any fighter likely to be used by the enemy, but cheaper (therefore greater numbers) and with massive multi-role capability.


I would think the F-35 would be the perfect Fighter/Fighter Bomber for the Aussies. It is basically an updated F18 in its capabilites anyway isnt it?

We must remember a plane is far more than just its airframe and basic flight characteristics like climb and top speed. A good RADAR and weaponary is just as important. A large fleet of F35's with excellent RADAR and waeponary are going to be far more potent in a war than an Air Superiority fighter in limited numbers.

Also its extrememly likely, maybe absolutely certain, that if the Aussies were attacked in any way, the US with its Raptors, UK with its Typhoons and Canada/NZ would come to its aid. YOu can probably include the whole of Western Europe in that too if it really was an 'unjust' attack.

Say the Aussies got the F22, just how many wars in the past 30 years have needed a fighter that potent to take down the opposition? A fleet of F35's would be far more useful.

The VTOL F35 is especially useful. Current Harriers are invaluable for Army Support as they can be there when other planes cant.

Bremspropeller
02-26-2008, 11:53 AM
The JSF is a nice idea, but the airframe really sawks buth, performance-wise and payload-wise.
Just having fancy avionics and stealth is not enough - sorry LM.
It's a nice replacement for the Harriers and Harrier II(Plus), but that's it.

If you really want a kick-azz plane, get yourself a Su-30.
Same multirole performance as a Strike Eagle in a more capable airframe.
No stealth in the first place, but you can help a lot with RAM - will get you close to a Super Bug's radar signature.

PhantomKira
02-26-2008, 12:18 PM
Japan, Korea and Israel

Oooh. There's the stuff of nightmares. Imagine the ROKs or Israelis with F-22s! We'd have the DPRK and Israels neigbors involved in F-22 owning state sponsored conflicts before you could say "boo". (I for one, think that the underlying animosity between the aformentioned nations still exists, albiet lower key.)

Such an aircraft in the hands of governments in those regions would tip the balance of power in those regions too much in the favor of one side. Not a good idea.

The same could be said of the F-35 whenever it comes along.

With regards to the Su-30, look at the F-22 vs F-15 fights. The F-15, an aircraft with a proven 100+ - 0 air combat record, yet it got squashed by the F-22. The F-15s never even knew where the F-22 was, despite knowing they were going up against them. If you can't see it, you can't kill it. I suspect the Su-30 wouldn't stand a chance against an F-22 or F-35.

Bremspropeller
02-26-2008, 12:37 PM
I don't want to shoot down F-22s. In fact, I don't need to. I could blow them out of the sky with SAMs anyway.

What I wanna do is dropping ordnance and blow stuff up.

Both tupper-stealths just sawk there.

The great air-battles are over.
Today, you wanna have a fighter that can support your troops. What those fighters need is a good sortie-rate, high availability, good payload and a good loiter-time on station. Long legs would be nice as well.
Add bring-back capability if we're talking of a naval-fighter.
A2A performance is supposed be good anyway, but it ain't needed that much today. Being able to defend yourself if things have gone bad and you have to deal with some uninvited players, is neccessary and crucial.

If I could have a lot more, less expensive and somewhat less fancy fighters for the same price, I'd go for them, instead of wasting my money for a plane that isn't needed and doesn't meet my mission-requirements most of the time.

berg417448
02-26-2008, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

What I wanna do is dropping ordnance and blow stuff up.




If your enemy has an airplane like the F-22 he is going to prevent you from doing that and then HIS planes will be doing the dropping on your forces when he has established air superiority over you. You need a mix of aircraft types for things to go your way.

Xiolablu3
02-26-2008, 01:11 PM
So Bremms, the US and Britian have in fact wasted millions on a plane which is in no way any better than the past airplanes!?! What fools!

You would think they would have tested it first! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

COuld you not explain to them why the F35 'sucks' and save them, millions so that they could keep the existing F18's and F15s?

Bremspropeller
02-26-2008, 01:35 PM
If your enemy has an airplane like the F-22 he is going to prevent you from doing that and then HIS planes will be doing the dropping on your forces when he has established air superiority over you. You need a mix of aircraft types for things to go your way.

The point is, he doesn't.


So Bremms, the US and Britian have in fact wasted millions on a plane which is in no way any better than the past airplanes!?!

They are better, as in "they cost more" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Oh, btw...It's always a political issue.
Just as it was in '57, when Britain decided future air-combats were taken out by missiles only. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif


What fools!

Agree! Can you say "Super Hornet" and "fleet defender" in one sentence?
I can't http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
But I'm sure some politicians can and will.


COuld you not explain to them why the F35 'sucks' and save them, millions so that they could keep the existing F18's and F15s?

No as I couldn't care less for those who are willing to waste their tax-money... But I can explain to you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It's pretty easy - have a look:
F-15E:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-15_mk-84jdam_020507_09.jpg
Yes, thats five 2,000 pounders...
That's not anywhere near the max payload.
To be honest, the F-35 wasn't intended to replace the F-15E, but it was intended to replace the F-16.

F-16C:
http://www.10af.afrc.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/021105-O-9999G-052.jpg
Two AMRAAMs, two heaters, two tanks, two AGM-88, one HTS and one Jammer-pod.

http://www.military.cz/usa/air/in_service/aircraft/f16/pics/f16d_arm.jpg
Two heaters, three AGM-65 (out of four possible here on those launchers) two tanks, two LANTIRN pods.
Still not up to max loadout...
Theoreticly twelve AGM-65s or 250 punders would be possible - on four TERs. Plus two heaters and a centerline tank or a jammer-pod.

F/A-18:
http://wind.prohosting.com/flyaces/usr/home/web/f/flyaces/images/46.jpg
That's no max quantity, but just to get an impression...two tanks, two AGM-88s, two heaters, two Sparrows and some pod un the centerline hardpoint.
http://gluefox.com/flygsim/amraam.jpg
A promo pic. Ten AMRAAMs and two heaters - just to see what could be possible; a non-operational outfit, however...

http://www.navybuddies.com/planes/fa18_03.jpg
An F/A-18 with four double ejector-racks.
That's eight 250 pounders.

F-35:
http://www.afa.org/magazine/april2003/0403F35_1.jpg
So...where dou you want to put all this stuff in that tiny lil something?
External stores won't be a shiny solution as it would cost some stealth-potential.



So you have two options:

1.) a fancy stealth-plane with almost no payload/ use to your troops.
2.) a not so fancy - but still as expensive - wannabe stealth-plane with some use to your troops.

http://jsf.mil/images/f35/f35_technology_weapons.jpg
A nice pic of a F-35C's config with external stores.
Two heaters, two AMRAAMS (internally) two 1000 or 2000 lbs bombs (internally), two 2000 lbs externally and four 250 lbs externally.
Although a neat loadout - it vastly decreases your staelth potential and therefore eliminates the F-35 main "advantage" over the previous generation of fighters.

berg417448
02-26-2008, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If your enemy has an airplane like the F-22 he is going to prevent you from doing that and then HIS planes will be doing the dropping on your forces when he has established air superiority over you. You need a mix of aircraft types for things to go your way.

The point is, he doesn't.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If his Su-30 is as good or better than your F-15 then you will not establish air superiority and your bombers will not get to do their thing. You can't assume that your future adversary is going to always be someone with no air force or who isn't going to (sooner than you think) deploy an advanced fighter of their own.



In my opinion, the F-22's best asset is sensor fusion. An F-15 /F-16/ F-18 pilot has to gather data from different displays in the cockpit and draw his own conclusions about the situation In the F-22, there is a gathering of information from each avionics system and it is consolidated on one display for the pilot.

Some pilot comments about this from an article about exercises in Alaska:

"When I look down at my scope and put my cursor over a [friendly] F-15 or F/A-18, it tells me who they are locked on to," he says. For example, "I could help them out by saying, 'You're double-targeted and there's a group over here untargeted' . . . to make sure we got everybody."

... "When you watch [tapes of the Alaska] exercise, it's fairly spooky," says Gen. Ronald Keys, chief of Air Combat Command. "There's hardly a word spoken among Raptor pilots." That silence also previews some of the fighter's possible future capabilities.
"Because of the way the aircraft was designed, we have the capability to do more," Keys says. "We can put unmanned combat aircraft systems in there with Raptor. You've got three fairly low-observable UCAS in the battlespace. An air defense system pops up, and I click on a UCAS icon and drag it over [the emitter's location] and click. The UCAS throttles over and jams it, blows it up or whatever."
....
The F-22's advanced electronic surveillance sensors also provided additional awareness of ground activity.
"I could talk to an EA-6B Prowler electronic attack crew and tell them where a surface-to-air missile site was active so they would immediately know where to point their electronic warfare sensors," Tolliver says. "That decreased their targeting time line considerably."
In addition, the F-22 can use its electronic surveillance capabilities to conduct precision bombing strikes on emitters--a capability called destruction of enemy air defenses.
"And future editions of the F-22 are predicted to have to have their own electronic attack capability so that we'll be able to suppress or nonkinetically kill a site like that," he says.

...

A tactic used by the F-22s was actually developed and practiced in smaller scale at Langley before the exercise. Raptors worked in pairs, integrated with F-15Cs or F/A-18E/Fs.
"I could help target for them from behind and above," Tolliver says. "We really don't have a name for what we were doing other than integrated ops. I was able to look down and smartly target F-15s or F/A-18s to groups at ranges where they could not yet [detect] the target."

Bremspropeller
02-26-2008, 02:07 PM
If his Su-30 is as good or better than your F-15 then you will not establish air superiority and your bombers will not get to do their thing. You can't assume that your future adversary is going to always be someone with no air force or who isn't going to (sooner than you think) deploy an advanced fighter of their own.

A Typhoon will beat the Su-30 in both, BVR and WVR. Yet the Su-30 can still carry more ordnance and has a better loiter-time.


An F-22 is almost twice as expensive as a Tiffie. For a scenario that is highly unlikely, I'd rather buy more Tiffies than less F-22 for the same firepower.
The Typhoon is almost as advanced as the F-22, so I'd willingly take the risk of buying a somewhat less capable fighter for getting more airframes at the same or even increased overall firepower.
Stealth doesn't make you invisible, it just reduces max detection-range.
You could work around it - not without serious effort, but you could.
It's not that staelth is just fresh out of the box as it was in Desert Storm or Allied Force.

The features you brought up are all nice to have, but in current scenarios, it's just dead potential.
It's like you own a gun made out of gold for shooting guys who throw knifes.

Deploying the F-22/ F-35 to Iraq or Afghanistan is nothing but throwing your money out of the window with both hands.
And those kinds of battlefields are going to be where wars are fought in the next few decades, not some highly sophisticated super-power show-off where anything you try to do is playing the attrition-card.

JG53Frankyboy
02-26-2008, 02:15 PM
no wonder, that the USAF is trying to keep their A-10s airworthy as long as possible !!

berg417448
02-26-2008, 02:18 PM
Funny thing about calculating cost of weapons...they can be figured many ways. The old adage "Figures lie and liars figure " probably applies here since it involves governments:

The 2008 United States budget lists the unit cost for F-22 at US $137 million.

The last unit cost I saw for the Typhoon was $122 million.

Bremspropeller
02-26-2008, 02:24 PM
Last price i saw for the F-22 was 150 mio. $
The Tiffie was rated at 80 mio €.

Both are fly-away.

berg417448
02-26-2008, 02:34 PM
122 million for each Tiffie is claimed here in an article about the sale to Saudi Arbia:

"The announcement was made in a statement from the official Saudi Press Agency, which said the price of each aircraft which works out at 61.5m ($122.5m, €88.4m) was exactly the sum paid by the UK's Royal Air Force for each Typhoon."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cfe3d37e-6534-11dc-bf89-0000779fd2ac.html

Bremspropeller
02-26-2008, 02:44 PM
Alright.
But keep in mind, price relation changes every day, as the F-22 is sold in $, while the Tiffie is being sold in €.

The high Euro exchange-rate surely works against the Tiffie's price-benefit.

VW-IceFire
02-26-2008, 03:07 PM
Been following this for quite some time. I'll have to read the article in depth and some of the other responses around as well.

Basically the issues for Australia are that the F-35 cost is rising, its range is not enough, its payload isn't big enough, and the F-35 is not as capable in the air to air role as some of what the neighboring countries around Australia are starting to arm themselves with. The F-35 is damn good...its basically an F-16 level of performance plus vastly improved sensors and stealth. But stealth only goes so far and if you have the extra payload then stealth is right out the window.

The F-22 has much greater range, far better air to air capabilities, and just enough air to ground payload that the RAAF could get away with fewer F-22s. It seems like there is a move to get the RAAF its Raptors if it really wants them...it helps the USAF because more production means lower overall costs per unit and obviously Australia gets a top notch fighter. Even an export version minus some of the fancy features would still be a cut above what their neighbors have.

Interested to see if this deal goes through.

Also interested to see if Japan will get Raptors as well. Seems like there is interest and they sure could use them but they also usually mandate some sort of industrial sharing or production or some sort of agreement that way which may not work out.

berg417448
02-26-2008, 03:14 PM
Japan is also interested in building a stealth fighter design of their own:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/11/asia/AS-GEN-Japan-Fighter-Jets.php

Bremspropeller
02-26-2008, 03:23 PM
In fact, japan was to built a much revised version of the Block-50s F-16s, called F-2.
But costs skyrocketed and performance is obviously not up to what Japan expected - especially after China purchased Su-27s and Su-30s, many of them built under license.

Therefore, the F-2 is going to serve as a stop-gap solution (replacing some of the still active F-4EJs) untill a definitive replacement of the aging F-4 and some of the F-15 fleet arrives.

Performance-wise only the F-22 or the Tiffie make sense.

Ratsack
02-26-2008, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
...

b: Above any fighter likely to be used by the enemy, but cheaper (therefore greater numbers) and with massive multi-role capability.
...

I haven't had time to read the rest of this thread, but this sentence here sums up the JSF in my view. Unfortunately, it sums it up because it's wrong.

The JSF loaded for air-to-air will have the same power to weight as an F-16C. An F-16C loaded for ground attack, that is.

In the meantime, possible enemies in our region are using everything from MiG-29s to Su-27s right now.

The range of the JSF on internals is not flash. It's certainly not in the same class as the F-111 it's meant to partially replace. Give it external tanks and it's a little better, but still not in the F-111 class.

Its bomb load is not as good as the F-111's either. You can load it up so it's at least in the same class as the F-111, but that requires external loads. These do nothing for its range.

Did I mention that external payloads nullify the stealth capability of this plane?

Did I mention that the so-called stealth is forward-aspect only?


The procurement process that committed us to the JSF was completely short circuited by the then Minister for Defense, who simply announced it. In other words there was no process.

Is that the smell of a rotting carcass coming up through the floor boards?

Ratsack

Ratsack
02-26-2008, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
Japan is also interested in building a stealth fighter design of their own:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/11/asia/AS-GEN-Japan-Fighter-Jets.php

Don't forget Singapore.

Ratsack

HuninMunin
02-26-2008, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

A Typhoon will beat the Su-30 in both, BVR and WVR. Yet the Su-30 can still carry more ordnance and has a better loiter-time.


Right about loiter time but you gotta have the different swingrole layouts on the bill aswell.
A Typhoon will always be able to carry 4 Mets or Amraams plus the obligatory Asraam or Iris pair whilst still holding 7 hardpoints for AG armament.
A Su 30 has to give up most of it's Alamos for a comparable AG payload.
Might change once the Adder gets avaiable in numbers though.

Bremspropeller
02-26-2008, 04:16 PM
I was talking about A2G-ordnance http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

That A2A comment right before was a bit confusig...

The advantage of the Su, however, is that it can go as far (on internal fuel!) as a Tiffie with externals.
The drawback is, it can't jettison/ vent the fuel in case it's got to get rid of excessive weight - say for an evasive turn.

@ Ratsack:
Which version of the JSF would the Aussies go for?
F-35B? Worst choice in the house - that verti-engine kills a lot of fuel capacity and it also reduces ordnance for verti-ops.

VW-IceFire
02-26-2008, 04:23 PM
RAAF was only interested in the F-35A which is the USAF version with integral cannon and no associated weight gains due to tougher landing gear and larger wing (F-35C) or the STOL equipment of the F-35B.

The F-35B is a massive step forward for the USMC and would be useful for the RN as well but it makes little sense for most other services.

HuninMunin
02-26-2008, 04:24 PM
Yes I understood you.
I'm saying that a Tiffy can carry a similar AG load whilst still retaining an awesome AA bite.

But again, when this will come to pass the Su 30 will have a new arsenal of it's own aswell - probably.

Funny thing is that India allready has some massive airframe problems with theirs.

HuninMunin
02-26-2008, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
RAAF was only interested in the F-35A which is the USAF version with integral cannon and no associated weight gains due to tougher landing gear and larger wing (F-35C) or the STOL equipment of the F-35B.

The F-35B is a massive step forward for the USMC and would be useful for the RN as well but it makes little sense for most other services.

100 % agreed.

I have problems seeing the need for STOVL fighters to beginn with though.
There's just too much trouble for the actual benefits imvho.

Bremspropeller
02-26-2008, 04:30 PM
The F-35B is a massive step forward for the USMC and would be useful for the RN as well but it makes little sense for most other services.

Agree - as for a Harrier/ AV-8B (Plus) replacement.

But I'd never trade a legacy Hornet for a F-35B.
I guess the MC won't buy F-35As (not carrier-capable) or Cs (fleet communality) to replace their Hornets.


I'm saying that a Tiffy can carry a similar AG load whilst still retaining an awesome AA bite.

No, it can't at - least not for the same max combat-radius. The Tiffie has to rely on external-tanks, occupying hardpoints.


Funny thing is that India allready has some massive airframe problems with theirs.

Cracks?
Well, obviously, the Russians don't build fighters for a NATO hour-schedules. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
A pity, as some are capable airframes.

HuninMunin
02-26-2008, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

No, it can't at least not for the same max combat-radius.


Never said that ^^

And lets just say the IAF will soon think about their MKIs as the GAF once thought about their Fulcrums. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Bremspropeller
02-26-2008, 04:35 PM
You mean like "hey let's get's rid of this stuff and sell em for one Euro each to Poland"? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

HuninMunin
02-26-2008, 04:39 PM
Yeah http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Only that they'll be hard pressed to find an alternative. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
I guess they'll just fly em to death and buy new ones.
It's not that the IAF is short on money. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bremspropeller
02-26-2008, 04:41 PM
There's been an interesting F-16 deal.

Looks pretty much like the Block 60 they sold to the UAE.

HuninMunin
02-26-2008, 04:43 PM
Maybe they could use some IDSs.
1 € each http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<STRIKE>Unbelievable</STRIKE> no <STRIKE>amount of </STRIKE> servicing required.

Bremspropeller
02-26-2008, 04:46 PM
*shivers in horror*

H3ll, I'd pay not to get them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Bremspropeller
02-26-2008, 04:53 PM
haha..like on TV Total?

"This plane is in service since 1953. It never had to be maintained ever since!"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
02-26-2008, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
RAAF was only interested in the F-35A which is the USAF version with integral cannon and no associated weight gains due to tougher landing gear and larger wing (F-35C) or the STOL equipment of the F-35B.

The F-35B is a massive step forward for the USMC and would be useful for the RN as well but it makes little sense for most other services.

100 % agreed.

I have problems seeing the need for STOVL fighters to beginn with though.
There's just too much trouble for the actual benefits imvho. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah there are quite a few problems and its a question of if the problems outweigh the advantages. STOVL fighters versus STOVL fighter-bombers which is more of what the F-35 is. I'm certain that the idea is that the USMC moves into areas where there are semi-prepared airstrips as basically only V-22s and F-35Bs can operate. If you have a scenario like that then the F-35B is brilliant as you have a supersonic capable, air to air capable and reasonably competent, and somewhat stealth craft at your disposal. They have never had that. The Harrier (at least the USMC version) is great but can't carry AMRAAMs to my knowledge, can't go supersonic, and doesn't pretend to be stealth either (to what degree the F-35 pretends to do this is also up for questioning http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif).

But all of the extra machinery to make the jet engine swivel down and the internal fan/ducting system seems very complex and definitely weighs extra. The F-35B apparently also cannot carry the 2000lb JDAM or LGB bombs.

BoCfuss
02-26-2008, 06:33 PM
You are all talking about aircraft you know relatively nothing about. Humorous. What is better? Probably the one your country has or the one you like, right?

VW-IceFire
02-26-2008, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by BoCfuss:
You are all talking about aircraft you know relatively nothing about. Humorous. What is better? Probably the one your country has or the one you like, right?
Personally nationalistic bias doesn't factor into the equation. I'm talking from the perspective of an aviation enthusiast who has an appreciation for just about anything that can fly.

HotelBushranger
02-26-2008, 09:32 PM
As to the Super Hornets, every person in the official Australian defence establishment knows they have many secret and classified capabilities and that, as part of an Australian system, they would be comprehensively able to defeat any other plane in the region.

The debate is hamstrung in part because the classified capabilities cannot be discussed by those who know them, and those who do discuss them don't know them.

These two paragraphs interested me...I've never ever heard of any sort of secret capabilities of the Super Hornet. Of course, I appreciate that they are secret http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif, but usually these sort of things are hinted at by the sellers to entice potential buyers. Although I would love to fly the Super Hornet (if I eventually get into the RAAF), if they are deemed to be unsuitable then of course I would support that decision. It's very interesting to speculate the winner of a Super Bug vs Su-30 fight. Maybe the RAAF can procure maybe 2 or 4 F-22's as a sort of extra top cover escort for the bombers? They keep saying the Raptor completely flogs the F-15E, so maybe the small amount of F-22's could systematically chop up the opposition?

As a side note, the then defence minister who was involved in the entire ballsed-up procurement process is now the leader of the Opposition party http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sama51
02-26-2008, 09:45 PM
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/f-14-HP_VF31_bankright.jpg

FTW.

smokincrater
02-26-2008, 09:50 PM
This is certainly from left feild and unheard of since the Boomerang. But why don`t the Political and Industrial leadership actually see if Australia can actually produce a home grown fighter and bomber. Something along the lines of Tornado or a raptor copy. If one design can`t do both, the roles bomber and Air superoity fighter why not produce two dedicated designs! prove to the world that Australia can do more than shear sheep and dig rocks out of the ground. The recent closure in Elizabeth of the Misubitshi plant could create a thing were a bit slow to catch on to down here, that is an oppotunity!

Badsight-
02-26-2008, 10:00 PM
the aussie pollies are grandstanding

the deal will be off & they get an offer to sell the public over other gear

win - win both sides

Badsight-
02-26-2008, 10:01 PM
& the F-35 is the bomber you want when the other side has Flankers & Rafales & Migs & Typhoons . . . . .

Rattler68
02-26-2008, 10:08 PM
Why are people comparing old technology with new? One of the main reasons for the new fighters (F-22/F-35) is reduced pilot workload, which has not been integrated well into the older airframes (F-16, F-18, et.al)

Both F-22 and F-35 are JDAMS capable.

F-35 weapons -
one 25-mm GAU-12
two internal weapon bays
2 AIM-120C AMRAAM or
2 AIM-132 ASRAAM and

2 AGM-154 JSOW or
2 Brimstone or
2 GBU-12 Paveway LGB or
2 GBU-31/32/38 JDAM or
8 GBU-39 SDB or
2 CBU-87/89 CBU or
2 CBU-103/104/105 WCMD

2 under-wing missiles
2 AIM-9X Sidewinder or
2 AIM-120B/C AMRAAM

4 hardpoints
AGM-65 Maverick
AGM-88 HARM
AGM-158 JASSM
Storm Shadow
GBU-10/12/16/24 LGB
GBU-31 JDAM
Mk 82/83/84 GP
CBU-99/100 Rockeye II

Seems quite capable....
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-specs.htm

(Pretty trustworthy website....)

Ratsack
02-26-2008, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
...

As a side note, the then defence minister who was involved in the entire ballsed-up procurement process is now the leader of the Opposition party http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Well, not quite. The current leader of the opposition was the Defense Minister who ballsed-up the procurement of the Super Hornets. The Defense Minister who ballsed-up the the procurement of the JSF was actually Robert Hill, who is the current Australian ambassador to the U.N.

Key words: boys; jobs for; plum.


Ratsack

Sama51
02-26-2008, 10:34 PM
Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on incorporating electronic warfare? Seems like it would permit for much more versatile aircraft.

And whatever happened to aircraft like the Corsair II which could cost-effectively deliver a huge payload and still defend itself? It seemed like something along these lines with today's technology applied would be a more effective and cost effecient answer.

Why not bypass the stealth and integrate the electronic warfare ability and give the aircraft some muscle to carry a payload and have some range.

Part of the reason the F-14 was removed because it wasn't cost effecient. The fuel/maitnenence cost per pound of ordnance delivered wasn't as effeceint compared to aircraft like the Hornet. Hence the replacing of the F-14 with the Super Hornet; a larger aircraft than the original Hornet that can carry more ornace. However, being a larger heavier aircraft, its performance is dogged down.

And now along comes the F-35, an expensive aircraft with little payload, unless you nullify the very reason it IS so expensive, its stealth capibility with the use of placing ordnance on the exterior. It just seems as if the capibilites (Stealth STOVL) which make the JSF 'so great' are the same ones that get in the way of its primary objective. But who knows, it could end up being a phenominal aircraft.

The-Pizza-Man
02-27-2008, 02:42 AM
There is so much miss-information and uninformed opinion about the F-35 is this thread its not funny. It is really annoying to see the tripe printed by the likes of Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon getting repeated adnauseum as if it were gosple. If you actually do some decent research and have a basic understanding of how the whole system works you'd come to the conclusion that the F-22 does not fit into our force mix.

For those who deride the F-35s air to air capability here is another article.


"Six-Shooting Lightning
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 11/8/2007 1:28 AM

The Joint Strike Fighter could be upgraded to carry up to six internal AIM-120 AMRAAM Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles, according to a Lockheed Martin executive. "Our spiral development program includes the ability to carry up to six internal AMRAAMs", G. Richard Cathers, senior manager of Lockheed Martin's strategic studies group, told the IQPC Fighter Conference in London on Wednesday. "It's a capability second only to the F-22."

Cathers added that the JSF's air-combat capability "has not been advertised as it could or should have been", partly because "at the same time as we are developing the F-35, we and the USAF have wanted to expand the F-22 program." Apparently, the USAF has not wanted to advertise the JSF's air-to-air capability, concerned that it would weaken the case for acquiring more than the 183 F-22s authorized today.

The four added internal AMRAAMs would be carried in place of internal bombs. It's not clear, however, whether the short-take-off, vertical landing F-35B variant, which has smaller weapon bays, would be able to carry the added weapons.

An executive for a competing fighter program, speaking at the conference, said that the six-missile capability would be a major improvement for the JSF. Until now, competitors have criticised the JSF because it carries only two AAMs - supporting only a single engagement - in stealth mode."
link (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a4f04259d-8fca-4e42-8e17-44f5dca7edf4)

WOLFMondo
02-27-2008, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
They keep saying the Raptor completely flogs the F-15E, so maybe the small amount of F-22's could systematically chop up the opposition?


The Me262 and He162 are living proof in history that you can field a vastly superior aircraft to the opposition but unless you have it in large numbers the inferior performing planes will dominate.

I fail to see the point in the F22 other than a technology demonstrator. If there is war with China then a 100 F22's is going to sod all to them. Its so expensive that its probably worth more than the assets its design to help protect and in anything other than air combat its pointless.

Besides, think about how many schools and hospitals you can buy with 10 F22's. Spending that much on a single plane doesn't sit well with me at all.

Ratsack
02-27-2008, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
... the F-22 does not fit into our force mix...

I quite agree.

Unfortunately, the only sense in which the JSF makes good sense is as a component of a U.S. force. In terms of foreign missions, that's 'triffic. As a regional force, relying on a strategy of deterrence built on being the best air force in the region, it's bollox.

cheers,
Ratsack

The-Pizza-Man
02-27-2008, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
... the F-22 does not fit into our force mix...

I quite agree.

Unfortunately, the only sense in which the JSF makes good sense is as a component of a U.S. force. In terms of foreign missions, that's 'triffic. As a regional force, relying on a strategy of deterrence built on being the best air force in the region, it's bollox.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What regional airforce is better than ours? The only guys that are really comparable, and better than ours in a lot of ways right now are the Sings. They are the only guys in the immediate region with the training and platform synergy that is realy first tier. The Indonesians (which have a grand total of 2 armed Su-27s) and the Malaysians don't have nearly the capability to challenge our airforce. The Chinese and Indians have powerful airforces, but they don't have the capability to strike effectively at Australia, at least conventionally.

Once we have the F-35s in service our airforce will be well ahead of any adversaries.
-It will provide a longer effective strike range than the F-111s do with greater availability.
-Air to Air combat capability will be greatly improved and only be second in quality to the US. We will also have a quantitative advantage in front line combat aircraft over our immediate neighbours. The only aircraft that will be better than the F-35 in air to air combat will be the F-22.

What sort of force mix would you suggest that would be superior to the proposed F-35 fleet?

Ratsack
02-27-2008, 04:59 AM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
... the F-22 does not fit into our force mix...

I quite agree.

Unfortunately, the only sense in which the JSF makes good sense is as a component of a U.S. force. In terms of foreign missions, that's 'triffic. As a regional force, relying on a strategy of deterrence built on being the best air force in the region, it's bollox.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What regional airforce is better than ours? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right now, or in the next ten years?



The only guys that are really comparable, and better than ours in a lot of ways right now are the Sings.

See my post previous page.


....The Chinese and Indians have powerful airforces, but they don't have the capability to strike effectively at Australia, at least conventionally.

Right now.



Once we have the F-35s in service our airforce will be well ahead of any adversaries.

Debatable.



-It will provide a longer effective strike range than the F-111s do...

What on Earth are you talking about?



-Air to Air combat capability will be ... second in quality to the US.

This is an aspirational statement, rather than a sober assessment. There is nothing in the US missile range right now that compares favourably to the R-73, that the Malaysians have already got. We are talking about a widely-deployed short-range (?!) heater with range in the same ball park as the AMRAAM. Without AWACs support in the sort of density the US deploys, the US doesn't actually enjoy the edge at the moment. This is before we even start to consider the Sings. Does the RAAF have the capability to deploy that sort of fully-balanced strike package? Not right now, and not for the next ten years.


The only aircraft that will be better than the F-35 in air to air combat will be the F-22.

I don't share your apparent confidence on that score, at all.



Ratsack

Jediteo
02-27-2008, 08:59 AM
I might be a bit biased, but I'd pick the J39 Gripen anyday.

Bremspropeller
02-27-2008, 09:03 AM
F-35 second to F-22 in A2A?

BVR maybe - though two AMRAAMS internally ain't a big issue to worry about.

But WVR, the F-35s gonna be smoked by any Euro-canard, hands down.
Even the F-22 failed to show it's "superiority" in WVR engagements against RAF Tiffies.

The F-35's ground-load is less than impressive when you weanna be "stealthy". That means internal ordnance only - that includes no ext tanks.

Warrington_Wolf
02-27-2008, 11:57 AM
I'm suprised that the Dassault Rafale hasn't been mentioned yet.
It is a multi role aircraft that has already been in combat if Afghanistan. It's first mission was on March 12th 2007 and on the March 28th it dropped a bomb on insurgents that were firing on Dutch troops. It did have to rely on laser designation from Mirage 2000s and Super Entendards but that won't always be the case.
It is currently in service with both the French Air Force and the French Navy and several countries have already expressed interest in it including Libya (hope those buggers don't get them), Brazil and India.
Here is some information from the Dassault website.
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/omnirole-by-design.html?L=1

P.S. I have always been a smitten with aircraft from Dassault, mainly the Mirage (also a successful aircraft that has been the backbone for many airforces).

HotelBushranger
02-27-2008, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
They keep saying the Raptor completely flogs the F-15E, so maybe the small amount of F-22's could systematically chop up the opposition?


The Me262 and He162 are living proof in history that you can field a vastly superior aircraft to the opposition but unless you have it in large numbers the inferior performing planes will dominate.

I fail to see the point in the F22 other than a technology demonstrator. If there is war with China then a 100 F22's is going to sod all to them. Its so expensive that its probably worth more than the assets its design to help protect and in anything other than air combat its pointless.

Besides, think about how many schools and hospitals you can buy with 10 F22's. Spending that much on a single plane doesn't sit well with me at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. It's a bit unfair to compare technologies 60 years apart. What would have happened if those Me-262's and He-162's had radar and well trained pilots? There would have been a significant difference.


I'm suprised that the Dassault Rafale hasn't been mentioned yet.

For this situation I think it is more a matter of politics than capabilities, Australia is in a political bind where basically we have to buy from the US completely or at least predominantly, however it remains to be seen if the new government discards this notion and considers European aircraft. But then again, I'd imagine US aircraft would be more suited to large countries and large ranges than European aircraft, considering the small size of many of those countries, but this is just uneducated speculation, I don't really know many of the details of the EU aircraft.

VW-IceFire
02-27-2008, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by The-Pizza-Man:
There is so much miss-information and uninformed opinion about the F-35 is this thread its not funny. It is really annoying to see the tripe printed by the likes of Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon getting repeated adnauseum as if it were gosple. If you actually do some decent research and have a basic understanding of how the whole system works you'd come to the conclusion that the F-22 does not fit into our force mix.

For those who deride the F-35s air to air capability here is another article.


"Six-Shooting Lightning
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 11/8/2007 1:28 AM

The Joint Strike Fighter could be upgraded to carry up to six internal AIM-120 AMRAAM Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles, according to a Lockheed Martin executive. "Our spiral development program includes the ability to carry up to six internal AMRAAMs", G. Richard Cathers, senior manager of Lockheed Martin's strategic studies group, told the IQPC Fighter Conference in London on Wednesday. "It's a capability second only to the F-22."

Cathers added that the JSF's air-combat capability "has not been advertised as it could or should have been", partly because "at the same time as we are developing the F-35, we and the USAF have wanted to expand the F-22 program." Apparently, the USAF has not wanted to advertise the JSF's air-to-air capability, concerned that it would weaken the case for acquiring more than the 183 F-22s authorized today.

The four added internal AMRAAMs would be carried in place of internal bombs. It's not clear, however, whether the short-take-off, vertical landing F-35B variant, which has smaller weapon bays, would be able to carry the added weapons.

An executive for a competing fighter program, speaking at the conference, said that the six-missile capability would be a major improvement for the JSF. Until now, competitors have criticised the JSF because it carries only two AAMs - supporting only a single engagement - in stealth mode."
link (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a4f04259d-8fca-4e42-8e17-44f5dca7edf4)
Throwing missiles around is all well and good and apparently the AIM-9X should give the F-35 some great close in capabilities too...but as I understand it the agility levels are similar to an F-16 depending on the fuel load and payload at the time. Not quite the level of the Su-35 (or Su-30MKI) should those start appearing in more general service. Range is still definitely something that has been raised as an issue...so has weight. The aircrafts had its share of problems progressing from prototype to production model but it went allot faster than the F-22 ever did.

How badly are we misinformed? I'm curious to know if its allot better than some of the analysts have made it out to be. Certainly a highly political and technical topic.

smokincrater
02-27-2008, 09:51 PM
For those who don`t know back when we had a little spat with our vietnamese brothers. We wanted to use the Mirage against them. But Dassult said that if we used them they would withdraw surrport for the aircraft. We are also handicaped by what we can do with our current line up of F-111`s and Classic Hornets. Because the United States of American has put restrictions on our use of the aircraft or they pull the plug on the spare parts(just one of the restrictions is that all techs that work on the aircraft must be Australian citizens). And one of the arguments about the Lighting 2 is that the software will be coded so as only the USA has the right to modify it. The only long term solution is for a home grown aircraft or aircrafts.
That way we can customize and incorpatorte anything we what into the design. Instead of buying something that was designed for North American and European conditions. We can get something that doesn`t run out gas within an hour, like our current fast jets.

hsj41
02-27-2008, 10:55 PM
Well i think USA should not sell no planes to no countrys let them build there own planes.USA 1#

Badsight-
02-27-2008, 11:49 PM
.

Australia really does have its own special requirements

they should be allowed to remake F-14's under license http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

muffinstomp
02-28-2008, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by hsj41:
Well i think USA should not sell no planes to no countrys let them build there own planes.USA 1#

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
That statement just made it into my top-ten neaties list. Whenever the US entered conflicts free markets (open to us) at least have been one major momentum themselves - including exports of war gear. Should exchange rates pit-rocket further on sure no foreign country is uncertain whether to buy US top-notch gear or buy something reasonably priced.
In the meantime US tax payers might want to have them politicians have a free choice amongst all (incl. international) gear producers instead of supporting locals by "accidentally" raising amounts to be spent on defence way through the roof while John Doe is losing his home and his job. Hard times I guess... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

The-Pizza-Man
02-28-2008, 04:37 AM
quote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">-It will provide a longer effective strike range than the F-111s do...


What on Earth are you talking about? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The F-111s are not survivable strike platforms without escort and SEAD, that means that without tanker support they are limited to the range of their hornet escorts ~400nm. If you want to extend that range there has to be heavy tanker support. The F-35A has a combat radius of 600nm in clean strike configuration. Unlike the F-111 the F-35 is survivable in modern environment without the need for extensive escort, SEAD and EW support. That is why things like this are such a crock
http://www.ausairpower.net/ALCM-F-111-vs-FA-18A-2A.png
The sort of mission profile an F-35 could fly would be with 2 external tanks 2 LO cruise missiles, 8 SDBs and 2 AMRAAMs all at medium to high altitude. It would punch the tanks when they were empty out of detection range then fire off the cruise missiles at IADS targets on the route in. Then proceed to hit 8 seperate targets in one pass. It then ideally goes home unmolested as the IADS are knocked out , but can still mix it up if it needs to.


This is an aspirational statement, rather than a sober assessment. There is nothing in the US missile range right now that compares favourably to the R-73, that the Malaysians have already got. We are talking about a widely-deployed short-range (?!) heater with range in the same ball park as the AMRAAM. Without AWACs support in the sort of density the US deploys, the US doesn't actually enjoy the edge at the moment. This is before we even start to consider the Sings. Does the RAAF have the capability to deploy that sort of fully-balanced strike package? Not right now, and not for the next ten years.

Missiles that are superior to the R-73 would be the AIM-9X and the ASRAAM, which we currently have on our hornets. Both use staring IR seekers that have a wilder field of view and the ASRAAM has significantly longer range. Furthermore, where did you get the idea that R-73 even comes close to AMRAAM in range? It has neither the size nor the aerodynmics to come close to the AMRAAM.

This is sort of thing part of the problem

"Without AWACs support in the sort of density the US deploys, the US doesn't actually enjoy the edge at the moment."

I'm sorry but it is a silly platform to platform comparison, completely ignoring how the whole system works. The fact that I don't think it is correct either is beside the point. You have to look the entire thing and see how they work together, AEW&C, ground control, tankers, over the horizon radar and fighters and strike aircraft. You can say, oh aircraft X has such and such a combat radius therefore it is better than aircraft Y, but unless you go well X will require, A, B and C to be survivable, where as Y is survivable without but then much more able to exploit advantages provided by B and C and also has the support of D and E which multiply it's effectiveness.

HuninMunin
02-28-2008, 08:15 AM
Asraam has a shorter range then the Archer ( not even talking R-74 here ): 19 to 24 km.
Where did you hear otherwise?
Asraam is a better weapon because of it's bigger ne-zone; if at all.

Aim-9X and Iris have a larger performence advantage over modern Archers then Asraam.

As to the Lighting IIs WVR performence it is doubtable that it will reach potential comparable to latest Vipers and/or Superbugs.
It pays a heavy price for it's weight and layout.
TVR does not mean high corner speeds or a superior substained turn in a realistic WVR engagement.

The Raptor is a sierra hotel fighter because it's T/W allows it to AVOID TnB fiests whereever possible.
A mandatory feature of superior fighter aircraft since 1940.

You cannot have a superior swingrole fighter that shines in WVR and at the same time remains low signature.
It's a design contratiction and one of the main problems the JSF programm had since the beginning.
I'm convinced that LH-M will deliver an aircraft capable to perform good in it's intended roles, but I highly doubt it will shine in any.

Korolov1986
02-28-2008, 11:49 AM
Quite frankly, I think the F/A-18E/F would be a good move for the RAAF, if it weren't for the fact that range doesn't come near the F-111. But on the other hand, by using the Super Hornet as a interim aircraft (no such thing, but let's make believe) means they can maintain some commonality with the current F/A-18A/B fleet they have.

On the other hand, the F-111 is such an old aircraft that you'd have to retrain the crews regardless, and the commonality between the Super Hornet and the legacy Hornet isn't THAT great, so I personally would have opted for a F-15E subtype.

I believe the F-22 and the F-35 get lots more attention than they deserve. The F-35 has to replace a versatile multirole platform (F-16) and I don't think it's cut out for that. It also doesn't take into account the current trends for UCAVs which will be a massive factor by the time the F-35 is ready for service. The F-22, as we all know, is still a purebred fighter, and the USAF's attempts to brand it as a multirole aircraft are just wrong IMO.

WOLFMondo
02-28-2008, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by HotelBushranger:

I disagree. It's a bit unfair to compare technologies 60 years apart. What would have happened if those Me-262's and He-162's had radar and well trained pilots? There would have been a significant difference.


I agree in part but some of 262 pilots were some of the most experianced surviving Luftwaffe pilots.

The-Pizza-Man
02-29-2008, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
You cannot have a superior swingrole fighter that shines in WVR and at the same time remains low signature.
It's a design contratiction and one of the main problems the JSF programm had since the beginning.


Since when? How are LO and agility mutually exclusive in a swing role fighter and not in air superiority fighter? What makes them so different? The F-35 has been designed to have a minimum of the same agility as an F-16A, which is more agile than current C and E versions. Just compare the thrust to weight ratios, the F-35s are as good if not better, but it's also carrying 18,500 lb of fuel internally, only ~10% less than the F-22^. The F-35 isn't hindered by draggy external tanks, weapons or targeting pods with the exception of maybe some wing tip WVR missiles. It will hardly be a pig in a dog fight, furthermore, it will have a big advantage sensory advantage with its DAS. The old addage of lose sight lose the fight is still true, the sensor system on its own will give F-35 pilots a better view of the sky and ground, but when you throw in the networking and sensor fusion capabilities, which will really be second to none, the advantage begins to look dominating.



------------------
^-For those who think the F-35 will be short ranged or shorter ranged than the F-22 need to think about this number a bit. Considering that the F-22 has 2 engines of similar size and power to the F-35 and it is larger, heavier and obviously optimised or has had concessions made to higher speed cruise causing it's fuel efficiency at cruise to be less than that of the F-35 one has to wonder how the F-22 could possibly have a longer range.

Bartman.
02-29-2008, 10:32 PM
Regardless of capabilities and requirements i think the most cost effective alternative is to build the euro typhoon here in Australia effectively creating job's and a possible s.e.asia market correct me if i'm wrong but i'm sure Bae systems have two assembly plants here up and running.. one in south aust' and one in south east Qld building the hawk 200 .

It's up and running in sqn service in Germany and the u.k.and if i remember correctly in the typhoon doco' i watched recently it is close to some of the capabilities of the f 22 and a hell of a lot cheaper and probably easier to maintain .

Bartman

Badsight-
02-29-2008, 11:29 PM
or even better , make the F-35 locally

will never happen , but getting the licence for the Typhoon wont either

will the EU allow Typhoon sales to Australia ? they sold some to Saudi Arabia

the aussie politician Raptor comments are just grand-standing . they will come back with a "NO - but heres a different deal" to gloss the aussie public over

Bartman.
03-01-2008, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
or even better , make the F-35 locally

will never happen , but getting the licence for the Typhoon wont either

will the EU allow Typhoon sales to Australia ? they sold some to Saudi Arabia

the aussie politician Raptor comments are just grand-standing . they will come back with a "NO - but heres a different deal" to gloss the aussie public over


Well we got to build Bae hawk 200's but like you say getting a licence deal for the typhoon mite be a another issue altogether not so much with the brits' but maybe the rest of the eu may need to agree , i suppose it would depend on percentages of units built/sold and sourced from Australia the eu contractors would evidently want there cut in units sold out of there traditional markets .

Bartman .

fordfan25
03-02-2008, 12:12 AM
http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/supercruise.html

can cruise at mach 1.5+ with out AB's. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Bremspropeller
03-02-2008, 04:30 AM
will the EU allow Typhoon sales to Australia ? they sold some to Saudi Arabia


Yes it will. They're currently talking with Japan, where the old F-4EJs and some F-15Js/ -15DJs need replacement.

But the Typhoon-deal would have some sort of interim-character, as Japan aims for a stealth-fighter anyway.
I'm pretty sure they's be satisfied with the Tiffie, though.

The only question is, which Tranche they'd like to buy, as Japan is not allowed to have a/c with offensive capabilities.