Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Air Force & Aviation
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

IMG_0616.JPG

IMG_0615.JPG

IMG_0614.JPG

IMG_0613.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

This is a discussion on Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Ozzy Blizzard Why not? Kindergaden style "he got the toy mumy, its mine"? Export versions of the ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 16 votes, 4.25 average.
Old February 25th, 2008   #901
Senior Member
Colonel
F-15 Eagle's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,332
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzy Blizzard View Post
Why not? Kindergaden style "he got the toy mumy, its mine"? Export versions of the F-22A would make any further USAF models cheaper, it would probably mean they will get more. And what risk? Name a single major security breach reguarding US tech/intel (or anyones in fact) by the ADF/DSTO/DMO/ASIS/DIO/Whatever. I bet you cant.

Security risk re the ADF has nothing to do with it, neither does this whole "who's toy is it" argument. GF summed it up quite well, the geo-political ramifications are far too significant to just sell it to us. If there was a desission to sell it to all tier one allies, which means NATO, ABC, Japan, SK & Isreal then sure, but then you would have real security concerns (japan + isreal = PROC know someting they shouldnt). So basically the whole cass cant play becasue a couple of the kiddies were bad. It sucks but thats the nature of the beast.
Even if the F-22 was cheaper, the USAF still wont get the 381 it needs because the pentagon wont let them. They want to cap, not because they have to at 183. And instead buy the cheaper F-35. Its penny wise but pound foolish...or something like that. As for the security, I bet i can. congress says the tech from the f-22 can be leaked to other countries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorpete1 View Post
Come on eagle, the United States Air Force can't get all the raptors it wants, because of funding issue's not production problems/ limited production issues. LM would be happy to make and sell more raptors. Infact, allowing foreign sales would help keep the F-22 production line open, and slightly lower the cost of the aircraft and all in all make it easier for hte USAF to aquire more F-22's. It's in the US's interest to allow foreign sales to close allies (Australia and Japan). The only risk to american securty is if they don't give out the F-22 as it means they have less allies with good planes which means they need to provided more support for those allies causing an risk to amercian security.

The only risk is tech secuirty, and it can be sanitised (ie use same RAM materials as is to be used on partner variant of the F-35, rework computer code etc).
The air force cant get all of the F-22s it wants because the Pentagon wont let them. They can build 381 its just they don't want to, instead buy the F-35. Here is a hypothetical scenario for you, lets say Australia and Japan both buy 100 F-22s each. That means there will be 200 Raptors abroad and only 183 in America...I don't find that appealing. The high tech can be leaked to other countries that can be hostile.

Last edited by F-15 Eagle; February 25th, 2008 at 06:10 PM.
F-15 Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2008   #902
Senior Member
Colonel
F-15 Eagle's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,332
Threads:
Although America faces threats from China and Russia, Australia does not. The F-22 and F-35 where designed to fight Russian and Chinese maid fighters and survive in hostile environments. But the problem is that Australia does not face any major adversary today nor will they for that matter 30 years from now. China and Russia do not have the power projection capability to attack Australia nor do they want to. In my own opinion Australia does not need the F-22 or the F-35. They would be much better off with a mixed force of MQ-9 Reaper and RQ-4 Global Hawk UAVs armed with AAMs and bombs. The RAAF then would not have to spend money on training pilots, there will not be the threat of lossing the pilot in combat, it would be cheaper and the UAVs could stay in the air for a lot longer than you could with a manned fighter. The RAAF requires the right tools and weapons for the right job and they have no need for the F-22/F-35 and they could make due much better with a force of MQ-9s and RQ-4s.

Last edited by F-15 Eagle; February 25th, 2008 at 12:39 PM.
F-15 Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2008   #903
Defense Professional / Analyst
Master Sergeant
AGRA's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 338
Threads:
Export of the F-22A won't make US acquisition of the F-22A significantly cheaper. They are buying F-22As under MYP which is about as cheap as it gets. Since any export of the F-22 is likely to be the exportable technology cleared F-22B it won't effect F-22A production line efficiencies.
AGRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2008   #904
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by F-15 Eagle View Post
Although America faces threats from China and Russia, Australia does not. The F-22 and F-35 where designed to fight Russian and Chinese maid fighters and survive in hostile environments. But the problem is that Australia does not face any major adversary today nor will they for that matter 30 years from now. China and Russia do not have the power projection capability to attack Australia nor do they want to. In my own opinion Australia does not need the F-22 or the F-35. They would be much better off with a mixed force of MQ-9 Reaper and RQ-4 Global Hawk UAVs armed with AAMs and bombs. The RAAF then would not have to spend money on training pilots, there will not be the threat of lossing the pilot in combat, it would be cheaper and the UAVs could stay in the air for a lot longer than you could with a manned fighter. The RAAF requires the right tools and weapons for the right job and they have no need for the F-22/F-35 and they could make due much better with a force of MQ-9s and RQ-4s.
To date the Reaper has been armed only with Stinger AAM's, to the best of my knowledge. These were for the purpose of self defence only. It is not a viable air combat aircraft.

The Global Hawk has never been armed and to the best of my understanding is not intended to be any time soon, if at all. It is optimised to fly subsonically at high altitude for extended periods at standoff ranges from potential threats, not exactly suitable for CAS operations in Afghanistan or anywhere ese for that matter, or defence of Australia in air defence. It will be an excellent surveillance and reconaissance platform and the Reaper would be similarly useful as well as providing a limited strike and CAS capability.

They are not suitable replacements for manned tactical fighters however.

These aircraft still need "pilots" however and air combat officers more specifically. I doubt RAAF would make much in savings from operating these aircraft as opposed to fighters, in relation to reduced training requirements but they'd lose an enormous amount of capability...

Last edited by Aussie Digger; February 26th, 2008 at 03:11 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2008   #905
Senior Member
Brigadier General
Ozzy Blizzard's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,846
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AGRA View Post
Export of the F-22A won't make US acquisition of the F-22A significantly cheaper. They are buying F-22As under MYP which is about as cheap as it gets. Since any export of the F-22 is likely to be the exportable technology cleared F-22B it won't effect F-22A production line efficiencies.
They will still enjoy economimes of scale on many componants i.e. F119, therefore it should bring cost savings on home USAF F-22A's even if there's a different production line.
Ozzy Blizzard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2008   #906
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 332
Threads:
Firstly, I am no expert, just an average military enthusiast

Whilst the F-18F is a decent aircraft, I am not entirely sure it is the best option for the long-range precision strike role currently occupied by the F-111.

Whilst the F-22 would be an ideal option; I am not sure it is entirely realistic (both politically and economically).

I would like to see the RAAF consider a version of the F-15 Strike Eagle. It has proven high-quality, long-range precision attack capability, can carry a substantial payload and has extensive, proven combat experience with multiple operators. Additionally new build aircraft are currently being built with advanced systems for Singapore (F-15SG (12 aircraft)) and South Korea (F-15K (40 aircraft)), plus the USAF use over 220 F-15E almost exclusively for close-air support. With the F-15E, the USAF already use operationally all the precision guided munitions which the RAAF would likely use including the JDAM, JSOW, WCMD and SBD. Australia could leverage this current production along with the latest aircraft systems and have a version tailored to meet the RAAFs specific needs.

With the serious delays and cost over-runs experienced by the F-35. Perhaps the F-18F purchase could continue, but instead of replacing F-111s, replace 24 of the existing F-18s (which require extensive upgrades). This would significantly upgrade our current capabilities and ensure there is no substantial capability gap should the JSF project experience further delays or additional costs. The RAAF would have a reliable MOTS (Military Off The Shelf) option until the JSF is operational in substantial numbers.

Last edited by PeterM; February 26th, 2008 at 03:55 AM.
PeterM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2008   #907
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterM View Post
Firstly, I am no expert, just an average military enthusiast

Whilst the F-18F is a decent aircraft, I am not entirely sure it is the best option for the long-range precision strike role currently occupied by the F-111.

Whilst the F-22 would be an ideal option; I am not sure it is entirely realistic (both politically and economically).

I would like to see the RAAF consider a version of the F-15 Strike Eagle. It has proven high-quality, long-range precision attack capability, can carry a substantial payload and has extensive, proven combat experience with multiple operators. Additionally new build aircraft are currently being built with advanced systems for Singapore (F-15SG (12 aircraft)) and South Korea (F-15K (40 aircraft)), plus the USAF use over 220 F-15E almost exclusively for close-air support. With the F-15E, the USAF already use operationally all the precision guided munitions which the RAAF would likely use including the JDAM, JSOW, WCMD and SBD. Australia could leverage this current production along with the latest aircraft systems and have a version tailored to meet the RAAFs specific needs.

With the serious delays and cost over-runs experienced by the F-35. Perhaps the F-18F purchase could continue, but instead of replacing F-111s, replace 24 of the existing F-18s (which require extensive upgrades). This would significantly upgrade our current capabilities and ensure there is no substantial capability gap should the JSF project experience further delays or additional costs. The RAAF would have a reliable MOTS (Military Off The Shelf) option until the JSF is operational in substantial numbers.
So er, they should operate 3 fast jet types in small numbers simultaneously?

The SH won't be cancelled until the Government reviews the decision in May this year. The current cancellation cost is $400m and is increasing at $100m per month. By May, depending on how long Government take to make a decision, the penalty could be as high as $700m.

$700m to achieve absolutely nothing. Then RAAF have to turn around and place a new order for F-15 aircraft. (I'm sure that would go down well in Australia given the current "problems" with Defence acquisitions and the F-15's crashing everywhere, I KNOW they don't relate to the "E" model we'd purchase but media and the public wouldn't differentiate).

We would then operate an F-15 model, different to that operated by the USAF and we'd lose most of the commonality benefits of operating the same type, to gain an aircraft that provides only a little more performance and a little more range and a little more payload. The SH arguably has the superior avionics and sensor capabilities which are truly important in modern warfare and are obviously far easier for current Hornet pilots to convert onto than Eagles.

Not a great deal of difference there, but cost is massively different with Singapores F-15SG's costing about $30m more per aircraft than our Super Hornets.

Taking this path would cost about $720m more than the current SH purchase, which would in effect equate to $1.42b more than the SH, for the same number of aircraft, factoring in the cancellation penalty for the Super Hornet...

We could not plug into the USAF support system to the same degree as we can with the USN support system, because our F-15 variants would be rather different to USAF spec. Our SH's are "off the shelf" for all intents and purposes (some carrier landing equipment has been replaced with land based landing equipment) and the Super Hornet is currently in the middle of a 450 odd aircraft production run, which is ahead of schedule and USN have given up airframes to allow us early access to the aircraft.

The same is not true of the F-15, with only relatively small orders for Korea and Singapore sustaining it's production line. I can't see either of those Countries giving up their production slots for us, given the small size of their orders. In my opinion any F-15's we'd choose would not be delivered until the current production runs are completed, so we wouldn't see an F-15 variant in RAAF service before 2012, meaning the F-111 would have to be extended and thus the F-15 acquisition would defeat it's primary purpose anyway...

I'm not so sure the F-15 is the aircraft for us, when you consider these things...

The F-22 is not a replacement for the F-111. It doesn't have the range either and it doesn't have the weapons or sensor capabilities to do so.

It doesn't have a maritime strike capability with an ASM like the Hornets, Supuer Hornets and F-111 do, yet this is one of our most important requirements for our air combat capability.

It would also require us to acquire and introduce the small diameter bomb at a time when we already have extensive weapon system integration tasks underway (JDAM, JASSM, Litening AT) because that's the only weapon it has for A2G operations that provides significant standoff range.

Without that weapon it can only employ bog-stock JDAM's at limited standoff range (20-25k's) which means it's only useful for attacking fixed targets within medium GBAD range...

Not much of a strike replacement in my opinion and one that is clearly inferior to the strike capability that the Super Hornet will provide...

In relation to those weapons you mentioend, I don't think RAAF will be using WCMD on any of it's aircraft, but all those other weapons will be employed, and indeed JDAM and JSOW have already been ordered for the Super Hornet, and (in the case of the JSOW) hopefully for the legacy Hornet in years to come.
  Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2008   #908
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 149
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Digger View Post
Our SH's are "off the shelf" for all intents and purposes (some carrier landing equipment has been replaced with land based landing equipment) and the Super Hornet is currently in the middle of a 450 odd aircraft production run, which is ahead of schedule and USN have given up airframes to allow us early access to the aircraft.
Sorry to go a little off-topic, but any idea what the differences actually are? Do they just remove the arresting hook and some related components (I wouldn't have thought so as I swear I've seen the hooks on at least some aussie current hornets)? Do they do away with the extension strength increases as well, and maybe the bits related to catapulting, and give a bit of a weight (and I can only assume performance) advantage?
phreeky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2008   #909
Aussie Digger
Guest
No Avatar
Posts: n/a
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by phreeky View Post
Sorry to go a little off-topic, but any idea what the differences actually are? Do they just remove the arresting hook and some related components (I wouldn't have thought so as I swear I've seen the hooks on at least some aussie current hornets)? Do they do away with the extension strength increases as well, and maybe the bits related to catapulting, and give a bit of a weight (and I can only assume performance) advantage?
The only difference is the landing instruments. RAAF Super Hornets will have ILS gear for landing on our normal land based strips.

USN Hornets have different instruments for landing on carriers. Otherwise everything else will be identical. RAAF SH's will even maintain the tail hooks...

All the info is in this thread if you want to wade through it all...
  Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2008   #910
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 149
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Digger View Post
All the info is in this thread if you want to wade through it all...
Oh OK I'd been following this thread mostly so just assumed I would have noticed it. Cheers.
phreeky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2008   #911
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 543
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aussie Digger View Post
The only difference is the landing instruments. RAAF Super Hornets will have ILS gear for landing on our normal land based strips.

USN Hornets have different instruments for landing on carriers. Otherwise everything else will be identical. RAAF SH's will even maintain the tail hooks...

All the info is in this thread if you want to wade through it all...
Plus our altimeters will be in millibars instead of the non-metric US-equivalent!

Haven't we been round and round (and round again) this whole F-15/Super Hornet/F-22 debate???

I know this thread is dozens of pages and hundreds of posts long, but it's like groundhog day everytime I log in to it!
________________
Lead, follow, or get out of the way!
Magoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2008   #912
Ship Watcher
Brigadier General
Tasman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 1,934
Threads:
Fitzgibbon happy to retain Super Hornet

In an interview on the ABC's Lateline on 25 Feb, Joel Fitzgibbon gave me a clear impression that he wants the Super Hornet deal to remain. Here is an extract:

Quote:
TONY JONES: It sounds like you're preparing the public to take the $400 million hit which will come if the contract is cancelled?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Oh not at all Tony. I've consistently said I will follow the advice of the experts who are doing the capability review. If they come to the conclusion or recommend that the Super Hornet isn't up to the job, I would have no hesitation in cancelling it. I hope, despite the lack of due process which was undertaken, and despite the rushed and maybe premature decision, I'm really hoping that the air combat review recommends that we retain the Super Hornet. In that case, we will avoid a more than $400 million penalty and that cost is growing on a daily basis, and we will avoid the sort of relationship strains you'd expect with our friends and allies in the United States for cancelling that contract. So no one will be more happy than me if we're able to take a decision to retain the Super Hornet, but I'll still be very, very unhappy about the deal that is $6.6 billion. Which is very expensive for this aircraft, and I'll remain very unhappy about the lack of process leading up to the decision.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/conte...7/s2172281.htm

Later on the interviewer tried to get the Defmin to acknowledge that he had previously criticised the SH but Fitzgibbon carefully stepped around that issue by saying, "I've never been critical of the Super Hornet per se." The reporter then proceeded to embarrass him a bit by quoting previous comments but overall I am now even more certain that cancellation of the SH and its associated penalties is the last thing the government wants.

Tas
________________
Learn from the past. Prepare for the future
Tasman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2008   #913
Banned Member
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 229
Threads:
!

Howard asked about the F-22 unofficially and were told no, and he was sweeter than the Rudd Government will ever be. The proposed export model which will be dumb down version, is a F-22 in name only.

They don't want a Japanese pilot flying it to China, and in the future Australia will be having joint exercises with China, so that's another reason why they won't give it.

The Rudd white paper is going back to the DOA, instead of the DOAAI, so procurements and spending will be along those lines, I would say.

Under the DOA the F-35B would be ideal, as it would have been if a third LHD was acquired under a DOAAI doctrine. Israel are interest in 25 or so F-35B's.

There nothing wrong with the Super Hornet deal, it's just political grandstanding in my opinion. Each expert will tell you a different thing just look at the debate over the F-111.

Forget about the F-22, once the JSF arrives the debate will be a forgotten memory.
Stryker001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2008   #914
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1
Threads:
2 cents worth

Hi all,
I am a defence enthusiast and new to this forum. I thought I would put my 2 cents in about the super hornet debate. A recent comment by Greg Sheridan appeared in the Australian newspaper (25/2/08) (can't post url)

In this comment he says "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".
sponge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2008   #915
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,377
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stryker001 View Post
...
They don't want a Japanese pilot flying it to China, ...
I don't think that's much of a risk. Why would a Japanese pilot fly his F-22 to China?

BTW, if this highly improbable event did take place, they'd give it back - after having a good look at it.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:33 AM.