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 F-15 Eagle
True but what will replace the F-15s? The AF had oringinaly planed to keep 177 ...
True but what will replace the F-15s? The AF had oringinaly planed to keep 177 F-15c and 224 F-15E until 2025 but it looks like their going to keep all 700 or so F-15s even there already on average 25 years old execpt for the F-15E which are more like 10 years old. If their going to replace them with F-35s then they better add 700 addittional F-35s to the 1763 for a total of 2463 F-35s for the USAF alone plus the 680 for the Navy and USMC. Otherwise your looking at a major reduction in the USAF fighter force which will not sit too well with the USAF or congrees for that matter. Whether it be more F-22s or F-35s they better come up with something ASAP to replace those F-15s.
The F-35 will be replacing their F-15 and F-16 fighters to various degrees. Hence WHY I am so confident the F-35 won't be "axed" as some would have us believe.
Some former F-15 users have already switched to F-22A, as will the former Nitehawk users.
The F-15E's have PLENTY of life left and won't be needing replacement before 2030 at least... AS to which aircraft will be in production then, one can only guess, but I suspect it will be F-35, UCAV's or nothing...
The F-35 will be replacing their F-15 and F-16 fighters to various degrees. Hence WHY I am so confident the F-35 won't be "axed" as some would have us believe.
Some former F-15 users have already switched to F-22A, as will the former Nitehawk users.
The F-15E's have PLENTY of life left and won't be needing replacement before 2030 at least... AS to which aircraft will be in production then, one can only guess, but I suspect it will be F-35, UCAV's or nothing...
I agree with you.
187 F-22s and 1763 F-35s is enough to replace the F-15s and F-16s and F-117s but I really don't think they should replace the A-10. In fact the A-10s have been upgraded to the A-10C and can now carry JDAMs and should remain in service until 2028. If the A-10s wear out then build new ones such as a A-10D possibly.
When the USAF suggest their forthcoming needs, they build the numbers from the ground up, not as replacement planes. Simply put, after 30 years, many of the first F-15s aren't any better than later F-16s, or the new F-35s.
I will repeat, when it comes to a multi-role fighter bomber, nothing will beat the F-35. As a fighter only, then the F-22 will beat it. Unfortunately, the F-22 line will close this fall..... I suspect the closure will have to happen first, before the Raptors delegation will admit defeat.
As the Lockheed Martin video claims, its easier to place more bombs on a single engine aircraft and get better performance with a double engine aircraft. This is just a simple rule of thumb, it does not mean that a single engine aircraft can't be a fighter, or a double engine aircraft can't be a bomber. But this is what the USAF and Lockheed are going with.
After discussions between the Administrator and the Mod Teams any further discussions in relation to the Exportability of the F-22 and related subjects are requested to cease until such time as a MAJOR announcement is made by an appropriate authority confirming that the F-22 is available for export outside the United States.
An appropriate authority would include: the USAF, Lockheed Martin or an official US Government (Executive/Congressional) announcement.
The arguments back and forth about this have become entirely circular and are no longer providing the quality discussions we are seeking for this site, merely rehashing the same old ground.
Please continue to enjoy the site and discuss any defence related topics that appeal to you. Just give this one a rest. All similar discussions will be monitored closely from now on.
I believe that the raptors need fewer numbers but have same capability, they are a huge leap over existing fighters, unmatched really...(well so far). So before anyone starts on about the USAF needing more F-22's than it bought is well erm, a little wrong... If this aircraft can take down more planes with less aircraft the USAF does not need to supplement ALL the F-15's it is simply not cost effective...
Australia is not looking for a dedicated fighter capability, imagine the costs associated (excluding the cost of the aircraft) with maintaining two types of such advanced aircraft... Secondly, the F-35 has the exact same capabilities (minus "supercruise") and can carry similar payloads and fuel loads and has the same LO characteristics of the F-22 although one thing that could be added to both aircraft is 3D thrust vectoring.
In fact, you could almost say the the F-35 is a better aircraft overall because of its more capable "5.1" (raptor being 5.0) architecture and the above characteristics, only outmatched in a dogfight or against an F-22 (or comparable) aircraft.
SORRY AD WAS POSTING AS YOU WROTE THAT...
Mod edit:
That's okay. Topics on the F-22 itself are fine, but we would like these endless (and pointless) what if discussions to cease until there IS a point to them.
Last edited by Aussie Digger; April 2nd, 2008 at 08:12 AM.
I believe that the raptors need fewer numbers but have same capability, they are a huge leap over existing fighters, unmatched really...(well so far). So before anyone starts on about the USAF needing more F-22's than it bought is well erm, a little wrong... If this aircraft can take down more planes with less aircraft the USAF does not need to supplement ALL the F-15's it is simply not cost effective...
That depends on the threat environment. The whole "4 times more capable argument" is isntantly mooted when the threat moves forward a generation. Did we halve our fighter force when we transitioned from Mirage to Hornet? An F/A-18A would have been twice as capable after all.
Quote:
Australia is not looking for a dedicated fighter capability, imagine the costs associated (excluding the cost of the aircraft) with maintaining two types of such advanced aircraft... Secondly, the F-35 has the exact same capabilities (minus "supercruise") and can carry similar payloads and fuel loads and has the same LO characteristics of the F-22 although one thing that could be added to both aircraft is 3D thrust vectoring.
The cost of operateing an F-22A fleet would be marginally more than an F-35, but comperable AFAIK. Both platforms have the logistical complications of maintaining LO but IIRC measures have been introduced to minimize its logistical impact and baseing footprint in both programmes. The real increase in cost would be in the aquisition cost, which could be 150~200% higher (which would probably mean a 50~100% increase in through life costs). We would also loose the advantages of a one platfrom fleet, but it seems we intend to sacrifice this with the F-35 & F/A-18F BII fleet anyway.
A multi role F-22A (ala F-15E) would need to be developed to make it a more attractive option. I wont go into the likelyhood of this occuring (sorry MOD's), but slim to none may be an apt discription.
Quote:
In fact, you could almost say the the F-35 is a better aircraft overall because of its more capable "5.1" (raptor being 5.0) architecture and the above characteristics, only outmatched in a dogfight or against an F-22 (or comparable) aircraft.
The MMI, EW/EWSP, weapons & sensor suites should all be more advanced on the F-35 at IOC, but again it would be hard to argue it was superior or more advanced. The F-16 was technologically more advanced than the F-15 at IOC but you could hardly argue that it was 4.1th gen compared to 4th. One may be more versatile or affordable but overall superiority is subjective. They are both designed for different roles therefore meaningfull comparisons in terms of superiority are difficult to achieve.
Last edited by Ozzy Blizzard; April 6th, 2008 at 10:31 AM.
Reason: iiingriissh
That depends on the threat environment. The whole "4 times more capable argument" is isntantly mooted when the threat moves forward a generation. Did we halve our fighter force when we transitioned from Mirage to Hornet? An F/A-18A would have been twice as capable after all.
I agree with what you have said to a point, in the Australian Example halving our fighter force leaves us with an almost non existent capability Australia is currently at our bare bones as such in terms of force, we have the smallest force possible to remain effective, with the F-35 purchase of 100 we are essentially putting meat on our bones.
The US however has an on overkill number of fighters designed for a cold war scenario, this can work for the US in that they may have say 1000 F-15's but to keep the same effectiveness nowadays it only needs say 500 (just throwing figures around).
Quote:
The cost of operateing an F-22A fleet would be marginally more than an F-35, but comperable AFAIK. Both platforms have the logistical complications of maintaining LO but IIRC measures have been introduced to minimize its logistical impact and baseing footprint in both programmes. The real increase in cost would be in the aquisition cost, which could be 150~200% higher (which would probably mean a 50~100% increase in through life costs). We would also loose the advantages of a one platfrom fleet, but it seems we intend to sacrifice this with the F-35 & F/A-18F BII fleet anyway.
A multi role F-22A (ala F-15E) would need to be developed to make it a more attractive option. I wont go into the likelyhood of this occuring (sorry MOD's), but slim to none may be an apt discription.
The cost of operating two types at once in a budget where the hornets only occasionally get to come out and play (ie it has to be budgeted for) I heard the figures of 500 000 to fully fuel (and arm?) one F/A-18. Imagine trying to maintain an effective unit across three types of aircraft when just fueling those beasts costs half the defence budget...not to mention maintenance.
Quote:
The MMI, EW/EWSP, weapons & sensor suites should all be more advanced on the F-35 at IOC, but again it would be hard to argue it was superior or more advanced. The F-16 was technologically more advanced than the F-15 at IOC but you could hardly argue that it was 4.1th gen compared to 4th. One may be more versatile or affordable but overall superiority is subjective They are both designed for different roles therefore meaningfull comparisons in terms of superiority are difficult to achieve.
As I mentioned in my previous post, an F-35 could beat an F-22 one on one but they would most likely both go down and in a dogfight an F-35 is useless. F-35 has the advantage of EOTS, ie being a 50 mile Sniper, and F-22 however needs an external pod that compromises stealth.
F-35 uses different easier to maintain materials than the F-22 which gives it another advantage over the F-22.
Oh and Btw, an F-16 has fly by wire an F-15 doesn't, this to an extent gives it an edge, only limited by range and payload, F-22 and F-35 share similar fuel loadouts and payload.
But I am in agreement that the two cannot be compared...and there is no clear winner
I agree with what you have said to a point, in the Australian Example halving our fighter force leaves us with an almost non existent capability Australia is currently at our bare bones as such in terms of force, we have the smallest force possible to remain effective, with the F-35 purchase of 100 we are essentially putting meat on our bones.
One platform can only be in one place at a time. 80~100 platforms or 4 squadrons, (no matter the generation) are the minimum needed for the RAAF. This holds true for Mirages, Hornets, Rhino's, Lightning's or Raptors. Effective capability is always dependant on the threat environment, therefore even though the new fighter they have may be 3 or 4 times as capable as the previous gen, you can not have 1/4th the orbat and expact to have comperable capability simply because the threat has evolved too. Therefore the "it can do the job of 3 XX's" argument is a moot one IMO.
Quote:
The US however has an on overkill number of fighters designed for a cold war scenario, this can work for the US in that they may have say 1000 F-15's but to keep the same effectiveness nowadays it only needs say 500 (just throwing figures around).
Thats a subjective assesment of the US's strategic requirements. Put simply if the USAF replaces 3000 F-16's, F-15's and A-10's with 2000 F-35's and F-22's they will suffer a loss of capability in contemporary terms rather than agregate. This is what i mean by the whole "3x more capable than last gen" argument which seems to be the basis for the above statement. You cant view your agregate capability alone and expect to be realistic, everything needs to be weighed against the threat.
Now does the USAF of 2020 need a fighter force the size the current beast to maintain its contemporary capability? Maybe not, considering the generational edge it enjoys now and evolveing strategic aims. But once the threat evolves to a similar level (i.e. post 2020) then (all else being equal) they will suffer a capability decline.
Quote:
The cost of operating two types at once in a budget where the hornets only occasionally get to come out and play (ie it has to be budgeted for) I heard the figures of 500 000 to fully fuel (and arm?) one F/A-18. Imagine trying to maintain an effective unit across three types of aircraft when just fueling those beasts costs half the defence budget...not to mention maintenance.
Somehow i doubt aviation fuel is that expensive (not withstanding the hidious price at the local servo ). That would mean over $100 a kg.
It would cost more than that to fully arm a Hornet, AMRAAM's alone are over $100G's a pop. But again how often do they actually fire one? Anyway we are operating a 2 platform fleet now and will be out to 2020 and possibly beyond so i'm sure we can manage it.
Quote:
As I mentioned in my previous post, an F-35 could beat an F-22 one on one but they would most likely both go down and in a dogfight an F-35 is useless. F-35 has the advantage of EOTS, ie being a 50 mile Sniper, and F-22 however needs an external pod that compromises stealth.
A one on one is a poor judgement of capability. When are they ever going to fight one annother? Were they designed for that? No. Therefore whats the point of such a comparison (apart from the fact that they can be fun once in a while)? What matters is which platform can do the task it has been set in the most effective maner, in the current threat environment. Therefore what is best is conditional on the tasking and operational requirements you have as the user.
In any case if they were to go one on one EOTS would be an advantage, but current BVR weapons would probably bu near useless in a head on shot anyway considering their respective EWSP suites and frontal X band RCS. It would degrade to WVR mighty quickly and there its would be near even. The EODAS + AIM 9X BII combination would more than equate for the F-22A's superior instentainious turn rates, but the Raptors superior kinematical capability would also be telling. Too close to call IMO.
Quote:
F-35 uses different easier to maintain materials than the F-22 which gives it another advantage over the F-22.
I understand it has a smaller baseing footprint as one of the design goals, but just how much smaller than the F-22A (which has similar measures compared to the F-117) remains to be seen. The logistical costs would be comperable anyway.
Quote:
Oh and Btw, an F-16 has fly by wire an F-15 doesn't, this to an extent gives it an edge, only limited by range and payload, F-22 and F-35 share similar fuel loadouts and payload.
The later design of the F-16 means it has a few more modern features than the F-15, such as an unstable designe. However the F-15's superiority is ot only dependant on range and payload. The F-15 has been the most capable air superiority asset in the last 30 years for a reason, even if airframe design and some avionics componants of the F-16 were more modern, the superiori radar missile combination and kinematical performance meant that the F-15 was and is a far more capable air superiority asset. The same can be said for the F-22 vis a vis the F-35 even though some componants of the latter weremore advanced. Of cource the F-16 was far more flexible than the F-15A~D but this can be atributed to its design goals.
Lets just agree to disagree on some points and agree that both aircraft have different roles and in event of combat it will be the effectivness of support units such as AWACs that will make the difference which, thankfully Australia has procured a system that will remain effective for a long time to come, does the wedgetail have any advantages over the E-3? Also can the F-35 transmit data using its radar via Wifi as on the F-22 that they are experimenting?
Having spoken to the Minister himself on this issue, it was the intention of the RAAF and the DEFMIN at the time of announcing the acquisition (and even up till last week when we were discussing it) that the two platform fleet would be phased out with plan of reselling the aircraft back to the US Navy at the appropriate time.
Additionally, it was apparently thought that this acquisition would equate to a bargaining position with Boeing and LockMart when the time to negotiate prices for the JSF came.
From these discussions it appeared that the "totality" of the gaps in time-frames was the driving issue rather than one specific concern. I.e Wedgetail, MRTT, CBR, F-111 and JSF.
Brett.
Last edited by battlensign; April 7th, 2008 at 11:29 AM.
Reason: I should note that it was the then DEFMIN B. Nelson who was the contact rather than the current DEFMIN Joel
Having spoken to the Minister himself on this issue
Brett.
Mate, you will need to PM me or Aussie Digger if you are making claims about access to the DefMin.
As you can appreciate, we get people claiming things now and then which then require us to confirm them for professional integrity issues.
I am curious as there is no direct access to the DefMin except via a proscribed method, so if you can fill us in to validate your claims it would be appreciated.
I note you said you discussed this a few weeks ago, as you know Nelson hasn't been on the job for quite a while.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
). That would mean over $100 a kg. 
