EA/18G Growler

AIM-9X or ASRAAM for F/A-18F?

With the purchase of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets for RAAF service, which of the two above air-to-air missiles is a better option?

The USN is working on integrating the AIM-9X onto the Super Bug, so that is a definate option once the RAAF receives it's Block II Super Bugs. However, the 24 F/A-18Fs would be the only aircraft in RAAF service utilizing that particular air-to-air missile, until the possible addition of the F-35 Lightning II.

The other option for a WVR air-to-air missile, the ASRAAM, will see use on the "Classic" and HUG Bug F/A-18 A/Bs already in RAAF service. However, in order for the Super Bugs to make use of ASRAAM, the RAAF would need to conduct the integration on it's own. Given the significant project & technicnal management issues two other DMO projects have had, this could be a concern.

I would imagine that, for logistical reasons, having one type of WVR missile is preferable. What I'm not sure on, is whether the time, effort and cost required to fit the ASRAAM onto a Super Bug, outweighs the overall cost of adding the AIM-9X into the RAAF inventory. Does anyone know if the ADF/DMO/RAAF has looked into this?

If the RAAF elects to use the AIM-9X, here is a possible approach to storage/warstocking. Keep in mind though, the idea would need the agreement of both Australia and the US.

Australia would receive a stockpile of AIM-9X from the USN on "consignment." The weapons would belong to the USN, and Australia would pay for them on a "as expended" basis. This would allow Australia to have a reasonable warstock of AIM-9X, without needing to spend large, upfront sums, instead just coverage warehousing costs, etc. A possible advantage from the USN perspective, is secure storage closer to potential conflicts in SE Asia, the mid-East and Pacific that could be drawn upon as needed.

Interested to hear what people think on the both which option for missiles, as well as the potential for the second idea.

-Cheers

Todjaeger said:

With the purchase of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets for RAAF service, which of the two above air-to-air missiles is a better option?

The USN is working on integrating the AIM-9X onto the Super Bug, so that is a definate option once the RAAF receives it's Block II Super Bugs. However, the 24 F/A-18Fs would be the only aircraft in RAAF service utilizing that particular air-to-air missile, until the possible addition of the F-35 Lightning II.

The other option for a WVR air-to-air missile, the ASRAAM, will see use on the "Classic" and HUG Bug F/A-18 A/Bs already in RAAF service. However, in order for the Super Bugs to make use of ASRAAM, the RAAF would need to conduct the integration on it's own. Given the significant project & technicnal management issues two other DMO projects have had, this could be a concern.

I would imagine that, for logistical reasons, having one type of WVR missile is preferable. What I'm not sure on, is whether the time, effort and cost required to fit the ASRAAM onto a Super Bug, outweighs the overall cost of adding the AIM-9X into the RAAF inventory. Does anyone know if the ADF/DMO/RAAF has looked into this?

If the RAAF elects to use the AIM-9X, here is a possible approach to storage/warstocking. Keep in mind though, the idea would need the agreement of both Australia and the US.

Australia would receive a stockpile of AIM-9X from the USN on "consignment." The weapons would belong to the USN, and Australia would pay for them on a "as expended" basis. This would allow Australia to have a reasonable warstock of AIM-9X, without needing to spend large, upfront sums, instead just coverage warehousing costs, etc. A possible advantage from the USN perspective, is secure storage closer to potential conflicts in SE Asia, the mid-East and Pacific that could be drawn upon as needed.

Interested to hear what people think on the both which option for missiles, as well as the potential for the second idea.

-Cheers

Click to expand...

Nice ideas, however RAAF is reputedly going to buy AIM-9X in suffiicent quantities to equip the SH as it would any other platform, as "risk management" is a main driver behind this purchase.

RAAF wants this aircraft in-service as quickly as possible and Government is prepared to fund it...

Funds have been allocated in the budget for a weapons purchase, (including at least: AIM-9X and AGM-154C JSOW) which helps explain the large (apparent) cost...

Aussie Digger said:

Nice ideas, however RAAF is reputedly going to buy AIM-9X in suffiicent quantities to equip the SH as it would any other platform, as "risk management" is a main driver behind this purchase.

RAAF wants this aircraft in-service as quickly as possible and Government is prepared to fund it...

Funds have been allocated in the budget for a weapons purchase, (including at least: AIM-9X and AGM-154C JSOW) which helps explain the large (apparent) cost...

Click to expand...

Hmmm yes, the C model of JSOW is pricey with the IIR imaging head and the fancy broach warhead. Guess the circle is complete, you will have all three of the J-weapons... JDAM (in service, ) JASSM (soon) and now JSOW.

(off-topic)JSOW will be handy years from now when JSF arrives as it fits in the internal weapons bay. Also, testing was started recently on the powered version of the JSOW. JSOW and JASSM will significantly reduce any risk where F-22 proponents state that F-22 has more survivability in a stiff air defense environment. Assuming all the diverse kinds of passive sensor work on JSF, Surface to air missile systems are going to have a difficult time with the JSF and J-weapons.

Todjaeger said:

With the purchase of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets for RAAF service, which of the two above air-to-air missiles is a better option?

The USN is working on integrating the AIM-9X onto the Super Bug, so that is a definate option once the RAAF receives it's Block II Super Bugs. However, the 24 F/A-18Fs would be the only aircraft in RAAF service utilizing that particular air-to-air missile, until the possible addition of the F-35 Lightning II.

The other option for a WVR air-to-air missile, the ASRAAM, will see use on the "Classic" and HUG Bug F/A-18 A/Bs already in RAAF service. However, in order for the Super Bugs to make use of ASRAAM, the RAAF would need to conduct the integration on it's own. Given the significant project & technical management issues two other DMO projects have had, this could be a concern.

I would imagine that, for logistical reasons, having one type of WVR missile is preferable. What I'm not sure on, is whether the time, effort and cost required to fit the ASRAAM onto a Super Bug, outweighs the overall cost of adding the AIM-9X into the RAAF inventory. Does anyone know if the ADF/DMO/RAAF has looked into this?

If the RAAF elects to use the AIM-9X, here is a possible approach to storage/warstocking. Keep in mind though, the idea would need the agreement of both Australia and the US.

Australia would receive a stockpile of AIM-9X from the USN on "consignment." The weapons would belong to the USN, and Australia would pay for them on a "as expended" basis. This would allow Australia to have a reasonable warstock of AIM-9X, without needing to spend large, upfront sums, instead just coverage warehousing costs, etc. A possible advantage from the USN perspective, is secure storage closer to potential conflicts in SE Asia, the mid-East and Pacific that could be drawn upon as needed.

Interested to hear what people think on the both which option for missiles, as well as the potential for the second idea.

-Cheers

Click to expand...

Would be nice if ASRAAM could go on the SH. Too bad if it doesn't as it is very good, and may out perform the X at least on range?

Question: Australia is already integrating the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) on the legacy Hornet... the fancy new combat sims RAAF has even have JHMCS functionality. Since the JHMCS deal was signed off on well before the Super Hornet purchase.... wouldn't that mean that JHMCS would have to already be integrated with ASRAAM ? ( where JHMCS initial part of it's air to air functionality is built for AIM-9X) It is kind of a shame the X has to be procured if JHMCS-ASRAAM integration already exists on legacy Hornets. The only thing left to do would be some captive carry testing and firings of ASRAAM on the SH. And that is in effect more expensive then just getting the Super Hornet with all the gear it is packaged with?
I don't know and am just curious.

AIM-9X and ASRAAM out range early versions of R-73(AA11).

ELP said:

Hmmm yes, the C model of JSOW is pricey with the IIR imaging head and the fancy broach warhead. Guess the circle is complete, you will have all three of the J-weapons... JDAM (in service, ) JASSM (soon) and now JSOW.

(off-topic)JSOW will be handy years from now when JSF arrives as it fits in the internal weapons bay. Also, testing was started recently on the powered version of the JSOW. JSOW and JASSM will significantly reduce any risk where F-22 proponents state that F-22 has more survivability in a stiff air defense environment. Assuming all the diverse kinds of passive sensor work on JSF, Surface to air missile systems are going to have a difficult time with the JSF and J-weapons.

Click to expand...

Precisely RAAF's point, I expect. They look at a total capability POV, whereas detractors concentrate on raw airframe performance and assume everything else is equal (or more usually, almost completely in the favour of the "enemy" ie: radar performance and "firepower" whatever that means exactly).

If this WERE the case, then I suspect ALL users of Western combat aircraft would have a few very pointed questions to the designers of their current and future combat aircraft because obviously despite the overwhelmingly superior resources they hae to work with, they simply can't design a superior combat aircraft to the Russians, with sole exception of the F-22...

Of course, every time they've had to go into battle rather than "exercises" they've shown themselves to be demonstrably superior, but hey, analysis performed on open source data suggests otherwise, so it must be right. Right?

Still it's good to see the APA crowd making a "useful" contribution to the Australian Defence "debate" now that virtually any chance of their preferred F-111/F-22 combo has vanished. Nothing but "doom and gloom" seems to be their motto now...

Maybe they could divert their considerable intellect into an Australian way of thinking, ie: "finding ways of making do with what we've GOT".

As to the RAAF weapons package. There is a program at present, Air 5349 (phase 2) which will acquire further stocks of standoff and A2G weapons for RAAF and may include an ARH type missile. JSOW-ER is also likely to be acquired or at least "kits" acquired, to convert existing stocks.

Incidentally, the SHB2 seems perfect for a SEAD role and the addition of HDAM or equivalent would greatly increase RAAF's operational capability...

I don't see how the APA group can be so negitive. The F-35 and the Superhornets are both hugely expensive and massively capable platforms. From which extremely capable munitions can be delivered.

JSOW-ER would certainly be a big addition. But how long until its expected to appear?

I suppose the RAAF is looking at the future and getting as many F-35 suitable munitions and technologies avalible on current F-18 and SH aircraft.

I don't know about the US letting us have the missiles on a as per fired bases. They proberly think Australia is rich enough to pay if they want them. Australia doesn't fire a whole lot of live muntions so it would be an expensive exercise for the US. Unless they really expected to use them regionally or wanted Australia to use them. Its more likely they are going to be used else where.

StingrayOZ said:

I don't know about the US letting us have the missiles on a as per fired bases. They proberly think Australia is rich enough to pay if they want them. Australia doesn't fire a whole lot of live muntions so it would be an expensive exercise for the US. Unless they really expected to use them regionally or wanted Australia to use them. Its more likely they are going to be used else where.

Click to expand...

The premise behind the idea I think is good, whether or not it's viable...:unknown Basically it's an attempt to address or mitigate warstocking issues in Australia, while at the same time, providing the US with another location for storage of munitions, which might be closer to potential conflict areas. In some ways, it can be thought of as "pre-positioning" much like the pre-positioning of weapons/vehicles in Europe for NATO use during the Cold War. I freely admit, I don't know whether the DoD would consider storing munitions in Australia and advantage or not, not to mention how valueable it is to have forward ordnances areas.

I think the advantages from Australia's POV are pretty clear. What is less clear is if it is to the advantage of the US to do so. I can see circumstances where USN subs and surface vessels might benefit in re-arming in Australian ports. AFAIK Tomahawk cannisters aren't able to be replenished at sea due to weight concerns. Having a supply available in Australia could allow US vessels to re-arm without needing to transit to a US base. Alternatively, the stockpile could be shipped from Australia to where the weapons are needed, taking less time depending on destination, than if they were shipped directly from the US. This sort of solution could conceivably be applied to any sort of munition, not just missiles, I would assume though it would mostly be applied to high cost and/or limited use items. The type of weapon where Australia would like to have it in inventory, but either the cost is prohibitive, and/or the minimum order qty exceeds the expected need by a fair margin.

If anyone has info on how the DoD handles inventory management, I'd be interested to hear it.

-Cheers

Oh for sure, Australia would love to be a part of it.

Keep your stuff here and we can use it! We have plenty of space...

I think you would find Australia would load every thing it had with everything they ever kept here. Tomahawks from patrol boats!

But where is the US advantage. They can fly anything they want to nearly any port in the world with in 20 hours. Everywhere they strike one of these deals, they are unlikely to sell that weapon system, or simular weapon systems. Not only that Australia would directly eat into their stockpile.

Australia while it has a key location in its region, is not close enough to potential hotspots. Why not Japan? They are closer to regional hotspots like china, North korea etc. Why not Guam? Why not some other small USA territory. There just doesn't seem to be enough trade of value on both sides to make this deal work.

Maybe some sort of cost sharing deal where Australia pay maybe 75% of the cost and the US keeps some inventory here. But then Indonesia and everybody else will want the same deal.

Maybe we could lease them like the UK leases its nukes?

StingrayOZ said:

Oh for sure, Australia would love to be a part of it.

Keep your stuff here and we can use it! We have plenty of space...

I think you would find Australia would load every thing it had with everything they ever kept here. Tomahawks from patrol boats!

But where is the US advantage. They can fly anything they want to nearly any port in the world with in 20 hours. Everywhere they strike one of these deals, they are unlikely to sell that weapon system, or simular weapon systems. Not only that Australia would directly eat into their stockpile.

Australia while it has a key location in its region, is not close enough to potential hotspots. Why not Japan? They are closer to regional hotspots like china, North korea etc. Why not Guam? Why not some other small USA territory. There just doesn't seem to be enough trade of value on both sides to make this deal work.

Maybe some sort of cost sharing deal where Australia pay maybe 75% of the cost and the US keeps some inventory here. But then Indonesia and everybody else will want the same deal.

Maybe we could lease them like the UK leases its nukes?

Click to expand...

A couple of things for clarification and an example of what I mean.
(please note, quantities and pricing provided by the WAG Institute )

Australia places an initial stocking order for the JASSM, total quantity of 50 missiles (@ US$500,000 ea) for deployment from F/A-18 A/B and F-35 JSF when in service. The US ships to Australia a further 200 JASSM, which remain US property. Australia secures the US JASSMs in a dept, which the US can pick up if needed to reload/rearm. Also, if Australia needs additional JASSM, the ADF can remove some of the JASSM from the depot for use, and pays the US on a per JASSM basis that is taken into Australian service.

It's true that with the US logistical support, large quantities of weapons can be rapidly shipped around the world, it isn't always fast enough, and typically the greater the speed, the lower the efficiency. I do assume that the US does store some weapons at the various bases and naval stations in the Pacific. If memory serves though, these bases are located either in the northern or central Pacific. Not to mention I'm not sure if all of the locations are currently able to also have a CBG dock (Guam comes to mind). Ultimately the question becomes, is the logistical setup for US munitions such that a storing arrangement with Australia, as described above, of little or no value?

Not something I have the expertise to answer.

-Cheers

Todjaeger said:

It's true that with the US logistical support, large quantities of weapons can be rapidly shipped around the world, it isn't always fast enough, and typically the greater the speed, the lower the efficiency. I do assume that the US does store some weapons at the various bases and naval stations in the Pacific. If memory serves though, these bases are located either in the northern or central Pacific. Not to mention I'm not sure if all of the locations are currently able to also have a CBG dock (Guam comes to mind). Ultimately the question becomes, is the logistical setup for US munitions such that a storing arrangement with Australia, as described above, of little or no value?

Not something I have the expertise to answer.

-Cheers

Click to expand...

I can't see any real benefit to the US from storing munitions stocks in Australia. The only permanent bases are for communications and American combat ships and aircraft only visit for exercises. AFAIK CBGs generally do port visits to Fremantle, Hobart ( nuclear carriers) and Sydney (non nuclear carriers) on the way home to the USA following a deployment so whilst they do take on general stores they wouldn't have any pressing need to replenish their weapons stocks.

Cheers

StingrayOZ said:

....

Maybe we could lease them like the UK leases its nukes?

Click to expand...

We don't lease our nukes!

We have a shared stock of Trident missiles with the USN. There is a pool of missiles, which is part-owned by the UK, mostly owned by the USA, in proportion to the numbers of missiles we use, but neither we, nor the USA, owns individual missiles within the pool. When missiles are removed from a sub for overhaul, they're replaced by others drawn from the pool. When they have been serviced, they go back into the pool. This arrangement was made to save the cost of setting up a dedicated British servicing facility for the missiles, & to reduce the number needed. It also reduced US costs, so they were happy to agree to it.

The warheads fitted to the missiles carried on RN submarines are not American. They are wholly owned by the UK & made in the UK, a few miles south of where I'm sitting now. I know people who work there.

Todjaeger said:

A couple of things for clarification and an example of what I mean.
(please note, quantities and pricing provided by the WAG Institute )

Australia places an initial stocking order for the JASSM, total quantity of 50 missiles (@ US$500,000 ea) for deployment from F/A-18 A/B and F-35 JSF when in service. The US ships to Australia a further 200 JASSM, which remain US property. Australia secures the US JASSMs in a dept, which the US can pick up if needed to reload/rearm. Also, if Australia needs additional JASSM, the ADF can remove some of the JASSM from the depot for use, and pays the US on a per JASSM basis that is taken into Australian service.

It's true that with the US logistical support, large quantities of weapons can be rapidly shipped around the world, it isn't always fast enough, and typically the greater the speed, the lower the efficiency. I do assume that the US does store some weapons at the various bases and naval stations in the Pacific. If memory serves though, these bases are located either in the northern or central Pacific. Not to mention I'm not sure if all of the locations are currently able to also have a CBG dock (Guam comes to mind). Ultimately the question becomes, is the logistical setup for US munitions such that a storing arrangement with Australia, as described above, of little or no value?

Not something I have the expertise to answer.

-Cheers

Click to expand...

Whether it's a good idea or not, it's not the way the ADF have gone about the JASSM or JDAM purchases (or the reputed JSOW-C purchase). ADF has acquired 250+ JASSM missiles and 2500+ JDAM kits (numbers publicly notified via the US FMS announcements system) and the rumour about JSOW-C is that at least 500x weapons are to be acquired.

On top of this there is a "phase 2" already planned for the follow-on standoff weapon project, under which ER variants of JASSM and JSOW are likely to be acquired as well as additional warstocks and/or weapons types. RAAF had a plan several years ago to acquire a "family of weapons" for it's air combat aircraft, including a standoff weapon, an anti-radiation weapon and a "littoral support" weapon. With the purchase of the entire "J" series range of weapons they've very nearly achieved this desire, with the sole exception of the anti-radiation weapon and this may or may not be acquired under AIR 5439 phase 2.

Alternatively, "imaging guided" JSOW's may make this type of weapon unnecessary...

These are not insignificant quantities of weapons in anyone's language...

Updating SH requirement

Hi, i'm new to this board, and am from Malaysia.

Well I'm 1 of the many that would like to see our country have a bigger defence budget and buy those damm SH. LOL.

anyways.. from the time when the proposal was put forard by both boeing and Malaysia.. the Boeing have crated a new version the Growler.

So i was wondering if it is possible to create a F/A- 18 F/G version which is capable at both the strike and as a EW platform, and that Malaysia should update its request for this type of platform. As a potential buyer and as we approah the next decase, funds will be available then, hence i think Malaysia should push for this platform. I would certainly be excited if this version, purchase can be realised.

If russian aircrafts can be tailor made to be the best of both worlds, y cant the hornet be made to perform both roles, that toowithin the companies own products?

The potential use of these aircraft would only be in spratly's and the EW add's on as better defence against the capabilities of the China's air force over sea.

http://www.flightglobal.com/article...firms-aim-9x-selection-for-super-hornets.html

Australia confirms AIM-9X selection for Super Hornets

Australia has confirmed that its Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet acquisition will include the purchase of the Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missile, and potentially also Raytheon's ATFLIR targeting pod.


Intresting I thought the RAAF would of used the ASRAAM!

The_Jet said:

http://www.flightglobal.com/article...firms-aim-9x-selection-for-super-hornets.html

Australia confirms AIM-9X selection for Super Hornets

Australia has confirmed that its Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet acquisition will include the purchase of the Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missile, and potentially also Raytheon's ATFLIR targeting pod.


Intresting I thought the RAAF would of used the ASRAAM!

Click to expand...

As discussed above it is probably easier to go for OTS rather than paying integration costs for a new weapon.

Also any stocks of AIM-9X will be able to be carried by F-35, as will the ASRAAM as they are both to be integrated.

StingrayOZ said:

I don't see how the APA group can be so negitive. The F-35 and the Superhornets are both hugely expensive and massively capable platforms. From which extremely capable munitions can be delivered.

Click to expand...

These platforms are indeed extreemly capable. Coupled with munitions like the JASSM, they are formidable strike platforms.

But if you objectively have a look at the fighters they are likely to encounter throughout the region they are clearly outmatched, the SH especially. The SU XX family pose a real threat, they are very capable air superiority platforms. On an energy basis, flanker wins hands down, on a slow speed handling basis, flanker wins hands down, on a radar basis, SH/F35 win (although with the size of the nozecone in the SU XX allows more powerfull radars to be placed, and the softwre used is an area that an advantage can quickly be lost), on a IRST/Optical basis, flanker wins, the IRST housing on the flanker is huge and advanced models will be equiped within the next 5 years. It should be noted that in clear conditions these systems will be able to passively detect F35's at decent ranges (100km+), stealth or not. On a wepaons basis its hard to tell. The AIM 120 is a damn good missle. However newer russian variants of the R27 and the R77 are going too be a real pain in the ass. Some variants are now equiped with IR seekers that is claimed to be able to aquire targets at 11NM, these missiles have the capability to have mid cource guidance via datalink from the IRST on the flanker. Thats bad news for the F35. Networking, SH/F35, win hands down. Although this advantage will be reduced over the next decate, especially with the proliferation of AWE&C aircraft to threat nations, and the proliferation of counter ISR weapons.

The russians have been working on systems to counter western stealth and information advantages. Advanced IRST that will equip the SUXX family will be able to detect stealth aircraft at decent ranges and engage them with long range IR/optical guided missiles in BVR combat. Counter ISR missiles do pose a real threat to the only real advantage the F35 has over the flanker, networking with the wedetail. What happens if some of these missiles force the AWE&C's to shut down or is even shot down? The F35's will be on there own aginst a much better airodynamic and kenetic performer who will be able to see them. These advances can not bee blown off just because they are russian. As a fighter, without the stealth the F35 is a pretty poor performer, a long ranged F18A if you will (obviosly with better radar and avionics). In the strategic environment we will be facing in the 2015+ timeframe there will be large numbers of a better air domincane fighter in the region, and the qualitative advantage held by the RAAF on a platform basis will be lost (in air to air combat).

It seems that stating that any russian technology can be comperable or even better than western systems, even ones designed for different roles, is seen by many as just propaganda. The easy victories achieved by western air forces in the 90's seem to have created this feeling of total superiority over over threat aircraft. However these scenarios were not fought on an equal terms, all the major advantages were held by USAF in desert storm, Kosovo and OIF/OEF. The RAAF may not enjoy a similar situation. Some might calim that there is no way that the russians can design better systems than the US given the resources that the US can poor into R&D. This is true. The F35 will be the wolds most capable strike fighter, much more capable than its russian counterparts such as the MiG 29m or multi role SU XX. The same can be said for air dominance. The Su XX family is no match for the F22. However this does not automatically mean the US platform designed for strike/CAS can outperform the russian platform designed for air superiority at air to air combat. To asume that even though there is ample evidence to the cortrary would be very foolish. And the fact is that these capable air superiority fighters are proliferating throughout the region. This fact seriosly needs to be considered when we think about our fufture force structure.

I was very scheptical of APA's claims for the same reason as most, namely the conflict of interest that seemed to permiate their (manely Dr Karlo Kopp's) analysis. The F22A/F111S idea is a bad one IMO. But just becaus this plan has been put forward does not mean that the arguments made by APA can just be dissreguarded. The fact's speak for themselvs. The F35 is not an air superiority fighter, the SU XX is. And the advantages held by the F35 are being reduced, however the advantages held by the SU XX can not be made good as they are fundimental diferances in the design. We do need the F22, but that doesent mean we need to ditch the F35. Even a squadron sized purchase would be adequate. As an australian tax payer, I will be more than willing to pay my share towards it.

Raptor

The only way Australia is going to get the Raptor is if you steal it. So then you want to look at the Typhoon??? This argument of this plane that plane is getting tedious in the extreme. So what I suggest is the APA people organise a third party to conduct some espionage in order for Australia to get detailed info on the Raptor so that our vast aerospace industry can manufacture them here. If they aint going to sell it your arguing a purchase for the sake of arguing for a purchase and if the Raptor is the only a/c to cut it and they arent going to sell it well then we are simply clogging valuable internet bandwith with these discussions. Thats simply my point of view.

So stop debating the future force structure of the RAAF, when the strategic environment is changing rapidly, and we are debating the single largest military purchase in the history of the commonwealth, when the RAAF is the principle defencive arm, because the current US government wont sell the F22 and there has been no formal request made?

Sorry mate but this is too important just to let it slide becaus some people who arn't really interested in the future of australia's primary defencive arm are getting sick of it. It needs to be debated. And if your not Australian then why whould you care what we are debating since you obviosly don't have a stake in it. If your getting sick of it then dont read it.

P.S. Typhoon would make things worse not better. Why would we want to look at that as a replacement for the F35?

This is becoming ridiculous in the extreme.

USG has said that the F-22 is not available. If the USG reps are lying, then its encumbent on Australian F-22 advocates to point it out to any friendly US political opposition members and get them challenge the statement and to retract it.

Just as Australian Govt and ADF officials are obliquely sledged as lying to protect the JSF as a procurement decision, its encumbent on the critics to openly accuse them so as to add weight (if any) to their responses. Courts of law have a way of sorting out the pretenders. Challenge the participants so that they can respond via judicial process - or drop it. The continued whiteanting via tame journos (some of whom were the drongos who criticised Collins) is transparent.

Who and where has anyone in the current US administration at a decision making level said that Australia could have the F-22?

Its not going to happen - there are just as many democratic congress people opposed to it being sold offshore as there are republicans.

I'd like to see late Block Ticonderogas and Virginias in the RAN, but that won't happen either.

Its about time the F-22 advocates point blank demonstrate that USG reps are lying, that they're misrepresenting availability and that they are in a position to be challenged about their comments in Congress where the americans can sort out who should be saying what.

Its about time that they openly showed the cut of their cloth and accused specific individuals within AustGov or ADF so that everyone can see due process at work.

This continual bleating for an unavailable platform is wasting space and bandwidth.

So that precludes this platform being available in the 10yr to 15yr timeframe?

When did i say anyone in goverment, US or Australian, was lying? You brought that to the discussion not me.

If in this timeframe the platform is still unavailable, then we are stuck with the F35. If this is the case in then the RAAF will have lost its qualitatlve advantage on a platform v platform basis, in terms of air superiority. And this does not bother you?? Because it bothers me. But if you disagree with that premace then i'm all ears.

We are spending $16bn on the F35, but discussing the merits of that purchase is a waste of time right?

I supose discussing the future strategic situation in the region is too then?