EA/18G Growler

Ozzy Blizzard said:

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

Click to expand...

My comments are not even directed at you.

Blind freddy can see the arguments promoted by some are in the spectrum of a "protected covenant/cabal" hiding all available options.

My statement stands. If the plane is available then trot out the evidence. If the plane is not (and has been publicly stated by the USG). then the F-22 RAAF roundel brigade then need to stand up and directly accuse all and sundry in ADF and AustGov of lying to the public so that individuals can wear the colour of their money in court when issues of libel are generated.

The platform is not available - and until someone in US DoD or State says otherwise, then its an exercise in wishful thinking and a continued opportunity to sledge those in RAAF who actually do get access to the critical data that forms part of their decision matrix.

I continue to be stunned by the fact that those who do have access to protected and privileged data in the assessment process are regarded as less competent by those who do not have the same access levels (and some have no security clearance levels at all approp to their position).

Ozzy Blizzard said:

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?

Click to expand...

What I think would be more valuable would be to identify the air combat requires the RAAF is likely to have over the next 20-30 years. After that is done, then perhaps a good debate of the merits between different aircraft can be had. Or for that matter, how the aircraft are fitted and with what armaments.

As for the F-22, I would heartily like to see two dozen sporting a kangaroo. Having said that, the process for Australia purchasing the F-22 isn't a simple one, and would involve a fair amount of US politics. The way I read the law (no, not a lawyer) it's currently illegal to spend money for the sale or license of F-22 to foreign countries. This becomes a sticking point because under the Arms Export Control Act (part of Title 22 US Code) the State Dept needs to license the sale of arms to a foreign government, which then needs to be approved by Congress, before the sale can be made. By making it illegal to spend money on licensing, it effectively prohibits the initiation of the whole process needed to export US weapons. This is not the sort of thing that just a change in administration will get around, since Congress would become involved at two different points. While it might be possible for the F-22 to become available to Australia in the future, unless something significant happens, I don't see that happening soon. As GF said, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress are uneasy about the sale of the F-22 overseas. And there isn't a legal way to exclude Congress from participating.

And late block Ticonderogas? I would've thought late block Flight IIA Burkes... But that's another thread.

Perhaps another approach to the "Which fighter is right for Australia?" question is to ask the following question. Which fighters are currently in production, or will be in production in the next ten years? The answer to that question would significantly reduce choices I expect, and then comparisons could be made between platforms. But again, keep in mind which aircraft will actually be available.

-Cheers

Todjaeger said:

As for the F-22, I would heartily like to see two dozen sporting a kangaroo. Having said that, the process for Australia purchasing the F-22 isn't a simple one, and would involve a fair amount of US politics. The way I read the law (no, not a lawyer) it's currently illegal to spend money for the sale or license of F-22 to foreign countries. This becomes a sticking point because under the Arms Export Control Act (part of Title 22 US Code) the State Dept needs to license the sale of arms to a foreign government, which then needs to be approved by Congress, before the sale can be made. By making it illegal to spend money on licensing, it effectively prohibits the initiation of the whole process needed to export US weapons. This is not the sort of thing that just a change in administration will get around, since Congress would become involved at two different points. While it might be possible for the F-22 to become available to Australia in the future, unless something significant happens, I don't see that happening soon. As GF said, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress are uneasy about the sale of the F-22 overseas. And there isn't a legal way to exclude Congress from participating.

Click to expand...

I attended a conf some 4 years ago whewre Richard Armitage stated that the F-22 was available to australia. The builder made a more cautious comment about political process in congress being achieved first. That being said, as soon as Armitage was dropped, so was any public comment about availability for the RAAF, the conversation became the orphan stepchild of State very very quickly.

Todjaeger said:

And late block Ticonderogas? I would've thought late block Flight IIA Burkes... But that's another thread.

Click to expand...

Its a more competent vessel with better throw weight. We can't afford it anyway due to manning issues. Hell, we knocked back the 3 Tico Block 1's (a number of issues including manning levels)

Todjaeger said:

Perhaps another approach to the "Which fighter is right for Australia?" question is to ask the following question. Which fighters are currently in production, or will be in production in the next ten years? The answer to that question would significantly reduce choices I expect, and then comparisons could be made between platforms. But again, keep in mind which aircraft will actually be available.

-Cheers

Click to expand...

Major capital acquisitions for ADF usually take 12-16 year cycles, thats cradle to grave. In real terms, the replacement asset is considered concurrently with the purchase of the folding in asset. eg, platform type 1 is parked, platform type 2 is bought in, platform type 3 is reviewed at a capability level (not hardware level).

eg, when number 4 of collins was being launched, the replacement collins (mk 2) team was formed up even before 5 and 6 were filled hulls.

IMO three roles that will be vital for the RAAF are maritime strike, air superiority and presision strike.

If the F22 is still unavailable when the squadron the F18F's are replaced in the 2020ish timeframe then we will be stuck with the F35 as our air superiority fighter. And IMO that is a bad situation for us to be in.

The fact that the F22 is not available now, should not prohibit the discussion of the strategic consequences for the ADF if it is not aquired in the future. That would pretty much constitute sticking our collective heads in the sand.

Ozzy Blizzard said:

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.

Click to expand...

Down the track the RAAF may well need an air dominance fighter like the F-22 and I strongly believe that the air-forces of our regional neighbours need to be closely monitored. However, at the present time I can't see any regional air force which could not be dominated by our present force of F111Cs and FA-18A HUG Hornets. I am not talking here of possible RAAF deployments that might be made alongside the US in areas like the Korean Peninsular as they would be working with USAF F-22s in such scenarios. Indonesia, AFAIK, has only 2 Su-27s and 2 Su-30s in their inventory of ‘advanced fighters’, and their operational status is dubious.

IMO, the SH will enhance our regional air superiority at least in the short term. As well as being an excellent strike fighter it can also perform FAC and refuelling duties, so it will be a valuable asset for a number of years. My fear re the FA-18F acquisition is that failure of the F-35 program (slower than expected production rate, failure to meet specs, etc) could lead to the SH being the RAAF's only fighter. The good thing about the purchase is that it provides breathing space which will avoid Australia having to rush to buy early production F-35s and will also provide time to properly evaluate its progress and monitor regional developments. A change in the USAF F-22 program (e.g. increasing production at the expense of the JSF and/or the easing of export restrictions) could still make this aircraft an option as we are not due for second pass approval on the JSF purchase until 2008. A change of government later this year could well see a specific request to the US for access to the Raptor. It is even possible (but unlikely IMO) that a new government could turn its back completely on the JSF program, though this would no doubt be strongly opposed by the present RAAF leadership. So in some ways, IMO, the FA-18F purchase actually increases the possibility for the RAAF to consider the F-22 as part of its future force structure. This would be even more likely if late model Flankers look like reaching operational status in any sort of numbers in Indonesia.

I hope that the JSF achieves all that is being promised by the manufacturer, so that it can provide a solid backbone to the RAAF’s air combat force (supplemented by the SH initially and later perhaps by the F-22). I also hope that the RAAF keeps a careful watching brief on the air power of our regional neighbours and maintains thorough contingency planning in case the JSF does fail to deliver as promised.

Cheers

Ozzy Blizzard said:

IMO three roles that will be vital for the RAAF are maritime strike, air superiority and presision strike.

If the F22 is still unavailable when the squadron the F18F's are replaced in the 2020ish timeframe then we will be stuck with the F35 as our air superiority fighter. And IMO that is a bad situation for us to be in.

The fact that the F22 is not available now, should not prohibit the discussion of the strategic consequences for the ADF if it is not aquired in the future. That would pretty much constitute sticking our collective heads in the sand.

Click to expand...

What I have to ask, is what is the point of trying to debate the merits of acquiring a particular platform that is currently unavailable? I would suggest it would be more productive to debate a particular role, and which aircraft could fufill that role. For example, if, in Air Superiority roles, RAAF fighters are deemed "inadequate" when matched F/A-18F or F-35A vs. Su-30,33,35 or whatever current build of Flanker... Then, to get around that, the RAAF should possibly consider getting some air superiority aircraft, possibly even Flankers to send against other, hostile Flankers. On the other hand, if the RAAF deems any air superiority weakness (or strength) of a given design is acceptable given the likelyhood of air to air combat, it could be a non-issue.

For instance, compare the F/A-18 vs. Su-35 (Indonesia has ~2) In a direct, one on one air battle I would at present expect a RAAF Hornet to win (AFAIK the Su-35s in Indonesia are unarmed currently). Assuming both were armed for air combat, the the Su-35 is the likely victor, if there are no supporting units for the F-18. Once the SH with AESA enters service and/or the Wedgetail AEW&C, then I would expect the RAAF will be able to "see" any hostile fighters. The question would then become, which aircraft is able to engage the enemy sucessfully first. The Flanker might have a very good IRST, able to detect an F-35, but when would the Flanker be able to fire upon the F-35? Before or after the F-35 is able to fire upon the Flanker?

Speaking of IRST. I admit I'm ignorant of the capabilities of the Su-35 in terms of IRST, is the ability available in all angles, or is there a restriction on the approach aspect? For instance, does the nose of the Flanker have to be pointed in the direction of the area being searched with the IRST? If the answer is "yes" then there are limits to how employable it is against aircraft. Given the radars and netcentric systems available now and in the future to the ADF, and the lack of significan LO technology in the region, I would expect the RAAF to know what & where aircraft are. Similarly, with LO F-35 (even if it isn't all-aspect) the aircraft possibly blindside an enemy CAP, being able to pick and choose where and how to fight. Until regional air forces begin to also get LO aircraft, the RAAF should be a dominant air arm in the region.

-Cheers

Would the Typhoon be a reasonable air superiority fighter?

Say if we start buying F-35's, and our neighbors start to make some expensive purchases and the F-22 was still in limbo. Would the EF Typhoon be a good purchase? Say in the future when they are cheaper and better known.

Looks like it includes some low observable tech, agile, etc.

What other options are there..

Todjaeger said:

What I have to ask, is what is the point of trying to debate the merits of acquiring a particular platform that is currently unavailable? I would suggest it would be more productive to debate a particular role, and which aircraft could fufill that role. For example, if, in Air Superiority roles, RAAF fighters are deemed "inadequate" when matched F/A-18F or F-35A vs. Su-30,33,35 or whatever current build of Flanker... Then, to get around that, the RAAF should possibly consider getting some air superiority aircraft, possibly even Flankers to send against other, hostile Flankers. On the other hand, if the RAAF deems any air superiority weakness (or strength) of a given design is acceptable given the likelyhood of air to air combat, it could be a non-issue.

Click to expand...

Fair points here Todjaeger. That's why I want to see the RAAF maintain a watching brief and keep all options on the table until the time comes when a contract for the JSF is due to be signed. I imagine it will be purchased in batches in which case the option will remain to respond to any changed circumstances even after the initial contract is put in place.

What I am saying about the F-22 is that it ought to be considered if it becomes available in the future. If not the RAAF will need to look at other options and it may well be that the F-35 will prove itself able to meet all its requirements equally as well or better than other options like the Typhoon. That is certainly what the RAAF leadership believes is likely to be the case at present. I mentioned the possibility of a change of government making an official request for the F-22 because that is what the Opposition Defence spokesman constantly harps on about. At least it would put it to bed without further debate if an official request from a new government was turned down. As Ozzy said, things could change in the future. Who knows what a future American administration will determine about the F-22 or how long it will remain in production? Obviously, though, whilst the aircraft is unavailable it is irrelevant to Australia as to how well it would fit into our force structure, other than contingency planning as to where it might fit if it were to become available at a later date. Other options should also be constantly monitored. That sort of planning would seem to me to be a responsible approach on the part of the air force.

Cheers

Todjaeger said:

What I have to ask, is what is the point of trying to debate the merits of acquiring a particular platform that is currently unavailable? I would suggest it would be more productive to debate a particular role, and which aircraft could fufill that role. For example, if, in Air Superiority roles, RAAF fighters are deemed "inadequate" when matched F/A-18F or F-35A vs. Su-30,33,35 or whatever current build of Flanker... Then, to get around that, the RAAF should possibly consider getting some air superiority aircraft, possibly even Flankers to send against other, hostile Flankers. On the other hand, if the RAAF deems any air superiority weakness (or strength) of a given design is acceptable given the likelyhood of air to air combat, it could be a non-issue.

Click to expand...

I have some ideas on solutions for the RAAF's air superiority problems that i will outline in the next post.

For instance, compare the F/A-18 vs. Su-35 (Indonesia has ~2) In a direct, one on one air battle I would at present expect a RAAF Hornet to win (AFAIK the Su-35s in Indonesia are unarmed currently). Assuming both were armed for air combat, the the Su-35 is the likely victor, if there are no supporting units for the F-18. Once the SH with AESA enters service and/or the Wedgetail AEW&C, then I would expect the RAAF will be able to "see" any hostile fighters. The question would then become, which aircraft is able to engage the enemy sucessfully first. The Flanker might have a very good IRST, able to detect an F-35, but when would the Flanker be able to fire upon the F-35? Before or after the F-35 is able to fire upon the Flanker?

Click to expand...

1. Indonesia is not the only threat nation that needs to be considered. They have plans to have 50 plus in a 20 yr timeframe, whether this will eventuate is a different matter. Malaysia has ordered a squadron sized unit of SU 35MKM's, and in the next ten years PLAAF and IAF will have large numbers of advanced Flankers of various designations, and competeing interests in SE asia.

2.To assume that in the 5 to 10 year timeframe that a potential opponant would not have AWE&C & tanker support of thier own for their flanker fleet is not realistic if you are talking about any of the major regional powers.

3. With more advanced IRST being developed for the SU XX at the moment detection ranges, given decent conditions, do look like outranging the AIM 120C. And it should be noted that most russian missile variants of the R27 & R77 outrange the AMRAAM, including the IR/Optical versions that can be directed via datalink from targeting information from the IRST on the flanker. Also the no escape ranges for various missiles is much lower for the Flanker due to its speed, and much larger for the F/A 18HUG, F/A 18F (both of which can be engaged with fire and forget active radar seekers) or F35. However if the opponant is an F 18 variant the energy advantage the flanker has will not be countered at all by LO and can be engaged at longer ranges, and can not dissengage. They are outclased in all peramiters apart from radar performance (and not by much) and networking. Futher information can be found here.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html

Speaking of IRST. I admit I'm ignorant of the capabilities of the Su-35 in terms of IRST, is the ability available in all angles, or is there a restriction on the approach aspect? For instance, does the nose of the Flanker have to be pointed in the direction of the area being searched with the IRST? If the answer is "yes" then there are limits to how employable it is against aircraft. Given the radars and netcentric systems available now and in the future to the ADF, and the lack of significan LO technology in the region, I would expect the RAAF to know what & where aircraft are. Similarly, with LO F-35 (even if it isn't all-aspect) the aircraft possibly blindside an enemy CAP, being able to pick and choose where and how to fight. Until regional air forces begin to also get LO aircraft, the RAAF should be a dominant air arm in the region.

-Cheers

Click to expand...

The reliance on LO and networking to overcome the massive airodynamic and kenetic advantages held by the flanker is dangerous IMO. Ambush is the only situation were the F35 has enough advantage to make a victory likely. And the fact is that the Flankers weapons out range the AMRAAM. Sure there are tactics and atmospheric conditions that could be exploited to alow the F35 to reach a fireing position before the Flanker knew it was there, although it is doubtfull this would be within the AIM 120's NEZ. The only advantage the F35 has is that it knows were the enemy is (assuming the AWE&C & datalink is working, i.e. not interfiered with by the enemy) when the enemy doesent. However as soon as it is detected, and in clear sky's (which is usually the case at altitude) the possibility of that happening at decent ranges is quite high, the ball is in the flankers court. Also what if the F35 was attempting to intercept a Flanker? It would be tough to intercept at all, and only with the afterburner glowing, makes that IRST detection range even higher. Not a pretty set of sircumstances for the RAAF.

StingrayOZ said:

Would the Typhoon be a reasonable air superiority fighter?

Say if we start buying F-35's, and our neighbors start to make some expensive purchases and the F-22 was still in limbo. Would the EF Typhoon be a good purchase? Say in the future when they are cheaper and better known.

Looks like it includes some low observable tech, agile, etc.

What other options are there..

Click to expand...

By the time the second squadron of F35's has been aquired in about 2015, if the F22 is still prohibited from sale then it seems the RAAF will need an air superiority fighter that will be able to defeat advanced flanker variants. However the choices look pretty bleak. Typhoon, though optimised for supersonic manuever and BVR combat is no match for a Flanker, in range, payload, airodynamics and slow speed agility. None of the current production teen series seem to match up either. I had some thoughts on this although there is an ammount of risk involved.

1. Aproach LM and the US Department of defence with the proposal for a geared down export version of the F22. Just the airframe & the two F119-PW-100 powerplants (thrust vectoring included) from the F22. Use RAM from the F35, avionics from the F35, the APG 81 instead of the APG 77 (ok, we'd love the 77 but i'm trying to make this a pallatable as possible), internal cockpit from the F35. In fact make as much of the aircraft F35 heritage as possible. But nothing new, just off the shelf. Leave it with F35 sized RCS and F35's radar capability, but with the F22's raw airodynamic performance. It could be argued to congress and the american public that this is more of an air superiority version of the F35 than a less capable version of the F22. And name it something different, F29 maybe (half way between F22 & F35), it really doesent matter, just not F22 or a derrivative like F22C. This would mean that no ammendments would need to be made to statutes to allow export. The result would be more than a match for any Flanker. We would end up with the air dominance fighter we need. The US would have opened up a new market for export, not only to Australia but to Japan and possibly the UK. Since the only sensitive elements of the F22 they would be exporting would be the powerplants and the overall design, most of their little secrets like the radar or RAM would be safe an sound, and the home grown F22 would indeed be more capable, keeping their unbeatable advantage.

Even though this would be a new aircraft this risks would be managable. There is no new technology envolved, all the systems would have been operational on other aircraft, the only problem would be getting them all to work together on the one platform. Both the F35 & F22 would be well into production by then so all of the systems/parts would be available at a reasonable cost. Flight testing would be minimised. We may be the only one operating the platform initialy, however i would assume the JSDF would be very interested, all the parts share commonality with either the F35 or the F22. And i cant imagine R&D cost would be that high, you would probably only need one prototype. We're the first ones using Wedgetails, there has been some delays but its not the end of the world when you consider the capability. The overall cost may be a bit high though, a single squadron sized purchase would mean about 26 aircraft i would assume, 2 suqdrons just over 50. Unless we do it in conjunction with the JSDF who may want to oreder such aircraft in the 200+ area, that would reduce unit fly away cost considerebly.

2. If number one fails then opt for a next eveloution in the F15 family, for these purpases call it the F15X. Aproach LM and the US DOD and propose the new aircraft for export. Attempt to get permission for the F119-PW-100 powerplant, if not then a down rated version. This may give the platform supercruze capability depending on the loadout, in any case it will enhance the thrust to weight ratio significantly. the pair would put out some 70000lb of thrust compared to the 45000lb on the pair of F100-PW-200. Use a cannard configuration and 2D thrust vectoring as seen on the F15 active and MTD. Use simmilar RCS reduction to that which was used on the F18F. Put the APG 81 in and an IRST and thats about it. However if we are going to play the eveolved 4th gen game then we need to do it as well as the russians. I would think that METEOR or annother long range air to air missle would be needed to counter the Flanker's R 172. This would give the F15X a nice advantage in kenetic performance, and even the playing field in therms of airodyinamics. This platform would be at least the equal of any in the SU XX familly and probably their better.

However the risks in this project are high, as would be the costs. Most of this technology is off the shelf, however the MTD/Active componants have never gone past the demonstration stage. Again it would be prefferable to undertake this project as a joint venture with partner contries like the Japan or possibly Singapore to increase the total number of units produced and share the risk. The testing fase would need to be extensive though and it may take several years before any platforms would be in squadron service with the RAAF.

3. Buy a Flanker, but somehow i dont think that is going to happen.

4. Buy a typhoon, even though it is not suited for RAAF service one bit and would not fulfill the primary objective, aquire a plaform that outperforms the SU XX in air to air combat.

5. Make do with the F35 as our air superiority platform, and pray that the skill of our pilots, the LO features the aircraft has, and its networked capability with the Wedgetails will defend our shores for the next 40 years.

Ozzy Blizzard said:

... Typhoon, though optimised for supersonic manuever and BVR combat is no match for a Flanker, in range, payload, airodynamics and slow speed agility. ....

Click to expand...

Firstly, I'm not sure what you base the the last, "slow speed agility", on. Secondly, even if true, so what? In what circumstances would an RAAF fighter be engaged in a slow speed dogfight with a Flanker? One would have to assume that both had already expended all their AAMs, but stayed around & sought combat. Is that likely?

In BVR combat, of course, slow speed agility is even less important. And BVR combat ability is more important these days. As Dr. Kopp says, "The contemporary approach is to stay out of WVR AAM engagement envelopes if possible, and instead of flying small subsonic/transonic circles around an opponent at close quarters, the trend is to fly supersonic and pick off the opponent with BVR AAMs.".

Range is important for getting to a fight, but as the Bf110 demonstrated, doesn't win it when you get there. Payload - how much does a full loadout of AAMs weigh? You're talking about air superiority here, remember. These are undoubtedly areas of performance in which the Flanker (though depending on the model, for payload) is better than the Typhoon, but they're not the most important for the role we're discussing here.

Can you be more specific the aerodynamics? What particular aerodynamic properties of the Flanker is the Typhoon "no match for"? And what is their significance for air superiority? A catch-all "aerodynamics" doesn't mean much. For example, the Grob glider in which I first flew without someone else having to save me from almost immediately losing control had far superior aerodynamics to either of these aircraft in certain respects, but that doesn't say anything about its suitability for the air superiority role.

Also, why do you not mention RCS, IR signature & sensors? Surely all these are of great importance.

swerve said:

Firstly, I'm not sure what you base the the last, "slow speed agility", on. Secondly, even if true, so what? In what circumstances would an RAAF fighter be engaged in a slow speed dogfight with a Flanker? One would have to assume that both had already expended all their AAMs, but stayed around & sought combat. Is that likely?

In BVR combat, of course, slow speed agility is even less important. And BVR combat ability is more important these days. As Dr. Kopp says, "The contemporary approach is to stay out of WVR AAM engagement envelopes if possible, and instead of flying small subsonic/transonic circles around an opponent at close quarters, the trend is to fly supersonic and pick off the opponent with BVR AAMs.".

Range is important for getting to a fight, but as the Bf110 demonstrated, doesn't win it when you get there. Payload - how much does a full loadout of AAMs weigh? You're talking about air superiority here, remember. These are undoubtedly areas of performance in which the Flanker (though depending on the model, for payload) is better than the Typhoon, but they're not the most important for the role we're discussing here.

Can you be more specific the aerodynamics? What particular aerodynamic properties of the Flanker is the Typhoon "no match for"? And what is their significance for air superiority? A catch-all "aerodynamics" doesn't mean much. For example, the Grob glider in which I first flew without someone else having to save me from almost immediately losing control had far superior aerodynamics to either of these aircraft in certain respects, but that doesn't say anything about its suitability for the air superiority role.

Also, why do you not mention RCS, IR signature & sensors? Surely all these are of great importance.

Click to expand...

Swereve stop following me around trying to push the merrits of typhoon.

1. As i said, range. Internal fuel payload is pretty darn small on the Typhoon. This would just put more strain on our allready streached tanker fleet, and in case you havent noticed, aus is a pretty big place. Also Range is more important than just getting to the fight. The more fuel you have once your there, the more you have to play with which generaly means more energy, and Flakers large internal fuel load gives it a distinct advantage in this respect in most engagements.

2. Of corce BVR combat is more imposrtant then trans sonic agility. But what happens if we get into WVR??? Flankers trans sonic turn rate, aided by thrust vectoring, and high angle of attack turns would be decisive in this respect. Remember this would be the air superiority fighter for the RAAF for the next 30-40yrs, and opponants that could be encountered in that timeframe need to be considered, not just the ones now.

3. Also the advanced flanker variants are quite capable at super sonic manuver, thanks to thrust vectoring and cannards.

4. Flanker has the kenetic energy advantge.

5. Payload. In other roles than air superiority, remember the RAAF is not the RAF, we only have 4 squadrons and all may be needed to performe marritime strike, the Typhoon is inferior to other choices.

6. RCS and IR are pretty much irellevent when your talking about 4th generation figters. I know people have mentioned RCS reduction on the F18E/F but i dont know how usefull this is.

7. Sensors are irrelevant in the 30 yr timeframe as they are systems that can continually be replaced and upgraded, and apart from the size of the housing are not fundimental to the design.

Bottom line. We need a qualitative advantage on a platform basis over our neighbors, this is something we have achieved over the last 60yrs. Typhoon will give us something close to parity in BVR combat, disadvantage in other respects that have been outlined above. I'm sorry mate but your pressious Typhoon just wont cut it for the RAAF.

Question: Is the Typhoon, or is likely to be, better than the JSF in the air-superiority role?

Ozzy Blizzard said:

Swereve stop following me around trying to push the merrits of typhoon.

1. As i said, range. Internal fuel payload is pretty darn small on the Typhoon. This would just put more strain on our allready streached tanker fleet, and in case you havent noticed, aus is a pretty big place. Also Range is more important than just getting to the fight. The more fuel you have once your there, the more you have to play with which generaly means more energy, and Flakers large internal fuel load gives it a distinct advantage in this respect in most engagements.

2. Of corce BVR combat is more imposrtant then trans sonic agility. But what happens if we get into WVR??? Flankers trans sonic turn rate, aided by thrust vectoring, and high angle of attack turns would be decisive in this respect. Remember this would be the air superiority fighter for the RAAF for the next 30-40yrs, and opponants that could be encountered in that timeframe need to be considered, not just the ones now.

3. Also the advanced flanker variants are quite capable at super sonic manuver, thanks to thrust vectoring and cannards.

4. Flanker has the kenetic energy advantge.

5. Payload. In other roles than air superiority, remember the RAAF is not the RAF, we only have 4 squadrons and all may be needed to performe marritime strike, the Typhoon is inferior to other choices.

6. RCS and IR are pretty much irellevent when your talking about 4th generation figters. I know people have mentioned RCS reduction on the F18E/F but i dont know how usefull this is.

7. Sensors are irrelevant in the 30 yr timeframe as they are systems that can continually be replaced and upgraded, and apart from the size of the housing are not fundimental to the design.

Bottom line. We need a qualitative advantage on a platform basis over our neighbors, this is something we have achieved over the last 60yrs. Typhoon will give us something close to parity in BVR combat, disadvantage in other respects that have been outlined above. I'm sorry mate but your pressious Typhoon just wont cut it for the RAAF.

Click to expand...

typhoon is much much better than flankers. They would give far more than a parity against your neighbours. If you've ever seen the results of J-10s vs flankers, you would see that.

One thing at a time. The first goal should be to delay the Super Hornet purchase until a new government can look at it and hopefully kill it, and start a process that looks at all available fighter aircraft.

Except for the avionics, $uper Hornet is taking a pig, putting lipstick and a sexy nighty on it and calling it a powerful fighter aircraft and then in addition to that Defence wrongly associating the word "stealth" when mentioning it hoping a clueless public believes that, all long with the words "air superiority" which is even more amusing.

JSF is too much of a cash cow for Australia for Canberra to stop it. ( that is why it was picked years ago so $uddenly, there wasn't $5-$9 billion in home industry work that could be gained from F-22). So unless we (U.S.) really screw up the program some more ( very possible with Iraq etc eating up cash ) JSF is probably a go.

tphuang said:

typhoon is much much better than flankers. They would give far more than a parity against your neighbours. If you've ever seen the results of J-10s vs flankers, you would see that.

Click to expand...

Bingo! The Typhoon is designed to be a Flanker killer. However, I do not think the Typhoon would be the best aircraft for Australia. But that is for other reasons than air-air performance.

ELP said:

One thing at a time. The first goal should be to delay the Super Hornet purchase until a new government can look at it and hopefully kill it, and start a process that looks at all available fighter aircraft.

Except for the avionics, Super Hornet is taking a pig, putting lipstick and a sexy nighty on it and calling it a powerful fighter aircraft and then in addition to that Defence wrongly associating the word "stealth" when mentioning it hoping a clueless public believes that, all long with the words "air superiority" which is even more amusing.

Click to expand...

If the RAAF were to follow your suggestion, what would you propose as an alternative? Assuming the following that the RAAF retires the F-111s ~2010-ish, and that a number of Classic Hornets are undergoing CBR and therefore unavailable for deployment? Keep in mind, the SH is being proposed as a temporary solution to make sure the RAAF has sufficient combat aircraft to perform a number of different air combat missions.

I'm not sure of what other aircraft would be able to fit into the potential gap the RAAF will have, as well as the SH. There are issues of cost, availability, in-service dates as well as multi-role functionality. While the SH isn't necessarily the best aircraft in any single category, it appears to be the best fit overall. Are there suggestions on other aircraft, that equal or exceed the SH in all areas? I'd be interested to hear what they are.

-Cheers

ELP said:

One thing at a time. The first goal should be to delay the Super Hornet purchase until a new government can look at it and hopefully kill it, and start a process that looks at all available fighter aircraft.

Except for the avionics, Super Hornet is taking a pig, putting lipstick and a sexy nighty on it and calling it a powerful fighter aircraft and then in addition to that Defence wrongly associating the word "stealth" when mentioning it hoping a clueless public believes that, all long with the words "air superiority" which is even more amusing.

JSF is too much of a cash cow to stop that. ( that is why it was picked years ago so $uddenly ). So unless we (U.S.) really screw up the program some more ( very possible with Iraq etc eating up cash ) JSF is probably a go.

Click to expand...

I see what your saying, but Im not sure if it matters.

I didnt think the SH purchase was to provide an air superiority fighter? My understanding was that it was to provide a replacement for the F-111, and even then possibly only in the intrim. Not being an expert but I would also say it would make a hell of a better fighter than the F-111 if it was forced into this role.

So if where disscussing a Typhoon purchase as opposed to a SH, then we need to ask if its as good, or better, strike platform. But if we are disscussing the merits of it (the Typhoon) as an air supreriority fighter, then the question needs to be is it better than the JSF?

I thought the Typhoon was eliminated/not considered because the version the RAAF needs (Tranche 2) would not be available in the time frame needed.

Also I am finding this comparison of platforms to be a bit misleading. While it has been touched on it is the institutional knowledge and support platforms, as well as the platform that needs to be taken into consideration.

Whiskyjack said:

Also I am finding this comparison of platforms to be a bit misleading. While it has been touched on it is the institutional knowledge and support platforms, as well as the platform that needs to be taken into consideration.

Click to expand...

The adage that procurement is requirements based rather than widget based is being forgotten...