F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped

Rich said:

As it stands currently it a fine force, tho a bit small. Times are going to change in 10 to 20 years in case you haven't been watching the news. My comment was made in the context of Riskshaws fantasy "disabling of all ties Americana" because, "waaa, waaa, we want the F-22".

Click to expand...

The supposed unwillingness to sell us the F-22 is but another one of several items that must make our supposed alliance with the US questionable IMO.

Such a disabling, or Philippines type downgrading, of "ties with Rome" would be a disaster for you. That is fact.

Click to expand...

Why? Doesn't appear to have done New Zealand all that much damage. The place hasn't dissolved into anarchy, the reds never came out from under the bed and the Terrorists like everybody else appear to be scratching their heads trying to find the place.

Excellent troops. The Aussies have a knack for producing fine fighting men. However! Its also fact that the Aussie contribution to Iraq/Afghanistan is very, very small. Only a Loon would think that such a contribution would automatically qualify you to get our most precious air asset, which btw, we aint selling to anyone.

Click to expand...

Thats your choice. However one has to question we then keep sending our "fine fighting men" to die in your wars, mate. One also has to question why we should make our nation and our citizens a target in your war against terror.

If you think America is Rome then you need to read some history. But, I do understand the mind screw the International press has on people. Do you get English speaking Al Jazeera down under? And, If we did sell you the F-22 would we cease to be Romans?:unknown

Mate, the Aussies have never "bowed down" to anyone. And we both know it. So cease with the "Rickshaw type sniveling drama".

Click to expand...

I wonder why you keep trying to characterise what I am saying as "sniveling drama" when I have calmly and rationally made a case that shows this supposed alliance with the US is indeed rather one-sided. Your arrogance and hubris, I would suggest, Rich indicate a deep seated insecurity that your bluster cannot hide. Why do you fear the idea of Australia going its own way in the world so much?

I do not understand why we cannot be friends/Allies just for the fact that we have alway`s been there for each other, Australia does not owe my country anything, if they decide not to participate in any type of conflict who are we to judge them on this decision, making the sacrafice to shed the blood of your nations men and women in uniform is a big decision. I trust Australia more than I trust alot of our European Allies. Again - if Australia needs the F-22 then we should give it to them.

Thats a fair statement and can understand this from a defense relationship with a country like Australia, being in a remote part of the world where there isnt an immediate level of conflict or turmoil. However, when it comes to the overall element of keeping expensive advanced technology under close scrutiny and under the close watch of the US military you can understand due to the global political and military environment that the US would want to at least keep the F22 to themselves at this stage. The last thing the US would want is for one of their F22s to fall into the hands of the Chinese or Russians.

Now i think it would be fair to say that if the US did cough up say 50 F22s to the RAAF that this may cause a rift or stir among the allied western countries who favoured the aircraft and were told they had no option but to go with the say F35, F18F, Typhoon etc earlier. This would be a contradiction to the close cooperation the US have with its partners. To avoid this situation it is most likely in my opinion that the US will not release the F22 from its own hands to any country despite how close they are with the US. Thats if the US is smart on its military security. Which it seems is the case.

eckherl said:

I do not understand why we cannot be friends/Allies just for the fact that we have alway`s been there for each other, Australia does not owe my country anything, if they decide not to participate in any type of conflict who are we to judge them on this decision, making the sacrafice to shed the blood of your nations men and women in uniform is a big decision. I trust Australia more than I trust alot of our European Allies. Again - if Australia needs the F-22 then we should give it to them.

Click to expand...

JSF is a single engine fighter. It's totally useless in modern era of multipurpose fighter. Much better off buying the Typhoon.

JSF Cost Issues

...and the fun begins.


http://abc.net.au/am/

Defence insiders are advising that the Super Bug buy is all about allowing a later buy of the JSF at a lower cost in line with recommendation that came out of office of the CEO DMO following the work he did earlier last year on the costings.

This will make for some intersting navel gazing once they lift the wing skins on our current Hornets during the deeper level maintenance program.

Anyone who has been tracking the costs will see that the Minister is not being completely honest in his statements on costs and how they 'have all been considered'.

The December 2006 SAR is only the beginning of what will result in the average unit procurement cost of the JSF for Australia being in excess of US$110 million - that's if we buy it.

Unlikely to see a combat coded JSF before 2018. The UK are planning on 2019.




The other word coming out from Defence is that Kinnaird Review process is dead, dead, dead. Directives now come out of the Minister's Office and the Department is required to 'situate the appreciation' to meet the Minister's directives that have been put together by his office staff.

:shudder

Occum said:

...and the fun begins.


http://abc.net.au/am/

Defence insiders are advising that the Super Bug buy is all about allowing a later buy of the JSF at a lower cost in line with recommendation that came out of office of the CEO DMO following the work he did earlier last year on the costings.

This will make for some intersting navel gazing once they lift the wing skins on our current Hornets during the deeper level maintenance program.

Click to expand...

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/03/f18-hornets-keeping-em-flying/index.php

The F/A-18 Hornet is currently flown by the US Marine Corps as their front-line fighter, by the US Navy as a second-tier fighter behind its F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets, and by 7 international customers: Australia, Canada, Finland, Kuwait, Malaysia, Spain, and Switzerland. The USA's aircraft were expected to have a service life of 20 years, but that was based on 100 carrier landings per year. The US Navy and Marines have been rather busy during the Hornets' service life, and so the planes are wearing out faster.
This is forcing the USA to take a number of steps and issue a series of contracts in order to keep their Hornets airworthy, replacing center barrel sections, re-opening production lines, and more. Some of these efforts will also be offered to allied air forces, who have their own programs and services to call upon...
Some of the parts procured under Boeing's June 2006 and September 2006 contracts will be produced for allied military services who fly the F/A-18. Note that "center barrel sections" refer to the middle chunk of the plane where the wings joint the body. As one might guess, replacing them is a somewhat involved process, and also very helpful in extending the airframe's fatigue-hour limits.

I think its time to rebuild entire hornet fleet or trade the lot for rhinos IIs

F-22 Raptor For Ground Attack?

A quick question:Can the Raptor be configured to be a ground attack aircraft ?

What I'd sure like to know is if F-22 can fire Harpoons. If it can, coupled with its stealth, it can wipe out a whole navy fleet out at sea.

Schumacher said:

What I'd sure like to know is if F-22 can fire Harpoons. If it can, coupled with its stealth, it can wipe out a whole navy fleet out at sea.

Click to expand...

Only if they can carry them internally (which, from memory, they cannot) and only with support information.

Any aircraft which is well supported wiht recon support shouold be able to lauch below a surface ship radar horizon where the ship itself is not supported by AEW assests.

Schumacher said:

What I'd sure like to know is if F-22 can fire Harpoons. If it can, coupled with its stealth, it can wipe out a whole navy fleet out at sea.

Click to expand...

The whole point of Harpoon equipped aircraft are to give the strike package a standoff capability. The F-22A has little need as they can drop a 2000lb JDAM on top of the fleet without being detected.

Yes the F-22 can perform ground attack..

It will have Small diameter bombs and 1000lb JDAM's to take out most targets. The F-22 will be able to hit targets that no other aircraft could reach, the F-117 can only fly if their are no enemy fighters in the area.

rjmaz1 said:

Yes the F-22 can perform ground attack..

Click to expand...

Its a requirements issue - the B1 and the B2 for instance can perform the same job more efficiently at range under given circumstances. why would you send in an F-22 to try and do lo and slow against armour when an A-10 or Apache can be more cost and mission effective.

Have you noticed how many CAS misssions the B1 has run in Feb? Its undertaking tasks that an F-22 couldn't even begin to hope to achieve without imposing logistics negatives on everything else.

rjmaz1 said:

It will have Small diameter bombs and 1000lb JDAM's to take out most targets. The F-22 will be able to hit targets that no other aircraft could reach,

Click to expand...

rubbish, see above - again its a requirements issue. other platforms can and will be more suitable.

this tendency you have to make sweeping statements as though it is fact damages the argument rather than add support.

rjmaz1 said:

the F-117 can only fly if their are no enemy fighters in the area.

Click to expand...

why are you even bothering to disimiss the capability of an aircraft that was tasked to undertake LO strike missions in another operational era? The stinkbug is 25 years old. Its op paradigm was defined by other tac and strategic doctrine. the stinkbug is being retired because it no longer fits within future requirements. In any other airforce it would be a day 1 asset with prenatal use.

its equiv to comparring a dino ferrari to a testarossa.

These articles may help answer some of the questions (at least those that can be discussed publicly):

Mar 8, 2007
Raptor, precision strike bomb integration testing begins
Military Aviation
The 411th Flight Test Squadron began integration testing of the F-22A Raptor and the GBU-39/B Small-Diameter Bomb here in February. Read More...

Aug 17, 2006
F-22 Raptor meets new challenges, expands capabilities
Military Aviation
For the men and women taking care of the Air Force's newest and most lethal fighter aircraft, the F-22A Raptor, firsts seem to be a common occurrence. Read More...

gf0012-aust said:

its equiv to comparring a dino ferrari to a testarossa.

Click to expand...

More like a ferrari and a truck..

B-2, F-117 and B-1b cannot enter enemy airspace unescorted if there is even the slightest chance of there being enemy fighters. These aircraft are far from invisible and are defenceless. They also have massive restrictions on day operations unless your fighting with arabs carrying AK-47's.

The F-22 is the only aircraft that can by itself go into extremely high risk area's with enemy SAMs, CAPs, AWAC's and destroy a ground target DAY OR NIGHT!

Of course the best option would be B-2's escorted by F-22's.. but now we have two aircraft.

The only downside to the F-22 is it poor range for a bomber.

Ähm, I am a total no-pro in aviation but weren't both the B-1B and the B-2 designed to enter heavily defended hostile airspaces, penetrate the defence and unload their gifts?

rjmaz1 said:

B-2, F-117 and B-1b cannot enter enemy airspace unescorted if there is even the slightest chance of there being enemy fighters.

Click to expand...

what absolute unmitigated rubbish. did you read any of the comments made re the detection issues for the F117 - read Bandits over Bagdhad - contributions made by stinkbug pilots, AWACs controllers and blue aircraft in WVR corridors. what do you think TAC planners do? Targets generate system responses, not platform responses. The F-22 isn't some lone ranger riding in to smite the enemy, it works in with established doctrine.

what credible knowledge do you have ony any of the OP requirements for any of those aircraft? None, zip nada. All of it is an Opsec issue. The most data we have in the public domain is the aforementioned - and that nullified any of the typical fanboy comments about where and when these planes could/can be used.

rjmaz1 said:

These aircraft are far from invisible and are defenceless. They also have massive restrictions on day operations unless your fighting with arabs carrying AK-47's.

Click to expand...

and what info is available to you (or anyone else in the public domain) on the restrictions applied to B1's and B2's? You have no idea about what battlespace local management these aircraft have. Stop pretending that you have implied knowledge.

rjmaz1 said:

The F-22 is the only aircraft that can by itself go into extremely high risk area's with enemy SAMs, CAPs, AWAC's and destroy a ground target DAY OR NIGHT!.

Click to expand...

You persist in making these asinine comments about what the aircraft can do - and yet there is not one scintilla of info in the public domain which supports it.

As one of the qualified Flight Test Engineers and Aircraft Engineers has already said - stop making comments about aircraft capability of which you have no knowledge. There are people in here with a security level of Protected and above, and none of them make grandiose statements about technology and future doctrine. It would be worth your while to stop acting like an aircraft and capability expert and at least make some effort to qualify your statements.

As has been repeatedly asked by one of the aviation and flight test engineers - what are your qualifications for you to make such bold statements?

rjmaz1 said:

Of course the best option would be B-2's escorted by F-22's.. but now we have two aircraft.

The only downside to the F-22 is it poor range for a bomber.

Click to expand...

welcome to the real world where response is delivered by a system and not by some mythical single platform capability.

Waylander said:

Ähm, I am a total no-pro in aviation but weren't both the B-1B and the B-2 designed to enter heavily defended hostile airspaces, penetrate the defence and unload their gifts?

Click to expand...

Exactly, they were designed to go into the most heavily sensored and defended airspace in modern history.

The B2 is LO because it was meant to lift the penetration chances.

gf0012-aust said:

Exactly, they were designed to go intothe most heavily sensored and defended airspace in modern history.

The B2 is LO because it was meant to lift the penetration chances.

Click to expand...

Would they still be effective in their role given the improvement of today's ground and air sensor systems? The Russians brag about their improved 76N6 CLAM SHELL target acquisition radar on the S-400 Triumph SAM system being a "counter" to stealth aircrafts.

A quote from JDW:
"The technology of the missiles is of a very high level. For example, new details of the S-400 Trieumf SAM reveal that it is capable of intercepting various target types including "stealth" targets, cruise missiles and short-to-medium range ballistic missiles, all at a range of up to 400km. They will be mass produced and are compatible with the defence needs of many countries in Asia and the Middle East. "

Pathfinder-X said:

Would they still be effective in their role given the improvement of today's ground and air sensor systems? The Russians brag about their improved 76N6 CLAM SHELL target acquisition radar on the S-400 Triumph SAM system being a "counter" to stealth aircrafts.

A quote from JDW:
"The technology of the missiles is of a very high level. For example, new details of the S-400 Trieumf SAM reveal that it is capable of intercepting various target types including "stealth" targets, cruise missiles and short-to-medium range ballistic missiles, all at a range of up to 400km. They will be mass produced and are compatible with the defence needs of many countries in Asia and the Middle East. "

Click to expand...

Considering the decline in JDW's standards of reporting, then I'm not too sure I'd be placing toomuch faith in them. I can give a classic example of bad reporting in the last 30 days where JDW has printed absolute rubbish about an australian weapons technology and presented it as fact. The problem is that the tech was written off by DSTO some 5 years ago - and I was the Operations Manager on that project,so I know of it in the first person.

From my own knowledge and without going in to detail. there are only 3 systems currently that can detect LO platforms with a proficiency that implies regular capability. none of them are russian. there are always the urban myths, and the stellar example of that is the continuing legend about a Rapier system being able to track a B2. The fact that the plane was transmission hot (and thus had the same chance of getting picked up by the local B737) has escaped the logic of the enthusiasts.

maybe the russians can - but they're not going to advertise that they can't. thats just dumb marketing. If you look at russian marketing its always good, positive and latent - yet (case in point) they launched their first sub for 17 years and are still announcing that they'll be regularly slipping every few years.

it hasn't managed to successfully launch Bulava the required number of times to be certified as a fieldable weapons system, and yet the hype is still there.

marketing - is marketing.

Pathfinder-X said:

Would they still be effective in their role given the improvement of today's ground and air sensor systems?

Click to expand...

No they wouldn't be effective anymore which makes gf0012-aust post redundant. Send a B-2 by itself into China or Russia on red alert and it probably wont be coming back.

When the B-2 entered service it would have been a piece of cake to strike anywhere inside Russia or China. The B-2 has been operational for more than a decade, radar power has improved 1000 fold since its introduction. Stealth aircraft are starting to be detected further and further away. During the Gulf War very few radars in the world were powerful enough to detect the F-117 at a useful range. Now alot of radar systems across the world can detect the F-117 at beyond visual range.

The F-117 or B-2 cannot rapidly change direction and accelerate to Mach 2 in seconds to take the aircraft out of an enemy missiles no escape zone.