new aussie fighters

im an australian and im wondering what your thoughts are for our new fighters.
they now use F-111c and FA-18a (upgraded) as the main combat aircraft, these will be retired soon and will probably be replaced with the jsf

any smart person would know you cant replace a f-111 AND hornet with the jsf, the f-111 has a massive range and decent bombload. the timeframe for replacement is 2015
dont forget they only have a small budget and the countries thet threaten us have some of the most advanced flankers around

my choice is wait untill the f-22 is for sale and the price has dropped a bit and the bugs have been ironed out


the most suited aircraft would be the mig-1.42, fb-22 and the f-23 or its attacker version but i know its just not going to happen

[edit on 8-2-2006 by Forsazh]

Originally posted by Forsazh
the most suited aircraft would be the mig-1.42, fb-22 and the f-23 or its attacker version but i know its just not going to happen

[edit on 8-2-2006 by Forsazh]

FB-22: Not yet produced.
Mig-1.42: Not designed for payload (at least at this time)
F-23: Not in service.

:\ I don't get what you're asking.

Looks like your govenrment is definately going ahead wlth pushing for JSF if this article is anything to go by

www.smh.com.au...

I cant see that any other aircraft could be purchased in addition to JSF if the figures that are involved are are anything to go by,simply through a lack of finance.

Your right in suggesting the the drop in longrange strike capability once the trusty old F-111 is deleted from the Australian inventory but if we are looking at potential threats to Australia most of a long range strike mission would probably be flown in ferry mode over tracts of water possibly devoid of any sam threat and with risk coming at extreme range by long range interceptors like the Flanker, alowing the new tanker project aircraft to refuel and extend the range of the JSF.

You mention the F/A-22 as a possible replacement, yes it would be ideal in lots of ways supercruise ,high internal fuel ,stealth we all know that it is the best of the best at air dominance, the air to ground side of things is a little more patchy, you would only be able to afford a few of theese craft and to have to use them in both air to air and air to ground would stretch the small fleet too thinly,how ever great it is

The JSF I believe is the best option for Australia if all goes to plan, but at the same time it is a big gamble , the programme is based on a US and UK need, Australia and other customers may not get much of a say in any developments not to mention the thorny issue of tech transfer , and Im sure that ther will be delays and other problems in getting the plane in service on time, which is the other biggest factor that I can think of Any advantages that Aus had in terms technology and superiority in catagories like bvr has been erroded and in some cases surpassed by the likes of Indonesia, Malaysia etc with there recent purchases, and the fleet is getting old fast if JSF falls 1 or 2 years behind will the current fleet hold out ? I know that current upgrades are on going but maybe an alternative would have be sought?

Lets face it I cant in a million years see Australia buying anything but western aircraft if only for political considerations, so that rules out Mig and Sukhoi ive already given my opinon on why they won't go for the raptor too high cost + too few numbers = no go, may be the logical choice for me would be to buy a stop gap , may be F-15k or even better a lease on some Typhoons or super hornets maybe even some tornados to keep the capability that you need in the interim and lower what I reckon must be very high service costs for the current fleet and take some pressure off the Hornets and then go back to JSF at a later time or even skip it and see whats next maybe UCAVS?

In my opinon though baring serious problems with JSF i cant see past that as the only option for Aus even though im not its biggest fan ever theyve already put in nearly 200 million dollors. would like to hear what others think on the time limit for Aus airforces current fleet though, 2012 and 2015 seem to be the concencous of opinion,and would a lease of some sort be completely out of the question? If I had my way they would go for Typhoon but thats me just looking through rosey tinted lenses , or would it fulfill Aus's needs?


*As for the F-23 that doesn't exist, it lost out in the competition and to ressurect the project would probably cost more than Australias defense budget for 20 years.





[edit on 8-2-2006 by buckaroo]

The price difference between JSF and F-22 is staggering, and for an Australian context the JSF will likely prove the most cost effective option. As much as I'd love seeing F-22's flying around, the simple fact is that it is very expensive and would be overkill for Australia's needs. The JSF is probably going to be procured by a number of nations, which reduces overall costs, and ensures development of the platform for a number of years into the future.

As for our neighbours getting advanced aircraft, you also have to look at the numbers of platforms they are getting, the variants, the weapon fits, and other support mechanisms (such as air to air refueling, AWACs support, pilot training, tactics and so on). Now, there is likely to be the usual "Y platform is better than X platform" debate which no-one except those with access to the applicable classified info will ever be able to answer, but I'm comfortable with JSF as a solution.

As for the JSF not being able to replace both the Hornet and the Pig, that is true, because the way the aircraft is operated is fundamentally different. The legacy aircraft are products of their times. The JSF is built for the future, and the powers that be have decided we will operate in a different way. Times change, and so do aircraft. And as for waiting for a few years, the F-111 may be able to fly a long way, but if it can't penetrate new air defence systems due to things like it's RCS (which apparently is quite large compared to JSF) then it is probably pointless to keep them on.

These are my thoughts, and I'm sure people will disagree. But I think the JSF will prove quite acceptable for the Australian context.

As an aside, why does the JSF not have a cool nickname yet, such as Raptor, or Hornet, Falcon or Pig? Or does it? Maybe our community could come up with one for Boeing

C'mon Aussie c'mon, c'mon.. c'mon aussie c'mon..
Love that song...

Forsazh,

>>
I'm an australian and im wondering what your thoughts are for our new fighters.
They now use F-111c and FA-18a (upgraded) as the main combat aircraft, these will be retired soon and will probably be replaced with the jsf
>>

The Aardvark is a maintenance nightmare, even after AMP a couple local CUPID type upgrades. I don't know if this is because you are deliberately shorting the logistics ('creating a need') or what, but I also hear that RAAF retention was pretty bad in the 111 fleet a couple years back, to the extent that you only had 1-2 qualified crews.

Dunno about the HUG mod F/A-18s, if you folks are having centerbarrel problems like we are (nothing over 4Gs except under wartime waiver) it may well be that all the money you've put into the APG-73 and AMRAAM/ASRAAM was indeed just so much dandelion fluff in a hurricane.

>>
Any smart person would know you cant replace a f-111 AND hornet with the JSF, the f-111 has a massive range and decent bombload. The timeframe for replacement is 2015.
>>

The reason you are looking at 2012 is because initial Lot-1 airframes are supposed to be internal-only carriage qualified. That does indeed put the F-35 well short of the F-111. That said, with external racks in the BRU-57 or 61 class (low drag twin or quad VERs), the comparitive payload is pretty similar and the /altitude/ performance absolutely not in the same league. A fully loaded 111 (two MERs and 24 MK.82) cannot climb over Pikes Peak (14,000ft). Smaller bombloads along the lines of a GBU-15 or AGM-142 and a HARM are a little better but not much.

This wastes a great deal of the 33,000lbs internal fuel available even as the 'all important' fractional values for each airframe actually show the JSF ahead at about .36 vs. .32 for relative gross weights in the 55,000 and 100,000lb categories respectively.

Such is the problem with VG that you retract your wing area the faster you go in achieving a decent (for range) Mach point and profile altitude. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the TF30 engine, optimized for cruise, is not actually gifted with a superior TSFC compared to the monster F135 but the fact remains that, pound for pound _of ordnance_ the F-35 will go as far or farther.

>>
Dont forget they only have a small budget and the countries that threaten us have some of the most advanced flankers around
>>

It's a long ways to swim though. Which means that you are still looking at Indonesia as your primary 800nm threat radius and it would be virtually impossible for anyone to reach the South Coast which means your three biggest cities are not going to be jeopardized (with U.S. as your arms supplier guarantor of 'non embarrassment' with our equipment) until the Chinese develop blue water or ballistic 'intent' to own that region.

Myself, I think all their interests are tied up in Malaysia and the Malacca Straits with something like 70% of the worlds commercial sea traffic navigating between Japan, Taiwan and Singapore and India just the other side.

>>
My choice is wait untill the f-22 is for sale and the price has dropped a bit and the bugs have been ironed out
>>

With the USAF only buying 183 of them and virtually all the spiral upgrades to radar and EO cancelled, that's just not a wise dream to have. You would be charged 220 million apiece /easy/. And while I think 40 multirole Raptors would easily be the match of 60 or even 80 JSF, I think you need to look at the F-22A the same way you would a DDG.

7-10 might make for a nice class. But it doesn't mean diddly for an Air Force.

>>
The most suited aircraft would be the mig-1.42, fb-22 and the f-23 or its attacker version but i know its just not going to happen
>>

The F-15K/S standard airframe would do but only as an F-111 replacement /with escort/. Those CFT and sensor pods just hose the Beagle all up for aero performance, even with bigger engines in the 132/232 class.

'If I had a choice' and assuming single engine reliability is now back to being fashionable with all that water and the GAFA 'still the only constant' in the equation; I would probably look at one aircraft to provide local air defense along the lines of the old Mirage III and another to do deep strike along with 1-2 tanker aircraft to compliment Wedgetail.

I would also 'reinvent' Awadi or find some equivalent, cheap, standoff munition option. And perhaps had a basin-wide ISR capability through GHawk.

Say 20 T-50A and 50-100 A-45C.

Especially if you get in _right now_ the Korean Golden Eagle is actually a pretty good deal and with a GE F414 or EJ200 class powerplant, it could be a world beater. The best way to defeat Flanker is with netcetric (i.e. RADAR OFF) attack from deep within a tightly knit IADS and with weapons like followon AIM-120D or perhaps BVRAAM to go along with ASRAAM, there is little or no need to get in the Flanker's radar cone to make kills.

The A-45 OTOH, is an airframe which can fly 1,100nm with 8 bombs (albeit GBU-39) AND loiter for two hours. That's a capability you /sorely/ need if you intend to continue to police the SWAPR areas and one which is so unique that it would be sure to make you 'popular' (Oz SAS _with_ a CAS platform that could stay on station over their ridgetop overlook) wherever you went.

Of course you're going to be in a bit of trouble if you ever have to face Flankers without escort either way but the A-45 may well be cheap enough to be amenable to risked sortie profiles (high low, surround sound etc.) so long as glide kits keep you from direct overflight.

One thing is sure, there are no easy outs for defense in this day and age and the days of picking a fighter based on its airshow appeal or statistical (physical) absolutes of performance is generally pretty dumb.

As to 'what about a naming'... Well we seem to be in love with acronumbs recently so I'd say we stick with those.

DRUT-II (Mirror, Mirror on the wall...)
JSF (Just So Fracked)
A.$.$. (Aluminum Siding Salesman)
OsMe (Pronounced Awsum=My baloney has a first name...)
JOAT (Jack Of All Trades and... Well, what about it Jack?)
LGPOS (The Sequel)
RFB (Re Fried Beans= more gas than brains)
BoBoTITY ([look out I got] Both Bombs Today I Tell Ya!)
GOP (Georgia's Obscene Profiteerism)
PROFWoT (Peoples Republic Of Fort Worth Texas)
TFX-II (aka 'This time we actually buy them in numbers!')
IMALIRM (Inventory May Appear Larger In Rearview Mirror)
PINO (Price Is No Object)


KPl.

i did say that the fb-22, mig-1.42 and f-23 were not going to happen

jsf stands for joke shi-ite fighter - its only good as a manned cruise missile

dont forget we are only buying about 6 new tankers so it will create problems for tanker missions

You mention the F/A-22 as a possible replacement, yes it would be ideal in lots of ways supercruise ,high internal fuel ,stealth we all know that it is the best of the best at air dominance, the air to ground side of things is a little more patchy, you would only be able to afford a few of theese craft and to have to use them in both air to air and air to ground would stretch the small fleet too thinly,how ever great it is

the jsf's are going to be used as both anyway, also the f-22's can use the sdb's

or even better a lease on some Typhoons or super hornets maybe even some tornados to keep the capability that you need in the interim

it has been considered leaseing super hornets and giving the canadians ours but i think that plan got scrapped.

yes i do think the Typhoons would be a good choice, maybe as the main fighter not just leased? they would be good for at least 15 years.

the Rafale could also be considered, it does everything, dont know about range though

The price difference between JSF and F-22 is staggering

i've heard that the all up cost of a jsf is about $160m and the f-22's is only a bit over $200m but has that gone up since the USAF cut the order? i thought they were going to buy more than 183 raptors.

The Aardvark is a maintenance nightmare, even after AMP a couple local CUPID type upgrades.

at the moment it is at its highest level of serviceability so far but it is still bad

Dunno about the HUG mod F/A-18s, if you folks are having centerbarrel problems like we are

yes we are big time

also remembered this is an official defence plan
use P-3c orions with cruise missiles as an attack platfom as an interim solution - is that suicide or what???

Six tankers isn't all that bad, considering we only have a couple of old ones operating at the moment. The critical limitations on tankers is the flow rate of fuel into jets (ie how long it takes to top up), and crew duty limitations (how long they can stay up for, and number of times the plane can be turned around before crews simply can't fly anymore).

Eurofighter is a jet that was supposed to be ready in the late eighties. It has had massive budget problems. It was built by a committee of countries. The fact that Britain is looking to get JSF as well should give you some idea of their thoughts on the Eurofighters capabilities.

The Rafale hasn't picked up any export customers, which increases its per unit cost. Also, we would have to look at weapon integration (different system connectivity than the US MIL-STD).

The per unit cost of JSF is below $160 million, but once you add in training systems, maitenance and logistics, it probably would get up there. The F-22 would be the same, so probably much more than $200 million. As I understand it, the rough ratio of costs is 4 JSF to 1 F-22.

Finally, I still think for our expected threat level, the JSF gives us flexibility and future growth paths. It is far in excess of what our neighbours are getting in the short term, and if in the future they upgrade their air defences, JSF will still be relevant. Eurofighter, Rafale and F-15S's won't be.

I have no vested interest in the JSF, but think that dismissing it as crap without any firm evidence is a little short-sighted. Smarter people than myself have made these assessments, and the number of countries signing up to JSF is quite large. The major concern I have with JSF is when it will actually achieve IOC? If it blows out, then an interim solution may indeed be needed.

Great subject guys, it's nice to have an Aussie thread on this stuff!

[edit on 9-2-2006 by Willard856]

Get a carrier.. Really.. Its high time..

C'mon Aussie c'mon, c'mon.. c'mon aussie c'mon..

Originally posted by Forsazh
any smart person would know you cant replace a f-111 AND hornet with the jsf, the f-111 has a massive range and decent bombload. the timeframe for replacement is 2015
dont forget they only have a small budget and the countries thet threaten us have some of the most advanced flankers around

my choice is wait untill the f-22 is for sale and the price has dropped a bit and the bugs have been ironed out

Are you crazy?.

I would KILL our government if they idiots bought f22As instead of JSFs!!!
Th JSF is the best choice, if we want to buy US made stuff.

I would much prefer either the Mig-35 now or the PAK-FA later.
Why? because they are cheaper and better.

Originally posted by Willard856


Eurofighter is a jet that was supposed to be ready in the late eighties. It has had massive budget problems. It was built by a committee of countries. The fact that Britain is looking to get JSF as well should give you some idea of their thoughts on the Eurofighters capabilities.

Actually it was supposed to be ready by 1994, the same year as the Raptor was but actually entered service in 2005 the same years that the Raptor did.
Also, the 'massive budget problems' (which apply to any other fighter including the JSF) and the fact that it was 'made by a committee of countries' do not make it a bad aeroplane.

Also, using the the fact that Britain is looking to get JSF as well as some sort of reason not to buy it is wilfully misunderstanding the situation. This is absolutely no reflection on the capabilities of theTyphoon at all as it being bought for a different role altogether.

There might be any number of good reasons why Typhoon isn't right for Australia but those are not them.

[edit on 10-2-2006 by waynos]

I think the Aussies will ALWAYS go with US/British designs, for the simple reason that it's easiest to intigrate what you know. As closely as we work together at times, the coordination and confusion factor if they suddenly start flying Russian planes would be huge. I think updated Strike Eagles would be good for the Vark replacement, and a good pairing with JSF.

Concidering that Australia is so far away from nearest possible enemy (Unless Kiwis get any funny ideas ) I'd advocate Gripen, since it's relatively cheap, available and (at least i've been told so) it's easily adaptable to different weapon systems.... It's not much of a strike plane, but whydoes aus need one?

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Get a carrier.. Really.. Its high time..

C'mon Aussie c'mon, c'mon.. c'mon aussie c'mon..

Nah 2 supercarriers that would be better.
Or 2 of the new british designs.

Aussie Aussie Aussie oi oi oi

Originally posted by northwolf
Concidering that Australia is so far away from nearest possible enemy

Indonesia isn't THAT far away =/

They always wanted to invade us, there's a lot here for them

I know the F-111 is an old plane but it has a decent range, speed, payload and avionics, If it needs a replacement it should be F-15 Eagles

Australia being big and being the furthest country from anywhere needs somthing big like the F-111 so i suggest they hold on to it until they find a good sucessor.

For a perfect match, Howabout the FB-23? It is a big long range aircraft and has F-111ish facilities.

The F-22 is a good choice but Australia only spend so much on defence so the F-15 Eagle could be a good move

As someone said before, wait till next decade and see if the F-22 goes cheaper and then the Aussies can buy them then

Originally posted by Manincloak

Originally posted by northwolf
Concidering that Australia is so far away from nearest possible enemy

Indonesia isn't THAT far away =/

They always wanted to invade us, there's a lot here for them

Really? I thought it was more of a "soured relationship" kind of thing.
Malaysia-Sinagapore types?
Isn't China considered as the real prospective foe??!

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Really? I thought it was more of a "soured relationship" kind of thing.

Bah, I bet if we didn't send them as much aid as we do, they wouldn't even think twice about invading us, they'd just do it lol.

They have always had their eye on us....but like China has it's eye on Taiwan.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Malaysia-Sinagapore types?
Isn't China considered as the real prospective foe??!

China is too far away.

Originally posted by Manincloak

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Really? I thought it was more of a "soured relationship" kind of thing.

Bah, I bet if we didn't send them as much aid as we do, they wouldn't even think twice about invading us, they'd just do it lol.

They have always had their eye on us....but like China has it's eye on Taiwan.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Malaysia-Sinagapore types?
Isn't China considered as the real prospective foe??!

Indonesia would be blown out of the water

Should'nt send any aid at all.
They are jealous thats all. Bali lives off aussie money, Well not so much now.
I wouldnt go back either

[edit on 12-2-2006 by Jezza]

50 F-15 E/K models with harpoon capability of course.
Or 10 to 20 B1Bs.
This could do until something else is developed down the track.
FB-23,FB-22 or B3.

50 Typhoons or Rafales for fighter and intercept duties.

[edit on 12-2-2006 by Jezza]