Originally posted by Willard856

Of course he didn't mention the classified 5% of the F-22's capabilities I note, nor any other aircraft.

Nelson wouldn't have a clue about 90% of the F-22s capabilities. He still gets it wrong in saying the F-22 isn't air to ground capable, despite the fact there is plenty of open-source info around proving otherwise.

While I understand there is some frustration regarding comments like "it's classified", the simple fact is that that is probably true, and no amount of cajoling will get an answer. The question I thought was more interesting in terms of the response was the one regarding which other aircraft were considered. I thought he would at least pull one or two out, I know that a few aircraft makers certainly marketed their wares as a Hornet replacement (it isn't exactly a surprise that the F/A-18s days are numbered), so why he was reluctant to at least mention this, is strange.

Also, in terms of understanding the JSFs appropriateness for Australia, while a detailed competitive process wasn't followed, there has certainly been analysis of the JSF within the Australian context.

I wonder what this 5% is..

Its a weird way to put it, 5%. What 5% can the F-35 have that the F-22 doesn't.

One of the key advantages of the F-35 (over the F-22) is air to ground. I would quiet easily belive the F-35 has some rather unique and advanced capabilities in that regard that the F-22 doesn't really need as its a air superiority fighter.5

I wonder if the secret 5% is secret for Australia.

IS IT PHOTON TORPEDOS

The only advantage (that I can think of) that the planned F-35 has over the current F-22 in terms of avionics are it's data links, EOTS/FLIR/IRST and DAS system. However when you look at the Block 40 upgrades for F-22 the A2G suite looks VERY impressive not to mention its A2A capabilities will increase even more (imagine that)...

[edit on 24-3-2007 by WestPoint23]

So are we saying that the machines are identical in avionics? It seems like we are glossing over the reasons and the actual differnces of the 2 planes. Otherwise the USAF wouldn't have a problem selling the RAAF the F-22 instead of the F-35(A,B,C). There has to be more to this picture that we don't see or people aren't saying.

The poitn as i see it is that the RAAf needs the replacement but they need it to fufill a specific roll right hence why where talkign about the F-111 vs the F-18 E/F and the F-35. The F-22 doesn't even enter the picture as it wont be exported. As the classified functions thats a seperate topic.

I just want to keep things clear on whats being disscused in the thread thats all.

Originally posted by Canada_EH
So are we saying that the machines are identical in avionics?

No of course not, both aircraft use technology from one another but the F-22's avionics are more powerful yet also more specific. It's A2A avionics are/will be 'better' than the ones on the F-35 but the F-35 has much more broader senors and or systems because of it's designed role. Where the F-22 shines however is in its integration of raw performance, increased LO and advanced avionics...

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Where the F-22 shines however is in its integration of raw performance, increased LO and advanced avionics...

So basically in plain speak for ease to understand, not that I dont understand what you said just for others is that the F-22 plays the role of the Big Brother of the F-35 in a sence. It has an increase in one area as thats is perfered role to play A2A. Where as the 35 has the need to play many roles when engaging many types of ground targets hence multi functions and multi versions.

Really I dont understand why people dislike the 35 so much! its new territory in aviation in a way and really it does make sence to try and make an airframe for more then one person that has key components that are the same through out.

It's not that people such as myself like or dislike the F-35 so much its as you said, it was designed to be a little brother to the F-22. In other words it was intended to be the low end in a system. Removed from that context and it's design is like a fish out of water in a medium or high threat environment. As Westpoint said (myself as well) once you get to Block 40 the Raptor WILL be better at both air, ground and ISR than the F-35, period.

And so this begs the question of why the USAF would have bothered with the F-35 in the first place. Afterall if they had taken the R&D monies as well as the procurement budget for the F-35 and put it towards evolving and building say 1500-2000 "F" and"A" Raptors this would have made much more economic and strategic sense. Or would it? And so your left with the distinct feeling that the real strategic rationale behind JSF was to maintain freindly captive markets for 5th Gen fighter aircraft. Aircraft that are at a second tier and so.
a). Dont constitute a backwards threat (a la Iran's F-14's) no matter how remote that possibility.
b). Will keep the military industrial feeding trough running. And attempt to lock out Europe, Russia or any home grown efforts.
c). Ensures any action taken by allied purchaser's of the F-35 won't be able to get involved in high intensity operations without the US F-22 cavalry coming to the rescue. Thereby ensuring the US always gets a say in whatever potential conflicts may transpire.

As I said at the begging of my post its not important wether we should like the F-35 or not. Its just that it wont I feel be the right aircraft for some allies needs like ours. And there is a distinctly cynical smell about the rationale behind this program. As for the US (supposedly) not selling the F-22. If we haven't actually asked them seriously and directly, then how do we know they wont? (The Dpty Sec G. England letter is a red herring) And if they actually do say no we should question why.

LEE.

Originally posted by thebozeian
As for the US (supposedly) not selling the F-22. If we haven't actually asked them seriously and directly, then how do we know they wont? (The Dpty Sec G. England letter is a red herring) And if they actually do say no we should question why.

LEE.

I'm almost 100% that I saw some sort of news post saying it already went to the US congress and they voted it down?

The DoD cannot yet ask congress to approve any FMS involving the F-22 Raptor even if they wanted to. There has been a congressional ban on foreign sales of the F-22 since the late 1990's, the ban was re-authorized last year. The F-22/LMT consortium has been trying real hard to get it repealed but with no success. I doubt that congressional ban will be lifted anytime soon, ceirtanly not while the US assembly line is still open (ie. not before 2011). Still, no F-35's will be sold abroad until ~2014 at the earliest anyway so...

Originally posted by Canada_EH
Really I dont understand why people dislike the 35 so much! its new territory in aviation in a way and really it does make sence to try and make an airframe for more then one person that has key components that are the same through out.

Buddy,

Look up the TFX in the 1960's. They tried to do the same thing they are doing with the F-35/JSF now. It was a failure back then and nearly destroyed the F-111 program. These do everything in one planes don't work.

The other problem is that the F-35 is even less relivent to the modern battlefeild then the F-22 is. We don't need the plane. The main reason they are buying it is because it's new. Basically the mission of the F-35 (except for the STOVL) can be done by the F-18 at LESS cost.

Tim

The Hornet/Super Hornet cannot fulfill the standards that the F-35 will bring, maybe* besides maneuverability the F-35 outclasses the Super Hornet in every category... I don't know about you but "just good enough" doesn't comfort me all that much...

*The full flight and performance envelope of the F-35 has yet to be tested and or evaluated.

Have to agree with westpoint on this ghost. If you look at my first post at the top of the page how can you tell me it does the same thing? sure there are similarities but you going to have that if planes are trying to perform the same role. I'm willing of course to see your proof but I dont agree with the premise that the 35 is trying to do things it can't. The seperate airframes are different enough to preform their roles. Not saying their isn't propagandaish stuff about it though.

Originally posted by Canada_EH
Have to agree with westpoint on this ghost. If you look at my first post at the top of the page how can you tell me it does the same thing? sure there are similarities but you going to have that if planes are trying to perform the same role. I'm willing of course to see your proof but I dont agree with the premise that the 35 is trying to do things it can't. The seperate airframes are different enough to preform their roles. Not saying their isn't propagandaish stuff about it though.

I never said the F-35 does exactlly what the F-18 does! That was never my point.

What I was saying is that the Basic mission is essentually the same: Both are self-escorted strike aircraft that can also engage in air-to-air combat.

This is a question of missin and intended use. Case in Point:
At one time the ATB/B-2 Was Thought of as a B-52 replacement.

Now numbers aside, a B-2 CAN drop unguided bombs like a B-52 can. It's not optimized for that, but it can do it.

Knowing that, would you use a Stealth bomber for carpet bombing and CAS? I wouldn't! The B-2 isn't needed for that purpose.

My point is that given the battle envirnment we are expecting to face, the F-35 is just not needed. It's OVERKILL taken to an extreem..

Your hunting quale with AMRAAM's! Get it?

Tim

Originally posted by thebozeian
Yes I was aware of the Congress vote but my (Non American) impression was that it doesnt mean much if the Prez disagrees. I plead ignorance of the US political system however

Actually for better or worse congress plays a big role when it comes to selling major military hardware oversees. Even if something is not legally restricted from being sold oversees by congress (which can happen ie. the F-22) congress still has to authorize the sale. For example the recent Australian buy of the Super Hornet's etc. will have to be authorized by the congress. This point is not mentioned because it's a done deal and congress will authorize it in heart beat but the executive and or the military cannot sell equipment by themselves (Iran Contra). Similarly the congress cannot direct the president or the DoD to sell systems if they do not agree to do so.

Originally posted by Jezza
Australia selects C27J for Air 8000 phase 2


We are to get between 12 and 14 of them with the official announcment due in May. Our order is to be tacked on to the end of the USAF order of which they are using their to replace the C-23 in Europe.

Alas, your link didn't want to cooperate but given its in "Flight" it seems credible. You can just about bet that this will be part 1 of a two part buy, the second being an additional order of CH-47's. These will of course be 'F' models and would include a rebuild option of the current 'D' model fleet. Lets face it the only way to replace the DHC-4 Caribou capability is with these two systems. What will be interesting is if either of these proposed orders will include SF capabilities, particularly any additional Chinhook's. This may mean more than four additional (perhaps 6-10?) CH-47 airframes particularly if the ADF starts looking to have a dedicated CSAR role as well. The only other viable option was the V-22 but at that price the Army has wisely said "No thanks!"

You can also bet on the Howard Government rolling out several other defence goodies between now and the end of the year, so any Chinhook announcement will probably be after May.

LEE.