Joint strike fighter RAAF's choice

THE F-35 joint strike fighter will be confirmed as the best choice to become the RAAF's frontline combat aircraft in a classified review to be presented to Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon later this week.

While the procurement cost of the F-35 has risen by about 36per cent in real terms since 2002 to $US77 million a plane, the rising Australian dollar means that the RAAF is still confident it can afford the 100-strong fleet it regards as essential.

www.theaustralian.news.com.au...

It's interesting to note that the article was posted on April 28, 2008, last tuesday. Yet I haven't seen any more information on it? Oh well, I think F-35 despite its problems, is the best choice for the RAAF.

I look forward to (hopefully ) working on them. What are your thoughts? Please note this is about the RAAF acquisition, not anything else that should be in the testing & production thread.

[edit on 5/5/2008 by C0bzz]

Hopefully they'll do a short one day only display in NZ soon after they arrive.

Earlier this year we had, yet again, the old F-111 come over and thrill crowds with its after-burner trick.

reply to post by Mr Gunter


www.airliners.net...

;D

I am pissed that the F-111s are beng 'replaced' with the Super Hornets... but that's another story.

[edit on 5/5/2008 by C0bzz]

Still gets me why would you want a single engine aircraft.
when the raaf had mirages we lost nearly half.
Thats why the F-18s were bought twin engine safety

reply to post by Jezza


There hasn't been a single loss attributed to F100-229 Pratts or F110-129 GEs in the F-16s, neither has there been a single crash of the Gripen due to engine failure.



What would you suggest as an existing or under development alternate to the F-35 that matches or exceeds the capabilities of the F-35? F-22 excluded.

[edit on 5/5/2008 by C0bzz]

reply to post by C0bzz


i somewhat totally and utterly disagree

www.f-16.net...

thats the first one from google.

reply to post by C0bzz


dont want f-22 even if it was to released to other countries.
We simply dont need it.
We have the luxury of being surrounded by water.
Need a larger navy with large well armed OPVs and the such ( corvettes )

gen 4 or gen 4.5 is all thats required.
this is a think tank in aus called aus air power that get too much
air time to FEED reporters rubbish.

Originally posted by C0bzz
There hasn't been a single loss attributed to F100-229 Pratts or F110-129 GEs in the F-16s, neither has there been a single crash of the Gripen due to engine failure.

You really might want to recheck that one my friend.


Power loss takes on many connotations, not just a technical failure of the engine - things like birdstrikes or other FOD can result in no power = loss of frame.

Just a quick question: Doesn't AU have an aircraft industry that can produce a fighter? If France can do it, surely the Aussies can. I, for one, would love to see a purely AU fighter.

reply to post by Jezza


Really? The F-22 would be perfect for the RAAF. It could easily be adapted for maritime strike AND given its speed and range, make an excellent stealthy a/c for BARCAP for your giant island

reply to post by HatTrick


It is a hugely expensive undertaking. The Grippen and the Rafale were hugely expensive and it take alot of government will and fortitude to push through and persevere in the midst of all that expence. Not sure about the Grippen, but in France, the state really has alot of pull with companies like Dessault and thus the company is willing to produce the airframe with far less profit others would. Im not even sure they are making one.

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Originally posted by C0bzz
There hasn't been a single loss attributed to F100-229 Pratts or F110-129 GEs in the F-16s, neither has there been a single crash of the Gripen due to engine failure.

Power loss takes on many connotations, not just a technical failure of the engine - things like birdstrikes or other FOD can result in no power = loss of frame.

we have a huge thread on here related to F-16 losses and almost directly related to your statement. With a lot of hours into this linked post its full of info regarding twin vs single engine fighters and the f-16 vs f-15.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

the f-22s arent for sale.
i think there is a problem when congress will only allow such a small number of them to be produced in the first place.

Originally posted by Jezza
i think there is a problem when congress will only allow such a small number of them to be produced in the first place.

You mean a problem with the F-22? Or that such a small production run is a problem?

reply to post by WestPoint23


yeah mate the raptor should of been produced in greater numbers
to cover one for one eagles up to 60 to 70% as to increase
combat effectiveness.

Originally posted by Jezza
the f-22s arent for sale.
i think there is a problem when congress will only allow such a small number of them to be produced in the first place.

They aren't for sale due to congress law. America will not sale it's must up to date military technology to any other country even if they are a close allies. Australia has asked the American defence minister if they could buy the F-22 a couple of weeks ago but I have not heard anything else about it yet.

Just saw the accident history of Australians old single engine mirages! Man, the engine in that plane must of been a complete pile of crap, compressor stall after compressor stall after engine failure after engine failure.... et cetera. It's interesting to note that the majority of those did not involve birds.


Newer engines, like the PW F-100-229 which was developed from the F119, which may I remind you, is nearly exactly the same as the F-135s powerplant, do not have these issues.

The F100 is the safest single-engine fighter jet engine on record. US Air Force‘s F100-
PW-220 and 229 powered F-16s have the lowest cumulative engine-related loss of aircraft (ERLOA) rate for any engine in its class.

The most advanced model F100, the F100-PW-229, has recorded zero ERLOA in 14 years of service with the U.S. Air Force.

www.pw.utc.com...



I would HARDLY base a defense purchase on the number of engines an aircraft has, particularly when reliability has been demonstrated to be extremely high, with the aircraft exceeding every other in effectiveness.

Saab Gripen also has ZERO losses from engines. GE F110-129 has had problems I'll give you that, but it's record has been quite good actually.

The F-35 is not immune to engine failures & FOD, but it's hardly a death trap. I would be surpised if more than a few F-35s drop out of the sky due to engine problems. Would you sacrifice effectiveness just to save a couple of aircraft over a long period of time? I sure wouldn't. What would you say should be used instead?

[edit on 6/5/2008 by C0bzz]

[edit on 6/5/2008 by C0bzz]

I dont think the F35 is the best option for the Aussies. The best option politics aside would be a flanker variant.