U.S. lawmakers said exploring F-22 version for Japan

Im not surrpsied. The Sec Def may be willing to free up an export version to appease congressional delegations in regards to his halt of F-22 production. The F-22 would be ideal for both Japan and Australia and suit thier defence needs quite nicely.

Good for them but i still think the F35 is the future of combat aviation

The RAAF doesn't think so.

Honestly, the F-15SE would be better suited. It would pick up the maritime defense role a lot more seamlessly than the F-22 would.

But the Eurofighter would also be a pretty good match to both country's needs.

The F-35 is a joke. It's a financial black hole that has a worm-hole to the Chinese. It's an L-O F-105, and it's the same mentality behind the F-35 that was behind the F-105.

reply to post by Aim64C

---

13 Air Forces don't think so.

Nothing like an LO F-105, either.

[edit on 3/6/2009 by C0bzz]

reply to post by C0bzz

---

The white paper just released gives government policy - the RAAF are keeping quiet

www.defenseindustrydaily.com...

but whats `interesting` is that whilst the RAN want 12 subs , they can`t crew the ones they have allready!

It depends on the flavor of the month.

While the F-15E or the Silent Eagle veraint if built would do well. Nothing would have quite the range and speed the Raptor would bring to the game. While your right the F-22 has nothing suited for the maritime strike role (Although ive seen some info that the SDB might be suited for antishipping) that not to say it cannot be done.

You are talking about alot of ocean to cover and you have to think future threats like a ChiCom deep water navy etc.

There have been successful demonstrations of AMSTE programmed and guided release of 2,000 Lb class JDAMs against maritime targets. It consists of a modified GBU-31(V)1/B able of receiving a multitude of data link guidance updates from a variety of sources; space and air based. Using such incoming information the JDAM is precise enough to target moving ships. Especially larger ships. I suspect the B-2s new AESA radar includes programming to perform such a task.

The F-22 will eventually get block upgrades in increment 3.2 etc... This will enable it to carry such guided munitions, and to use its radar for the maritime role. The F-22 has superb low observable characteristics, it's range is sufficient at the speed and altitude it travels. Giving great initial targeting to the bomb, greater range and speed, at a closer distance, and ideal profile for release. There is no other aircraft that can guarantee a better chance at success. It's a limited inventory, naturally, but it is a possible option. The SDB II on the other hand will have a tri-mode seeker, an inherent maritime capability. Greater range as well, truly stand off, especially for an aircraft like the F-22. A decision for contract is expected later this year.

Future upgrades of the APG-77 and ALR-94 will enable to F-22 to have a good ability, to detect surface ships thought it's radar and SIGINT systems.

The only drawback is that Australia does not have as robust a capability as the US for reconnaissance, intelligence, target acquisition and tracking. In this sense it would still be reliant on the USAF and USN for overarching support. But this is likely for any plausible future scenario, so it's not an unusual requirement.

It's a lot of if's, just what's possible. But who knows what the policy makers are bound to come up with. Logic is a lost practice.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by WestPoint23]

Sorry - the JDAM doesn't cut it for maritime strike.

It's suited to sinking toy boats, and certainly has the penetrating capability - but it's fodder for a point-defense system.

Even when using datalinking for mid-course updates - it would require some terminal guidance phase - as ships don't stand still (the LJDAM would do) that would require the launching aircraft (or some other resource) to linger and illuminate the target.

You could modify the terminal phase to home on radiation sources - which would certainly spell death for point-defense systems and radars - but spoofing those is not exactly difficult.

Even at optimal range - the JDAM requires the F-22 to venture dangerously close to the air-defense grid. And the F-22's LO characteristics are highly over-rated. The aircraft has sensors designed to help the pilot avoid turning itself in a manner that will illuminate it to a search/tracking radar... but at the ranges you have to get with a JDAM - it's not effective against shipboard systems.

It works against fixed installations because they use Tomahawk strikes and provide electronic support to our LO aircraft. The installations don't move, their position is recorded into the GPS units and the bombs released on their merry way. The target isn't going anywhere, and the locations of most radars capable of detecting the aircraft are already known and the flight-path plotted around those systems.

LO doesn't mean you can just fly into an air defense grid and blow it up. It's a very intel-demanding asset to use in any effective strike.

It's not something you want to focus on in the maritime strike role. It can certainly mean the difference between a lost aircraft and not - but ships move in both absolute terms and relativistic terms (their formation and heading can change at will). The sea also has some of the most powerful radar systems developed, intended to detect and neutralize a carrier's firepower (her squadrons) - aiding in this is the complete lack of geographic obstructions (spare the curvature of the Earth).

You want a stand-off weapon specialized in sinking ships - and aircraft that can carry those weapons - and plenty of them. Since you can't fit a bomber on a carrier - that leaves you with aircraft like the F-15, F-16 (and the Mitsubishi variant of it - the F-2), and the F-18 (and the Echo/Foxtrot models).

The F-35 is excluded. So is the F-22. The F-35 is what happens when an F-16 gets drunk and sleeps with a penguin - then that mutant offspring gets raised by Harriers. It doesn't know what the hell it is, nor does anyone buying it quite know what they are going to do with it. It's the iPod of aviation.

The F-22 is an air supremacy fighter. It's not designed to carry air to ground ordnance. It will never be proficient as a ground-attack aircraft. That's not to say it doesn't have certain capabilities that would make it useful for striking certain targets - but those are hardly the bulk of combat sorties. For every sortie flown by F-117s and B-2s, at least ten are flown by a combination of A-10s, F-18s, F-15Es and F-16s - that's not even counting the B-1 and B-52 contributions.

That's not just because of the smaller number of aircraft - that's just how much work there is to be done - how many targets there are.

When faced with the concept of purchasing the F-22, or the F-15SE - the F-15SE is the logical choice. It has a much higher practical payload, will be far cheaper to operate and repair, and you can field about 1.3 F-15SEs (WITH spares and support) to every unsupported F-22 purchase. Each F-15SE has about the same payload capacity (if not more) than the F-15E, which is about 20% greater than the F-22's payload (considering the F-22 is using the four 5000lb hardpoints - a cleaner-flying F-22 couldn't compete). That is also combined with a vastly expanded arsenal over the F-22 to cover intercept, maritime strike, and combat support, and ground attack.

Considering these countries are on a much tighter military budget than we are - they are not going to want to spend money on niche aircraft like the F-22. Granted - it's a better interceptor than the F-35 (though that's not difficult to accomplish) - but the F-15SE provides that and other roles that are already developed for that platform and not prone to whimsical defense spending changes by our frivolous policy makers.

Purchasing the F-22 is a bit of a gamble - many of its capabilities are still on the drawing board. Buying the F-22 now would be like buying Betamax after Sony announced plans to discontinue production and had question marks hanging over the idea of extended support. The cost of operating that aircraft just shot up through the roof - and it will only get worse as time goes on.

Unless the U.S. changes its defense budget - the F-22 is a poisoned bird that not even the buzzards will eat once it's dead.

The F-35 is teetering on that ledge, as well. I fully expect next year's budget will be dropping interest in the F-35 and leave us with a half-assed arsenal, there, too.

It may see a little more popularity on the international market - but the F-15SE is much closer to what many of those countries want. It may be a little late to the punch - many countries are already in final negotiations for their JSF contracts, if not already signed and dated.... but Boeing and McDonnel-Douglass have been around the aviation defense industry and know it well - they wouldn't develop an aircraft (on their own) they did not believe would go to market.

reply to post by Harlequin

---

FredT, an F-22 is minimum of 130 million not including any development costs, if we include those then it goes to 400 million (exluding export version development costs), a plane. Maintainence costs are similarly through the roof. An Aussie F-22 is simply not going to happen.


But apparently just like the iPod, a lot of stupid people still are highly likely to place an order for the F-35 which obviously has nothing to do with capability of the aircraft. And the F-35 is more like an stealthy, internal carriage, extremely advanced avionics, F-16 with 2.5 times the internal fuel load, at an acceptable price. The F-15SE is a last ditch effort to sell more of an outdated aircraft that no-one (who doesn't already fly the F-15) will buy. They gave it Super Hornet derived avionics and some coatings that will now apparently reduce the RCS from flying barn to flying barn door. Oh and some conformal tanks with reduced capacity for internal carriage.

Of course, as our friend Elpie would like to remind us, only 2% of flight testing is completed and it's overbudget and late. Fine, Australia hasn't and shouldn't placed an order for the F-35 till that's clear - we're not paying for development costs after all. It will be Block II / III Super Hornet before ANY F-15 is EVER placed in AUS, there is a reason we called it 'Hornet country'. Simply being realistic...

For Australia it's more Super Hornets or F-35's, or both.

[edit on 4/6/2009 by C0bzz]

Sorry, the F-15E, F-22, F-18, F-35, and the latest models of the F-16 all use the same basic avionics. Their radars are all virtually identical, spare for the size and specifics of the antenna. Many of their EW capabilities are the same, as well. It's branded as new for the F-22 and F-35 - but it's been around since the F-14D. Though the F-22 does come with some nice computers that passively monitor all radars in the region and help keep the F-22 from exposing its vulnerable points to them - but that's been around since the F-117.

There's little more capability in the F-22 and F-35 than the current arsenal. To make matters worse, ground and ship-based radars have no problem picking them up. AWACS are a bit problematic as they are highly mobile and are on a completely different angle than surface systems - which makes them particularly troubling for our LO designs. Our newer fighters have little difficulty picking out LO airframes - though previous-generation radars have much more difficulty.

Back to the F-35 vs F-15SE - the F-15SE out-ranges the F-35 by a long shot, has a larger payload. Additionally, the F-35 cannot be any more 'stealthy' than the F-15SE by congressional restrictions on exported technology.

As part of that restriction - the F-35's electronics are sealed, and no secondary suppliers/contractors are permitted. That means the F-35's electronics are - effectively - unserviceable, and we all know how countries like to add in their own electronics and be able to fix their own gear. This also means that the F-35 is useless in a time of war as it depends on external contractors for replacement parts and services.

It's way over-budget, the per-unit cost rising, and the most generous estimates place the first operational squadrons of F-35s in 2016. In all likelihood, it will be a few years later, as lockheed again runs over-budget, past deadlines, and just drops the ball.

Sorry - but the F-35 is an example of a waste of development time and money. The F-22 was a competent aircraft - the F-35 cannot make that claim.

So - somehow we're supposed to believe a 30 year old design with tilted vertical stabilisers and some Radar Absorbent Material added on, with engine compressor faces easily visible, will not only be more stealthy than both the Eurofighter and Rafale, but MATCH the (non-existant) "export" F-35 - all because Boeing said so?






Additionally if we get into manufacturer claims, Lockheed claims the F-35 is 4 times as effective in air to air combat as the "best 4th generation fighters", which are now shown to include the F-15SG with AN/APG-63(v3) AESA radar. Oh wait, they're not manufacturer claims, they're USAF tac brawler simulations. Furthermore, during the JSF briefing in March at the Australian International Airshow it was asked, and answered, repeatedly by Lockheeds Tom Burbage, US Government Project Lead, and RAAF NACC (New Air Combat Capability) lead that there was no difference between a US jet, and an export jet to any of the 6 partner nations. The same was apparently said at the Norway briefing, but I wasn't there.

Furthermore.




No, it means companies like ELBIT and RAFAEL cannot swap bits out and shove their own boxes into the plane. Besides, I hardly see how what you're saying is a good thing - the F-15SE doesn't even HAVE such gear. Furthermore, who said that not being abled to drop 3rd party boxes into the aircraft means it's unservicable?


The F-15E weighs 37,500lb and carries 13,125lb of internal fuel, and the conformal tanks add about 4,500lb to that for a total of 17,625lb of fuel. Meanwhile, the F-35A weighs 29,300lb and carries 18,480lb of fuel internally. That if of course, for an aircraft that is also far smaller, with less frontal area, less surface with half as many engines designed for subsonic acceleration, the aircraft itself specifically touted as having "eye watering endurance".



(So no it doesn't carry more either.)

That was using the USAF requirement of 610nmi, with latest programme briefs the radius is closer to 700nmi, and additionally the F-15E above was likely carrying external tanks too, negating any RCS parity it may have with the "export F-35" (let's add twin 420 gallon tanks to the F-35 then). Furthermore, the CTF's in the F-15SE are smaller than that of the F-15E to facilitate internal weapons carriage.




It never has, nor never will be about the "basic avionics" - it's about how they're fused and used - and that's the difference between federated 4th generation and integrated 5th generation. Admittedly, newer 4th generation aircraft such as the Super Hornet block II have mission systems that are essentially 5th generation.

YouTube Link

No, actually, they're that part that's the MOST different.



That's absurd, that's like claiming radar has been around since 1900 and thus AESA is "nothing new".



F-14D could do that? F-117? Or I guess the time spent with Boeing 757 FTB and Boeing 737 CATB are complete wastes of time. The F-14D was good enough after all (as was the Sopwith Camel).


Tell me why, it's what you CONSISTENTLY fail to do. BACK UP what you say with SOMETHING CITED. Tapping your nose and saying trust me gets us nowhere.


More on that soon.

[edit on 7/6/2009 by C0bzz]

In the case of Japan, most of your operations will be over sea...

I know I'd rather have 2 engines behind me than one...


The F-22 for me please.

This has been coming for a while, the US and Japan have about as tight an alliance as it is possible to have (nobody else gets their own US CVBG either) and we need to sell more F-22's to keep the platform viable.

F-22 is a great aircraft, but it's not something like B-2 we should feel compelled to keep to ourselves.

reply to post by C0bzz

---

Of course, all because Lockheed (and their lobbyists) said so?

The skin of the aircraft and geometry are the huge contributors to RCS. The SE's design will have a rather radical impact on RCS. Albeit, not as radical as a landing-gear-on-up design, but enough to make the difference on terminal guidance systems and AAA systems.

In CAS - frontal RCS is a minor consideration - you're hardly ever facing what is attacking you, and only occasionally what you are attacking. Guided munitions reduce frontal RCS focus to an archaic design philosophy.

And of course no export model "exists" - there isn't even a production model F-35. However, the U.S. imposes restrictions on exported technologies. The F-18E/F's intake RF blockers are not present on the exported models (to name one example). They will not be approved for either the F-35 or the F-15SE.



Physically impossible.

Detection/tracking range of the AN/APG-63V3 of a target with the RCS of an F-35 is over 40 nautical miles. The F-15(any model) also has much greater kinetic performance than the F-35, which has yet to enter kinetic range of its own Aim-120s. By the time it's all said and done, the F-35 is forced to start singing every tune it knows while zone-fiving it out of the area in hopes of extending beyond the kinetic range of the F-15's still-tracking Aim-120.

Of course - the F-35 is not able to outrun an F-15, and is just a big turkey.

Furthermore - the F-35's LO features are optimized to reduce the effectiveness of high-band radars, more common on SAMs, radar-guided-guns, and terminal guidance systems. Unfortunately - modern aircraft radars are a little more diverse, and can operate in ranges that the F-35 is rather inept at reducing.

www.defenseindustrydaily.com...



It's a pretty big concern when you rely on a foreign supplier for all of your parts.

Iran learned this lesson the hard way.

With most of the parts and know-how being centered in one nation, it's a serious logistical concern. Survival in combat doesn't hinge on what capabilities you have... but on what you can actually use. Few military units have operational capability above 80% when it comes to armor and aircraft. Start losing supply lines... and you rapidly lose all capability.

And, yes, the F-15SE is virtually identical in avionics to the F-35. Hell - the F-15E is extremely similar, especially factoring in the V4 radar upgrades and the 'plug-and-play' standards emerging as a carry-over from the computer world.

The F-35 comes with some fancier stock equipment... which has yet to be finalized on the production model or figured into per-unit costs.

However, ultimately, the only thing the F-35 has that the F-15 doesn't is all of the airframe-integrated passive sensing equipment that is supposed to gather detailed information on hostile radars (it's a snubbed version of what is in the F-22). And, in all honesty - it's more trouble than it's worth for the role of those aircraft.



Interesting way of figuring range and endurance.

Sometimes, it's better to have a larger airframe, more engines, lower spindle speeds, and require less airspeed to stay in the air. The F-35 is, and always will be, a turkey - as evidenced by available data:

www.globalsecurity.org...

www.globalsecurity.org...

You'll also note the higher payload of the F-15 and the more diverse weapons load.



Sad how all of our accomplishments are meaningless in the scope of time, isn't it?

Enough emo-talk, sources: www.globalsecurity.org...

www.topedge.com...

The AN/APG-71 was unrealized as a surface-strike radar, though there was nothing that prevented it.

The AN/APG-70 had been doing it since 1988, at least.

Of course, you may not be able to radiate some sorry sap on the ground and read his dog-tags with advanced radar imaging like on the F-35... but last I checked, we were hunting tanks and armor - something the size of an RV, not making sure everyone has their fly zipped.

The overall capabilities of radars haven't changed much since the late 1980s. The move now has all been in how that information is presented to the pilot and in JTIDS (which has been around for about the same amount of time). We're getting some higher resolutions and better computerized manipulation of data - but most of that processing power now is all in the processing of JTIDS (which is one of the huge things holding down the F-35, it's getting its brains busted trying to process the passive-sensor-overkill on that thing and function with JTIDS).



Difference of priorities. I know what I say is true to my knowledge and experience - however deep or shallow that may be. I also treat this as a casual conversation, I only pull out resources in casual conversation if I have them conveniently on-hand. Additionally, much of my knowledge comes from documentaries I've watched and conversations I've had with my fellow aviation community. I cannot cite my sources as much as I can reinforce my personal source with a third-party citation.

Plus, it is my experience that it's best to present an idea and discuss it before presenting sources. Otherwise, most people can't see the forest for the trees and get caught on details that matter little in the grand scheme of things.

In this case - the grand scheme is that the F-35 is a repackaged F-105..... and I wouldn't get in the cockpit of that thing - ever.

Edit: Tag error

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Aim64C]

Lockheed Martin Goes Gambling in Japan





It also turns out there is increasing pressure on Gates to buy 60 more for the AF and Japan has offered to spend up to 1 billion to "dumb" down the Raptor for export.

100% correct.

www.ausairpower.net...
www.ausairpower.net...

The F-22 Raptor is useful for a maritime strike role, where a carefully aimed GBU-39 SDB, dropped through the target ship's funnel, will detonate at the keel, buckling the ship and sinking it.

Maritime Strike using the F-22 Raptor

The F-15SE Silent Eagle lacks the all-aspect stealth of the Raptor (the target ship has radar and SAMs, you know).

reply to post by C0bzz

---

Awesome post! It shows that heartstring pulling cliche statements won't get anyone anywhere on this forum.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by Bugman82]

Thanks.

I didn't get around to responding to the last post (holidays / swine flu). But I can reply if you want.

[edit on 10/8/2009 by C0bzz]