The USA invests in the F-22 and variants instead of the F-35 JSF

The F35 has superior front sector stealth to everything short of the F22, certianly plenty enough to get well within engagement range of the stealthiest Flanker variant. All aspect stealth is not awesome but is a hell of a lot better than any possible rival. A rival would have to buy a hell of a lot of flankers, super SAMs, tankers, AEW&C etc to reliably deal with a force of dozens of JSFs with their own SAM, tanker and AEW&C support, and who's got that sort of cash?

What's more important is that the F22 is no bomb truck. SBDs, what the hell are they going to wreck? Australia for one needs something that can carry a load of those 2000lb explosive masonary nails, not a few bomlets.

FlyingDutchman said:
Australia doesn't need and doesn't want F-22s.
In the universe I live in, Indonesia barely has an airforce...

How again are they going to be a threat to Australia with their airforce?

If anything, Australia needs a true multi-role fighterbomber like the F-35, not a specialized interceptor with secondary bombcarrying capabilities.

What Riain and FlyingDutchman said. The ADF actually wants the Joint Strike Fighter, but they're going to have to settle with the SuperHornet as a stop-gap plane before they get their hands on the F-35.

The JSF is meant as both replacement to the Hornet and and as a means of reviving the bombing capabilities the RAAF had as an operator of the F-111.

Where'd you get the idea Australian brasshats or defence wonks wanted the 46-state-pork-barrel fighter? Why would we want to piss all that money up against the wall for something that doesn't meet our doctrinal needs?
 
Last edited:
The JSF is meant as both replacement to the Hornet and and as a means of reviving the bombing capabilities the RAAF had as an operator of the F1-11.

Unless I'm much mistaken, the F-35 doesn't have anything like the range of the F-111. And in the pacific, that matters.
 
Unless I'm much mistaken, the F-35 doesn't have anything like the range of the F-111. And in the pacific, that matters.

RAAF is upgrading in-air refueling capacity (I think).

Anyway, the JSF possesses the same strategic attribute the F-111 had--we'll have 'em, J_____a won't have 'em.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I have to say that your belief in the F-22 and disdain for the F-35 is puzzling, at best. The two aircraft are designed for entirely different missions and any reasonable variant of the F-22 would be hard pressed to perform many of the tasks being assigned to the F-35.

The F-22, the day it came into squadron service, was the best aircraft ever to fill the air superiority role. It is, however, also nearing 20 years since first flight of the YF-22 and some of the invincibility of the aircraft has been lost. This is less the result of problems with the aircraft itself and more with the ongoing improvements in detection technology, even the almighty B-2 is becoming less of a ghost as time goes by. The Raptor is a "less observable" design, not an invisible one, something the the USAF realizes but seemingly you do not. It is also very much a "pure" fighter, which can, if absolutely necessary, be used to deploy ground attack ordnance but that is poor use for the platform.

The comparison between the F-22 and F-35 is, on the face, nonsensical. The F-35 is not meant to replace the F-22 or to perform air superiority missions from land bases. It is designed to replace the AV-8, F-15E, F-16, and F-18 as the primary deep strike aircraft and "first day of war" strike aircraft of all three services. In this role is will be even more of a revolution than the F-22 was in Air Superiority role. The Lightning II offers true low observability to the less glamorous, but far more important, ground attack aircraft. As the oft repeated, yet true, saying goes "fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history". The F-35 is designed to allow more of the history makers to live to enjoy what they create.

The question isn't if you would rather engage in air-to-air combat over Central Europe in a Raptor vs. a Lightning II; it is would you rather get shot off a carrier deck on an attack mission in a F-35 or F-18E/F. Would you prefer to have a son or daughter fly combat missions in an F-35 or an AV-8? F-35 or F-16? Fly counter air missions in carrier launched F-18 Super Bugs or in Lightning II? How about having a low observability fighter for carrier use vs a conventional 4th generation aircraft? There is only one sane answer to these questions, the F-35.

There is also the cost per unit price that must be considered, even IF the F-22 could be pushed to handle the many roles of the F-35 (something that is NOT possible; just for a start imagine what a Raptor would look like after a Cat shot or a couple traps). The F-35 is nearly 40% cheaper per airframe than the F-22 (and this is the vanilla F-22A, not a imaginary heavily modified version for S/VTOL and CTOL or with triple the internal storage for weapons that would be needed to replace the F-35) meaning that six F-22s become 10 F-35s when mission planning comes around. Even with the lower price of the F-35 the USN estimates it will be 90 aircraft short by 2017, while the USAF estimates as many as 800 empty slot will exist in its fighter bomber ranks (both figures from the February 2009 Congressional Research Service report on the JSF program). This is with the procurement of 647 aircraft for the USN/USMC and 1,621 airframes by the USAF. One can only shudder to think of the USAF being short AT LEAST 1,400 combat aircraft if the F-22 was procured instead of the F-35.

It is, of course, possible that you have access to non-Open Source material that indicates that the F-35 is actually inferior to the AV-8B or F-16 in which case the above discussion isn't germane. If you do have such access, I would note that this Board is a poor place to violate OpSec.
 
The RAAF is getting 5 Airbus MRTTs, which will boost the quite reasonable range of the JSF nicely. The problem with the F22 isn't that it sucks, but rather that isn't too specialised. Once your F22s have shot down the key air assets and destroyed the ground based radars the war shifts to bomb hauling, which the F22 doesn't do well but the Super Hornet and JSF do quite nicely.

One thing I learned at Uni was not to belive Carlo Kopp/APA. While he may be right on technical things he has no idea about the politics and finance behind the international arms trade and regional security. His article about Flankers doctrine of first-shot multiple-missile salavos is probably correct. But which Asian country can afford to replenish their AAM stocks when every fighter in an air to air engagement expends 4 big, expensive AAMs as the first shot and then maybe has to make follow-up shots?
 

The Sandman

Banned
Actually, here's a question: given the sort of war we're most likely to be engaging in, has there been any discussion at all of a next-gen replacement for the A-10? Or even a purchase of additional airframes as the old ones wear out? Because I would think that an aircraft that can basically just sit there and chew things to pieces at a low altitude while being very durable would have a use regardless of whether we're talking about tank columns in Korea or paramilitaries in some Third World hellhole as the target du jour.
 
I don't know what kind of war anyone else is looking at, but Australia is looking at a rising China which doesn't seem too keen on engaging cooperatively with in regional nieghbours, not to mention India and everyone in between who is going along well enough. In these circumstances I don't want re-hashed 70s planes, I want as much stealth as we can afford, the highest spec weapons we can get and an array of diplomatic fallback options. Personally I'd be inclined to grab some Eurofighters to suppliment the superbugs and JSFs, just to keep everyone sweet and on their toes.
 
Actually, here's a question: given the sort of war we're most likely to be engaging in, has there been any discussion at all of a next-gen replacement for the A-10?...
According to the Air Force Association Magazine (exactly which month's issue I'll look up ASAP), one of the roles for the F-35's will be the present role of the A-10. Apparently, one of the versions of the F-35 will have ground attack capability good enough to replace the A-10 entirely.
 

The Sandman

Banned
According to the Air Force Association Magazine (exactly which month's issue I'll look up ASAP), one of the roles for the F-35's will be the present role of the A-10. Apparently, one of the versions of the F-35 will have ground attack capability good enough to replace the A-10 entirely.

It's also going to have the same durability? IIRC, the big thing with a Warthog is that it's pretty heavily armored; I'm not quite sure how the F-35 as designed would be mounting similar protection.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
It's also going to have the same durability? IIRC, the big thing with a Warthog is that it's pretty heavily armored; I'm not quite sure how the F-35 as designed would be mounting similar protection.


The armored aspect of the 'Hog has never really be used. If you look at 1991, the A-10 community was mostly kept over 10K to reduce the chances of "Golden BB" kills.

There is no replacement for the A-10 in the pipeline especially since it took serious threats from Congress to abogate the 1947 rules keeping the Army from having armed fixed wing aircraft to get the USAF to accept the plane in the first place. It will actually be missed more in its "Sandy" role than in any other combat slot.
 
The British most likely wouldn't buy the F22, mainly as I can't see the Americans handing over technical data and the ability to maintain them themselves. We almost cancelled the F35 order when this came close to being denied, that despite BAe bring involved in the design and construction of the F35 to begin with.

And it must be noted, as others have said, the F35 is not an air superiority fighter and is not going to be used in such a role. In the UK it will largely replace Harriers and Tornados, which it is clearly the superior aircraft.

To be honest with the major European nations having already spent a fortune on the Eurofighter, and the French having Rafale, I can't see any buying F22s under any circumstances.

And none of the new generation planes are 'stealth' they are 'stealthy' there's a difference, besides modern equipment can detect the old F117s now anyway. Attempts at full stealth isn't worth the trade off in performance.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Australia doesn't need and doesn't want F-22s.
In the universe I live in, Indonesia barely has an airforce. :p

How again are they going to be a threat to Australia with their airforce?

I'll just present this so everyone can make up their own mind about the military strength of Indonesia. I honestly did this because it gave me a chance to dig through my research library of magazines and books to find the relevant information.

According to Air Forces Monthly no. 140 and 141, Nov. and Dec. '99 article Indonesian Air Force review part 1 and 2, written by Alan Warnes and Hendro Subroto: (I'm just paraphrasing, unless it's in italics)

The TNI-AU (Tentara Nasional Indonesia-Angkatan Udara), or Indonesian Air Force, is spearheaded by 10 F-16s, seven being Block 15 F-16As, and 3 F-16Bs.
Their primary role is air defence, and for this they are equipped with AIM-9P Sidewinders, the AIM-120 AMRAAMs being sought by Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia are still not an option due to strict US export legislation to South-East Asia. (since then, Malaysia has acquired the Russian AA-10 Alamo Medium Range Missile, which has openned up the export market to AMRAAMS. Australia has also bought them.)

It has on stength 12 F-5s of both E and F variants currently in an upgrade programme. The upgrade programme includes adding a HUD and Weapons Aiming Computer and is being done, interestingly, in country by a private firm.

They also have 14 (or possibly 16) A-4 Skyhawks of varying types on strength, though it is believed that only 6 to 8 are operational (but very busy). The author states that 12 missions were flown on the day he visited with 4 aircraft.

They also have on hand a number of Su-30s, presumably because the AA-10 Alamo will fill the role of the AMRAAM that the US won't sell to them.



Just thought you'd all like to know. I had fun digging up info on a country that's not normally talked about, so it was more of an exercise in digging for me. :)
 
I have it on the best authority that during the Australian intervention in East Timor in 1999 the Indos could only make available 1 F5E to patrol the border during the tensest days. How this F5 was going to counter the 4 RF111Cs that was conducting authorised recon in the area I don't know. Apparently the 10 F16s only have 9 engines to share between them, a situation which isn't the best for maximising availability. The 6 Flankers they have or are getting won't do much to tip the balance away from 71 HUG Hornets and 24 Super Hornets with AEW&C and tanker support plus 3 Ageis destroyers.

But that's not the point, the point is that China will have hundreds of 4+th generation planes which will need to be countered in the next decade or so.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I have it on the best authority that during the Australian intervention in East Timor in 1999 the Indos could only make available 1 F5E to patrol the border during the tensest days. How this F5 was going to counter the 4 RF111Cs that was conducting authorised recon in the area I don't know. Apparently the 10 F16s only have 9 engines to share between them, a situation which isn't the best for maximising availability. The 6 Flankers they have or are getting won't do much to tip the balance away from 71 HUG Hornets and 24 Super Hornets with AEW&C and tanker support plus 3 Ageis destroyers.

But that's not the point, the point is that China will have hundreds of 4+th generation planes which will need to be countered in the next decade or so.

Well, at least you an me agree about Indonesia.

Part of this whole "How much will this cost?" approach I've got to government and the military includes the obvious question "Where will all this money come from?"

And China just can't go around attempting to blow the crap out of potential trading partners. Especially ones with money. Sure, if they were to go bomb the hell out of Tibet on a weekly basis, they wouldn't have a problem because those folks are poor to begin with.
But if they get into a war with Australia, they're going to lose their income mighty quick. Not just from Australia, but from every friend of the Down Under who doesn't want to try shipping their goods through a war zone festooned with Sovremmenys, anti-ship aircraft, and Aussie subs.
 
Of course China is not going to be blowing up its trading partners. Instead, if it has dominance in the region, it will seek to claim valuable territory and resources such as the Spratley Islands. It can also intimidate neighbors to gain advantages in a variety of fields. There is no need to actually go to war if your potential rivals are so weak that they must back down without outside support.

Modern militaries are more for deterence than actual use unless you are one of the big boys.
 
I don't know what kind of war anyone else is looking at, but Australia is looking at a rising China which doesn't seem too keen on engaging cooperatively with in regional nieghbours, not to mention India and everyone in between who is going along well enough. In these circumstances I don't want re-hashed 70s planes, I want as much stealth as we can afford, the highest spec weapons we can get and an array of diplomatic fallback options. Personally I'd be inclined to grab some Eurofighters to suppliment the superbugs and JSFs, just to keep everyone sweet and on their toes.

Cost and commonality would be a problem if Australia wanted a dedicated interceptor squadron with Eurofighters.

It would probably mean giving up two squadrons of F-35s for it (as you'd have another type of aircraft and the Eurofighter is more expensive then the F-35), which is probably not good value for money.

Also although it's probably the ultimate 4.5 gen interceptor, the Eurofighter is a more dated design then the F-35.
Stealth for example was only integrated later in the design, which stretches back to the '80s and not from the start as with the F-35.
 
Top