Australia Launches Bid for F22 Fighter

[Rolex]

Japan began its own stealth fighter program (ATD-X) several years ago after the US refusal to sell F-22 technology. The goal is to make it all indigenous, including airframe, engines, software and advanced phased-array radar. Likely be well made and with excellent mileage.

Here is a link for more info, plus a look into other future plans.

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by SD67
That's the bit right there.
 
That's only 10 short years away. We need to be in the market looking for replacements now so we have them in time for the retirement of the F111.
It's been a faithful platform for us for about 40 years now and it's going to be damn hard to replace. I wonder if we could get a coupe of surplus B-ones?

Well the F-111's are destined to be retired in 2010, a mere 2 years away...

Originally posted by Excel1
i maybe wrong here, but i thought the "f" designation originated because the f-111 was originally designed to be a fighter for both the u.s navy and air force but it became to big and heavy during development to fill that role. changing the designation from f to b maybe would have been too much of an admission of failure?

as for raaf f-111's, the first time i ever saw one was back in the 70's. it was making a low level pass in formation with two rnzaf a-4's over south auckland.. a very impressive sight, and it's still an impressive and formable looking bird 30 odd years later.

the a-4s are collecting dust but it's good to know that there's still plenty of life left in the raaf f-111's yet, and that there are realists on the other side of the ditch when it comes to a government's obligations and duty as regards defence and commitment with it’s allies and friend’s.. which is in stark contrast to the blinkered socialists who have reduced the rnzaf's combat capability to helos, and throwing sheep out of the back of a c-130

Lovely little areoplanes those A-4K's, and when they were upgraded to Kahu's they were quite handy...I saw a few fly out of Dubbo to go bother the RAN when 2 sqn RNZAF was based there....shame helen didn't take up the F-16's - the RNZAF fighter pilots were some of the best in the world....lucky we got a lot of them for us!

 Tronsky

[Excel1]

Originally posted by -tronski-
Well the F-111's are destined to be retired in 2010, a mere 2 years away...

Lovely little areoplanes those A-4K's, and when they were upgraded to Kahu's they were quite handy...I saw a few fly out of Dubbo to go bother the RAN when 2 sqn RNZAF was based there....shame helen didn't take up the F-16's - the RNZAF fighter pilots were some of the best in the world....lucky we got a lot of them for us!

it’s history now but it wasn’t appreciated by a lot of new zealanders just how good the pilots and ground crews of the combat wing were, and how capable the a-4’s were after the upgrade. using ideological driven bogus reasoning helen clark and the other ex- anti vietnam war protesting socialist cronies in her government ripped the guts out of an air force that despite being small and operating on a shoe string budget by international standards is highly professional and gave the country a credible level of security, as well as contributing to regional security; and we were going to get the f-16s cheap. incidentally the national opposition party did raise the idea of reforming the combat wing when they get in to power by tacking  an order for the jsf  on to australia’s order for the jsf, but  they quickly back tracked on that idea when they claimed the cost of  the aircraft plus the cost of reforming the combat wing  from scratch after so long would be too much.  

Looks like I was wrong abut the f-111’s having a lot life left in them if they are going to be retired in two years. I’ll look forward to seeing their f-22 replacements when they visit this side of the ditch

[Elfie]

It's been a faithful platform for us for about 40 years now and it's going to be damn hard to replace.

Impossible probably. There just isn't anything comparable out there. The F-111 was designed during the cold war to make low level, deep penetration strikes using it's speed as it's primary defense.

[Bluedog]

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
What makes' me wonder, is why you guys' don't buy from the Brits?

I'm no military purchases expert, but I would say it is mostly a matter of logistics. Of actually being able to get the equipment, parts, ammo etc down here in wartime.
Too much hostile, or potentially hostile space between here and England no matter which route you take.
Only thing between here and the West coast of the USA is the Pacific Ocean........it contains not a lot besides water, the RAN, USN, Guam, Wake, Midway, Hawaii, things like that.

Indonesia, China, Pakistan, Russia, the Middle East etc make the other choice a bit more impractical in hostile times.

There's no doubt a lot more to it than that, but there is one reason for you.


As an afterthought, the fall of Singapore and the Battle of the Coral Sea probably have as much to do with it as anything .
Those two events showed Australians which side their bread is buttered on in the military sense.

[Dowding]

The F-111 was rubbish compared to the TSR-2. Blame Wilson for that!:D

[Rich46yo]

Originally posted by Nilsen
What plane we choose is going to be decided in 2008. The Eurofighter left the competition just before xmas because they felt that JSF was getting unfair advantages (and they are) but the gripen is still in the competition in theory. The problem is that the airforce community is too scared to lose the training that the US is and has offered since we started buying american aircraft and the US ambassador has also made direct threats to our country if we dont choose their aircraft. Sounds strange that a so old ally would do that but thats the Bush government for you.

The funny thing is that the F16s we have will actually outperform the JSF so if (when) we choose them the russians will fly in circles around our JSFs. No wonder the russians wants us to choose the JSF

                   Direct threats? So what were going to bomb you if you dont buy Yank?

                   Please post your links to the "F-16 is better" statement you made. Boy thats a new one. You dont know the first thing about modern military aircraft do you?

                 US training? What? If you buy the Eurofighter you expect us to train you in the US how to fly it? Boy...this was just a remarkable post.

[Nilsen]

Originally posted by Rich46yo
Direct threats? So what were going to bomb you if you dont buy Yank?

                   Please post your links to the "F-16 is better" statement you made. Boy thats a new one. You dont know the first thing about modern military aircraft do you?

                 US training? What? If you buy the Eurofighter you expect us to train you in the US how to fly it? Boy...this was just a remarkable post.

Yes the Ambassador said that if we chose not to buy their JSF it would have serious and damaging consequences for the relationship between norway and the us.

The F16 is faster than the JSF bomber and the russian jets we have on our doorstep will fly circles around the JSF bomber. Let me know what you know about modern jets. thx




Yes it is a remarkable post but can you debunk ANY of it?

[Rich46yo]

Originally posted by Nilsen
Yes the Ambassador said that if we chose not to buy their JSF it would have serious and damaging consequences for the relationship between norway and the us.

The F16 is faster than the JSF bomber and the russian jets we have on our doorstep will fly circles around the JSF bomber. Let me know what you know about modern jets. thx

Yes it is a remarkable post but can you debunk ANY of it?

                The ambassador says it would cause, "serious and damaging consequences"? How does that translate into "direct threats"? Norway is the one who agreed to fund the program at its inception, volunteered in fact, and agreed to buy the thing when it was finished. Your Government isn't beefing about the jet. Its beefing about the amount of jobs being created in Norway during the JSF contruction phase. Direct threats?

             In order for NATO to be able to function the NATO members have to operate the same types of weaponry.

             I know this much about modern jet fighters. That air show dog and pony shows are virtually meaningless in the modern threat environment because the airplanes that electronically "see's" the other, without itself being seen, is going to have the advantage. The JSF is not just a stealth aircraft. Its a fusion of technologies that is going to enable it to win in the future threat environment. Thats radar, stealth, weapons, in a dual role package that's going to come in far cheaper then the EF.

            Stealth platforms are inherently unstable because the importance is on making them as invisible as possible. Thats where they get their edge, not in flying air show loops. That we are making an airplane like the JSF, which is going to be slightly more manueverable then the modern F-16, with its far reduced radar cross section, and for the price? Its remarkable. Its not designed to fly circles around anything. It is designed to approach its target unseen, kill it, and come home.

                           Boy a lot of good Saddams "fast" Russian fighter jets did for him. What good are "fast jets" when nearly invisible fighter bombers are reducing your air defense network to junk? Or killing your pilots before they even know the enemy is there?

                          The JSF fighter program, especially for its lofty goals, has been a remarkably trouble free program. Unfortunately its also become the LA-7 of modern Internet forums when it comes to finding a subject to whine about the Americans over. And/or George Bush.

                        We couldnt care less what airplane you fly. Unfortunatly these Internet rumors fly at the speed of light and people actually believe them.

[Nilsen]

No.. threats as in threatening the relationship and alliance between our countries. I doubt this has made headline news in the US so i dont blame you for not knowing.

Your reference to equal weaponry within NATO is not correct either.

The only advantage that the JSF has is stealth (if you carry weapons and fuel inside only) and more users than the gripen plus the pilot training in the US. The stealth is useless unless we want to go bomb some foreign country or we end up in an all out war with russia and then stealth will be the least of our problems lol.

Sensor fusion as you say will be included in the Gripen and in the typhoon if they reenter the competition.

The JSF is not an interceptor and was never intended to be one.

[Rich46yo]

Originally posted by Nilsen
No.. threats as in threatening the relationship and alliance between our countries. I doubt this has made headline news in the US so i dont blame you for not knowing.

Your reference to equal weaponry within NATO is not correct either.

The only advantage that the JSF has is stealth (if you carry weapons and fuel inside only) and more users than the gripen plus the pilot training in the US. The stealth is useless unless we want to go bomb some foreign country or we end up in an all out war with russia and then stealth will be the least of our problems lol.

Sensor fusion as you say will be included in the Gripen and in the typhoon if they reenter the competition.

The JSF is not an interceptor and was never intended to be one.

                     So your saying that stealth is useless in the air to air role?

                      The JSF is a multi-role aircraft. As is the F-16. You found a way to live with the F-16 in the ATA role so what would be different with a stealth one that actually flys better? With better radar? And better range? A far better all around sensor suite?

                    By your definition the JSF would only be useful if you want to "bomb someone" or you, "go to war with Russia". So what pray tell are we leaving out?

                   The Gripen is a fine 4'th gen aircraft and other then the fact nobody really wants to buy it the Swedes are quite happy with it. It does however have rather poor range and limited capability with external ords.

               Sensor fusion may be included in the Gripen, indeed the Swedes were one of the pioneers in data links but no manufacturing Base eon earth can match Americas expertise with AESA radars, data-links, AWACSs, EW systems, C4ISR capability, and CPU processing capability. The JSF is going to have 1/1,000'th the radar cross signature of an F-16. You dont think thats important in the ATA role?

                             Oh, and the JSF is cheaper then the EF. But thats probably because of its "useless stealth". Which reminds me how a few dozen of our crummy first gen stealth strike aircraft brought the Iraqi air force to its knees.

[Nilsen]

The Gripen we are offered is not the one in production today. It will have far better range than the current one, AESA radar, data-links, EW systems, C4ISR capability, and CPU processing capability just like the JSF and its faster. Its fully NATO compatible. It also costs less, requires less maintnance per flying hour and uses shorter runways.... even roads if they have to.

We need a fighter that has the speed to intercept russian backfires, bears and their fighter jets. Beeing a stealthy plane that is too slow to "meet and greet" the russians are worth very little in peace time and in times of tention. In an all out war with russia they will all get shot down anyway and stealth will not help much.

The JSF is ideal for many, but not for our use.

The F16 is faster than the JSF and with the latest upgrades it would be plenty enough for our needs for a long time if it was not for the fact that the airframes gets old.