We just can’t afford it. It’s very expensive, and its multi-role capability is almost non-existent, its an air superiority fighter, built to replace the F15 which all versions besides the F-15E were “not a pound for air to ground”. The bang for our buck just isn’t there.

If you want multi-role, you’re better off with F-16 Falcon’s or waiting for the F-35 Lightning, we took the second option, and it’s the right one.

As I understand it, they were purchased for, essentially, doing a re-run of Dam Busters but over Jakarta. But it’s generally considered impolite to say so…

Basically correct, with the nuclear strike option left open as well, or course, if we had to go down that path (which fortunately we did not).

Stephen Lloyd: not entirely true. One of the roles the F-22 is taking over is that of the F-117: that is, dropping one or two JDAMs on a heavily defended target. There is also the new Small Diameter Bomb, of which the F-22 can apparently carry eight internally. And it can carry weapons externally if you don’t mind losing stealth.

True, but really done as a species of stunt to help get funding from the US Congress. F-22 is a ‘pure’ air superiority acft and is designed for beyond-visual-range work. Within-visual-range combat is now suicidal, as WVR missiles can turn well in excess of 50G now, they simply cannot be evaded. It is also arguable that F-22 is data-compatible in the way F-18/F-35 are.

However, integration of a whole bunch of things that Australia would want, notably the JASSM cruise missile and an anti-shipping missile, haven’t been done and aren’t likely to be done by the USA.

Correct. We’d simply be a lot better off asking to lease 8 or so B-1B

But we already have a non-stealthy aircraft that can carry both of those things: the Super Hornets. Brand new, in fact. So there is the theoretical possibility of a mixed fleet of F-22s and Super Hornets, with the F-22\s gradually upgraded to carry more weapons over time.

Very unlikely as terribly expensive. And why bother? If we go for a small number of F-22, keep them in the pure air superiority role for which they were designed. That gives truly appalling force complications for any potential opponent. Yes, you’d have a F-22 F-35/F-18 mix, and that brings costs, but it would be a really nasty combination to oppose.

If you think that plausible opposition air forces are likely to get aircraft that outmatch (or are even a plausible match) for the JSF over the next 30 years - not likely in the next decade, but not out of the question for 2020 and beyond, that kind of mixed fleet might be more capable than an all-JSF one.

Aye, and here is the rub most people do not understand. The USN has decided that its future carrier air group will be an F-35/F-18 mix. So they have developed full data compatability between these machines, they can use each other’s sensors and do some other very interesting stuff as well. So a radar-silent F-35 can engage a target using weapons on the F-18 and vice versa, all while sharing a completely common air picture. Nobody else, and I mean nobody, is anywhere near this yet. This is why when the ALP went gunning for the F-18, they so quickly changed their tune. The synergies of that tactical mix are most remarkable and best of all, the USN is going to pay for it (already has), so we get the synergies for nowt along with an ironclad development path for the next 30-40 years.

This is also the reason teh Singaporeans are making noises like ‘erm, we want to buy about 100 F-35 as well, guys…’

It just bothers me that, the weaknesses of Russian-equipped air forces are things that seem to me to be fixable over time; the weaknesses of a JSF-equipped air force are much harder because they’re inherent in the airframe.

True, Robert, but NOT TRUE about the sensor architecture. And that is where the advantage is. You can upgrade the latest Su-27 series to be better acft. Hell, it is already a much better acft than F-35 in many ways, but if it is fighting a networked and fully distributed sensor array, so what? It is going to die, it cannot survive in that environment.

This was the big lesson of the battle of the Bekaa, where the IAF, using a very primitive version of this, achieved (IIRC) a 50:0 kill ratio inside the Syrian radar and SAM coverage. Theoretically, that was impossible, but the Israeli’s decoupled the Syrian sensor net. While theirs remained intact….

MarkL
Canberra

Low-intensity warfare of the Afghanistan variety would require mainly cargo planes and robust ground attack aircraft like the A-10.

Cargo planes, yes; and Australia bought some.

But the A-10 is meant for fighting high intensity battles against hard machinery — tanks, APCs etc. In Afghanistan the work horse for low intensity fighting is the B52. Modern precision bombing means it can strike anything that a soldier points to with a very small margin of error. The size of the B52 means it can circle a battlefield for hours, strike dozens of targets with a few seconds of notice, and remain out of the range of shoulder-launched anti air.

So funnily enough, the big bomber has come into its own … for something almost completely unlike its original mission.

However, integration of a whole bunch of things that Australia would want, notably the JASSM cruise missile and an anti-shipping missile, haven’t been done and aren’t likely to be done by the USA.

But we already have a non-stealthy aircraft that can carry both of those things: the Super Hornets. Brand new, in fact. So there is the theoretical possibility of a mixed fleet of F-22s and Super Hornets, with the F-22\s gradually upgraded to carry more weapons over time.

If you think that plausible opposition air forces are likely to get aircraft that outmatch (or are even a plausible match) for the JSF over the next 30 years - not likely in the next decade, but not out of the question for 2020 and beyond, that kind of mixed fleet might be more capable than an all-JSF one.

It just bothers me that, the weaknesses of Russian-equipped air forces are things that seem to me to be fixable over time; the weaknesses of a JSF-equipped air force are much harder because they’re inherent in the airframe.

The Raptor is an interceptor, its only for air-to-air dogfighting. It wont do what we need it to do, we need a multi-role fighter, thats why the RAAF wants the JSF.

And that is ignoring the fact it is illegal for the USA to sell the Raptor to other countries due to a pull passed during the X-22 project’s early days.

I bet they’ll chuck-in a set of steak knives for free with each plane too.

20 Billion is easily found for paranoid, ferarri style aeroplanes etc, while the rest of us end up with second class services.

I will go with that!
It would be nice to think that we had stunning schools, hospitals, aged care facilties and public transport.

In short, a compassionate society worth defending rather than an expensive ‘boy- toy’ junkyard.