BUY THE F/A-22 NOT/NOT THE JSF

A thought provoking paper, though it becomes a bit generalized towards the end - maybe the word limit hit home.

It may not be generally known that the US is steadily developing a fighter/attack (F/A) derivative of the F-22 that may well (in several years) be able to the carry the 5,000 pound GBU-28 that the author sees as a current deficiency of the F-22. Carrying such a weapon may make the F/A-22 more easily seen by radar but this would be a temporary tradeoff.

I suspect that the Super Hornet purchase is also a sweetener that may eventually allow Australia to drop out of (renege on?) its early signup to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project. The JSF has had the standard delays and cost overruns of all typically/intentionally under priced weapons systems. These are seller/Defence Department - deceptions to be expected.

But what IS going to finally sink the JSF is its single engine and the natural expectation that improvements in capability and performance entail weight gains. I don't believe there is any room for the JSF to extend its (limited bomber range) range or (slow) speed with current or projected engines. In fact several months ago the JSF prototype underwent a concerted program of weight REDUCTION at its US factories to account for the tight performance limitations of its single engine.

To meet naturally rising expectations of its strike/bomber role (eg greater range, payload and speed) the Lockheed JSF will logically need a second engine - basically making it a Lockheed F-22.

The need to eventually purchase the F-22 over the JSF is therefore increasingly obvious. Hopefully this is the Australian Government's real strategy AND eventually the US will recognise its ally's need for the more capable aircraft.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

It's really a Credability Gap

F/A 18 Hornets-current models have a combat range of slightly over 700klm and an interdiction range of 1,000klm (RAAF web site)
Super Hornets increase this by about a third. The 2 seat versions (Australia intends to purchase) carry slightly less fuel than the single seat version so will fly slightly less than this third increase.

F-35 are not much better with a 1,000klm combat range.

Currently there are two elderly Boeing 707 as in flight refueling tankers.

The only credible threat and truly deployable RAAF weapon is the F-111 with a minimum unrefueled range of 1500 kilometres and up to 3500 kilometres.

The RAAF does not need stealth it needs range. The only US aircraft with a suitable range is the F-15 and it will still need large numbers of in flight refueling tankers supporting it to give it the range of an unrefuelled F-111.

further comments are here http://paulscomments.bigblog.com.au/index.do

Paul

Well I can’t see in the foreseeable future we will need many Bombers, after all, here in Australia we have an abundance of Leftoids to drop on our future enemies;
Gosh , look at the damage they have done here in Australia, Imagine what these weapons of total destruction can do to our enemies; Awsum.

But seriously; you have no need to worry about our Air capability too much, that is covered in all aspects and they are here.
Perhaps there is something’s people should not be concerned about, but be concerned about our abundance of Useless Idiots destroying us internally.

These comments are very interesting and thought provoking. It is true that the F-22 may well in the future be configured as a fighter-bomber hence would be able to deliver the GBU-28 and so on but I would disagree with the overall point; that is, I don’t see what the point would be in having a regional bombing capability. The idea is that such a capability would deter our regional neighbours but JDAMs and GBU-28s and so on really is not going to deter anybody from anything. Forget about the sexy aircraft and concentrate on the bombs; these conventional bombs will not deliver strategic deterrence as claimed that’s the issue.

So why spend a huge amount of money on a very expensive regional bombing capability when it can be better spent on say more airmobile ground troops supported by airmobile light artillery and attack helicopters and so on? Doesn’t this fit in more neatly with the actual defence of Australia from credible threats and south pacific contingencies? Every dollar spent on a “strategic strike deterrent” is a dollar wasted. It’s spending money on imaginary capabilities for imaginary missions.

Only when Kim Beasley was defeated as leader of the opposition.

Really who are we kidding,the sum total of our finances would not be enough to protect a vast land with such a small population,that is why we rely on the Yanks and are obliged to do much of their bidding.

If we want true independance and security,then nuclear weapons are our only option.

markob

My full response to yours grew so lengthy that I've decided to put it up as an OLO article. I thank you for spurring me into writing it but it makes for a shorter response here.

How will the more airmobile Australian army (that you propose) combat the increasing numbers of multirole Su-27/30 fighter-bombers in our region? Not only (resource hungry...) India and China but Malaysia and Indonesia have substantial numbers of these formidable aircraft in service or planned.

We also need to consider that planning hardware purchases often means looking at scenarios 20 years ahead. Current trends suggest India and China will be the (almost) dominant regional powers by then with severely and comparitively diminished US influence.

Pete