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

Pete,

look forward to seeing it!, I will reserve comment until then. I'll probably respond at my blog, that way we could get a debate going and add in others if interested

Markob;
It is a good point , But Troop Air Mobility would be neither practical nor suited to Australian defense; Just the Geographic configuration and the fact of expansive cost line and Land area mass would seem to indicate intercepting enemy advancement by air and sea

We have some advantage of Isolation and Water barriers then terrain. But we do not have the manpower, Money or the population.
There needs to be a big shift in Ideology if anyone in this country is serious.
And embrase our American Brothers.

Sounds like someone visited Avalon air show just recently.
Great stuff.

indicate intercepting enemy advancement by air and sea”, that might be the case for an actual invasion but no state is capable of invading Australia other than the United States. But the long coast line and that that you mention actually argues the other way; it would be hard for a small air force and a small navy to interdict a raiding strategy force without superior situational awareness; in which case what matters first is spending money on that. They probably would get through anyway in which case the task for a small army on a large land mass is to have the ability of manoeuvring decisive airmobile firepower. Instead we are wasting money on Abrams MBTs which are meant to fight wars someplace else.

Money spent on a regional bombing capability adds nothing to our defence. Even if you wanted a strike capability why not just get cruise missiles?

On Avalon, to paraphrase Sir Francis Urquhart, “you may very well think so, I could not possibly comment.”

That may be true , in regards to Armor, but it should be known that it is the principle weapon the US uses, and country to popular belief, they are here already, as well as a great deal of ordinance and equipment , purchasing this equipment is only a token gesture.

But I would argue that China’s rise will be an immediate threat; its economy is meaningless to the hordes of Communist /Socialist elites who use its source for financing, thus the alliance with US_ Japan_ Australia and the new regional force;
Japans Navy is far more advanced in technology than America’s or Australian defense technologies.

Europe is stuffed ether way Politically and demographically, and is no longer viable allies- yet again.
You could confidentially say, that Indonesian vessels are already painted, so that is the least of our trouble.

If anyone has the capability and mass numbers and cares little for the value of life, and that is China- although land warfare is not a strategic attribute if the Korean war is any example; lambs to the slaughter there are so many of them that you would run out of ammunition. That’s why it would be important to target cluster formations.And secondly, why would you advocate the excesses of Air mobility if you agree that relevant Missile technology is used anyway;
We have ample air mobility for any task our troops need to engage.
We just have more welfare recipients than we do intelligence.

Non the less, you still have to detect them even the ones that got through, and again, manpower is limited.
No, our enemies are hard at work internally, and that must be obvious.
Political sciences and spineless idiots in Government mapping the course for our adversary’s future dominance.

How many weapons do you have in the closet? ; Non.
How many weapons do the Bad bastards have?
They can’t defend the Society the idiots created with all there Idiotic experiments; what hope in hell do you give them in defending us against a Foreign force?

I read a novel by Tim Ferguson (Doug Anthony Allstars fame, Never mind your toothbrush,etc.) called Left, Right and Centre.

In it, he traces the rise of a master politician from obscurity, to a point where he becomes the dictator of Australia. Throughout, Ferguson manages to create this situation by making use of the legislation and so forth prevalent today in reality.

For example, in conjunction with a mining mogul, he arranges for the issuing of 1000,s of individual prospector licenses for the Pilbara region. A prospectors license is not subject to scrutiny with regards to native title and so forth. The mining mogul then invites all these prospectors to come and dig a giant underground mine utilising equipment leased from himself for which he will take a cut. That's one story.
Having depleted the mine this vast empty hole is taken over by the military and a 2kiloton nuclear device is placed at its base.

The reasoning is that the bomb will be detonated, with the understanding that the shock will be registered in Jakarta, Beijing and anywhere else who may be casting eyes over our vast openness. The incumbent government, PRIOR to being asked questions, would immediately "...deny the detonation of a 2 kiloton device suitable for destroying any seaborne or airborne expeditionary forces from a foreign country..." in the northern reaches of Australia.

That's got to be worth any number of bombers surely?

Looking forward to comments.