I agree with many of your points except the RCS of the Super Hornet. As with any tactical mission the F/A-18F's will be loaded down with external stores and fuel tanks. Which, inturn negates any advantages in RCS over the F-15E or any current fighter for that matter. ..

Just because the $6bn was not part of the Defence budget, does not mean it should be fritted away, if you added the $6bn to the $15.5bn to the JSF - you now could purchase a sizable force of F-22's instead! $22bn into $300m - is about 71 - our current F-18 fleet.

Its my belief that the US would be happy for Australia to purchase F-22 to defend US strategic assets at the Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap.

My other suggestion, if the capability warrants it - would be to purchase the 75 F-35A, and a squadron or two of STOVL F-35B's?. Either way the SH purchase ($275m per aircraft!), appears outrageous.

Except the US won't sell the F-22 to Australia. Depsec England has stated so, the US State Department has stated so, the US Congress has stated so and the Pentagon has stated so.

RAAF's fantastic new Hornet simulators, can be used for the SH as well, with a slightly different software load, that has already been developed. Their weapons are predominantly the same, etc, etc.
..

Where the Aussie taxpayer loses out is that there wasn't a competition between Super, and other aircraft types.

Investing in a Hornet-family warfighting platform in that part of the world is a dubious decision anyway.

The new "HACTS" now in use with the RAAF classic Hornet community were originally made for the Super Hornet and is what the USN Super community uses. So making the RAAF HACTS on hand Super Hornet ready won't be especially hard. If anything they will probably need additional HACTS above the two at Williamtown and one at Tinal to put up at Amberley where that last part might be part of the Super Hornet deal already signed?

Trying to misdirect the $6.6 billion for 13 year expenditure on the Super effort by poo pooing other potential aircraft is a losing cause. No one knows exactly what cost would be anyway if there was a dog eat dog competition for a stop gap. Even funnier as some in Defence told Dr. Nelson a stop gap wasn't needed anyway. That all by itself is real savings. Saying that things might be more expensive sounds good when trying to justify a decision after the fact. Where the Aussie taxpayer loses out is that there wasn't a competition between Super, and other aircraft types. Investing in a Hornet-family warfighting platform in that part of the world is a dubious decision anyway. Price by itself isn't everything. Combat value also adds into this. Super works for the USN (kinda) because it has an insane amount of firepower backing it up, and USN had to keep the shipbuilding mafia happy by giving them their fief every year...

Re: to every other dead horse/now-a-dead-issue argument on Super being selected for the RAAF.

Well thats not really true. Do you really expect every AC manufacturer to go through the expense of a dog and pony show for 24 AC? Maybe, just maybe could it be true that the RAAF brass did their homework and did not need some RFP to select the AC that best suites their needs? I know you think that it's either some big conspiracy, a giant lapse in judgment, or a massive attempt to curry favor but the US but the fact of the matter is that it is none of those reasons why the Super was picked. The Australian defense PROFESSIONALS who have information and skills that you do not disagree with you. They recognize the Super for what it is, the best overall combat AC flying now or in the medium term future short of the Raptor.



Care to enlighten us unwashed as to why you see what others do not? I am sure you have some juicy details.

Here's yet another article for those who think the F-22 will be sold to anyone besides the USAF...

Posted 07/24/07 19:05

U.S. PACOM Chief Opposes Selling F-22 to Japan

By JOHN T. BENNETT (Defense News article)

The top U.S. military official in the Pacific region is opposed to the notion of selling the Pentagon’s prized F-22A Raptor to Japan, America’s closest ally in the area.

A new U.S. “capabilities assessment group” -— composed of Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Office of the Secretary of Defense and industry officials -— has launched a comprehensive review of Japan’s fighter requirements. That group will deliver a formal recommendation to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and eventually President George W. Bush on which American-made war plane Washington should pitch to Tokyo.

Adm. Timothy Keating, commander, U.S. Pacific Command, said he has passed his recommendation that the Raptor not be sold to Japan to that study team. His comments came during a July 24 briefing at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

As the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) continues seeking a replacement for its aging fighter fleet, Tokyo over the past several years has expressed a keen interest in the F-22A, which is loaded with top secret technologies.

One key hurdle to a potential sale of F-22As to Japan is the “Obey amendment,” a provision tacked onto the 1998 Defense Appropriations Act by Rep. David Obey, D-Wis. It prohibits F-22A exports to any nation. Last year, conferees working on a final defense spending bill turned back a House-approved move to nix the provision.

The Japan Air Self-Defense Force has four kinds of fighters: F-15s, F-2s, F-1s, and F-4s, the latter introduced in 1973 and slated for retirement in the next decade. Japanese officials have said they at least want to purchase a “fourth-and-a-half generation jet,” and ideally, a “fifth-generation” plane. That would exclude even the most-enhanced U.S.-made F-16s and F-15s, but would leave on the Japanese list upgraded F/A-18s, F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and the Raptor.

Keating sees positive changes in the Pacific realm today compared with the mid-1980s, when he was a young officer there. He also sees Beijing as a potential military peer that PACOM should monitor, but not a threat it should lose sleep over.

“We’re watching them and we’re interested” in their secretive activities, Keating said of China. “And they’re watching us — it makes sense [for both nations to do so].”

But just how closely PACOM, other American agencies and U.S. allies can monitor Chinese military moves appears limited. The Pentagon’s May report on China, delivered annually to Congress, pans Beijing for making many moves behind a thick veil of secrecy.

U.S. military and intelligence agencies believe China is pushing ahead many air, ground and naval weapons, including updating long-range ballistic missiles, testing new nuclear-powered submarines, developing multirole Su-27SMK/Flanker (F-11A) fighter with partner Russia, and deploying freshly produced tanks and amphibious vehicles, according to the Pentagon report.

Keating said PACOM officials are “concerned about” Chinese moves and motives, but stressed that “it’s not something we worry about.”

During recent meetings with Chinese officials, Keating said the two sides agreed to a continuation of Washington’s “somewhat ambiguous policy” that calls for America to defend Taiwan in response to a Chinese attack on the island. Those same officials, however, were “less eager” to discuss Beijing’s January anti-satellite test that saw China destroy one of its own aging weather orbiters, he said.

Chinese officials, when pressed about the ASAT test by Keating and his delegation, called it a “scientific experiment, Keating told reporters. American officials responded, he said, by stressing Washington does not feel such a test is consistent with China’s rhetoric of a “peaceful rise.”
Keating also said Chinese officials confirmed a claim made in the May Pentagon report about Beijing’s desire to build a new aircraft carrier.

Chinese officials, he said, made clear they see an “aircraft carrier moving into a foreign port” as the most muscular sign that a nation is a true global power. American officials responded to their counterparts’ carrier desires, Keating said, by stressing the difficulty of such a complex shipbuilding project.

Essentially, the Americans told them, “Knock yourselves out.” Some Chinese naval officials have been aboard U.S. ships, including the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman, he said. “So they know, [that is] the price of admission,” he said of the many complex systems and engineering challenges that go into building such a massive ship.

Keating’s optimism also extended into the future, with the PACOM chief telling the CSIS audience that if American-Chinese relations improve over the next 15 years, he could see China one day being part of the U.S. Navy’s envisioned “1,000-ship Navy,” which would be composed of American and other coalition vessels.

The four-star said he is “not wildly optimistic … but cautiously optimistic” that American forces could one day work with “more complexity and more frequency” with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), especially for things like joint exercises and humanitarian relief efforts.

“Overall, the pendulum has swung dramatically … things are better,” said Keating. In every nation he has visited since taking over in Hawaii earlier this year, including China, “peace and stability are the watchwords,” he added.

Despite the list of potentially contentious issues facing the region — China’s military build-up and views on Taiwan, possible Japanese militarization, North Korea’s nuclear program and potential Japanese-South Korean tensions — nothing keeps the PACOM chief “up at night,” said Keating, an admitted “optimist by nature.”

The PACOM commander is in Washington for high-level talks between Gates and his top brass from around the world. Keating said the senior officials will spend time discussing the ongoing war in Iraq, as well other items, such as “information sharing with our partners,” space issues and other items.

While the conflict in Iraq is taking up a considerable amount of Gates’ time, Keating said he does not feel his boss is too preoccupied with the Middle East that developments in the Pacific and elsewhere are being ignored. “Do I feel like my bosses are ignoring me?” Keating said in response to a question from the audience, followed by a sternly delivered response: “No.”

That's what I was referring to. An additional simulator for Amberley is almost a "gimme"...




Once again you are completely wrong. No doubt your extensive study of open source data gives you just as great an insight into the workings of the ADF as it does for APA, but the fact is that a comparison between various combat aircraft types WAS conducted by DSTO.

There was no publicly displayed "flyoff" that detractors such as yourself seem to think is the only way to judge these things, I agree. However why would RAAF need to?

Let's look at the potential contenders briefly. Typhoon? Doesn't meet the requirements for a strike fighter right now and is unlikely to be cheaper and available in the timeframe Australia requires. It also requires a massive investment in infrastructure to support and there is no "corporate knowledge of the aircraft. Otherwise I think it an excellent combat aircraft.

Rafale, again doesn't meet the requirements for a strike fighter right now and is unlikely to be available in the timeframe required. Again it's unlikely to be available in the timeframe we need, operates completely different weapons, avionics, EW and would require a massive amont of support. Again the issues with supportability, lack of corporate knowledge etc raise their head. Otjherwise I think it too is an excellent combat aircraft.

F-15E/K/SG. There is no doubt that these evolved F-15 series provide excellent capability and would do so for RAAF. RAAF indeed even has a degree of corporate knowledge of the aircraft (in it's F-15E guise anyway) having numerous pilots having performing exchange tours with the USAF. RAAF has one of it's pilots on exchange and is a current Eagle driver even now who was famously quoted quite recently complaining bitterly about the difficulty in getting a "lock" on an F-22 "even when he could see it".

However, are they available by 2010? Can they provide the full range of capability provided by the SH Block II? Yes they provide some improvements in transsonic acceleration and some range enhancements, but how easy is it for a large proportion of the force to convert to the type? How cheap is the aircraft to maintain compared to the SH Block II? Given Boeing manufacturers BOTH aircraft, what difference does it make to Boeing which aircraft is chosen? The F-15 production line is even in more danger of closing sooner than the SH. Wouldn't it make sense then for Boeing to promote the Eagle ahead of the SH?

All these questions would have been asked by DSTO. Given that they signed off on the SH Block II, I feel pretty confident they got it right.


As to the capability gap issue. I think RAAF were right. I don't think there WOULD have been a capability gap anyway. Noises coming out of 3, 75 and 77 Sqn indicate that the Hornet drivers are EXTREMELY impressed with the capability of the Bug, now that it's mostly completed the HUG program.

Iit's performance in the recent Bersama Shield airex in Malaysia (with it's JHMCS/ASRAAM combo deployed) was MORE than satisfactory from all (anecdotal at this stage) reports and performed extremely well against later model C/D Hornets and of course Malaysia's MiG-29's.

With the ALR-67 (v3) RWR and other EW kit (including it's " EW attack capability") still to come online, along with JDAM, Litening AT (though all integration work on Litening has now been completed apparently) and whatever weapons wil be acquired under BACC, the Bugs are getting better and better.

RAAF's AMRAAM missiles, recently upgraded to C-5 standard, are due to be brought up to a higher standard soon (C-7 I expect) and there is a strong possibility that the C-8 variant will be acquired soon too.

So, I don't really see where the gap is even in the fighter aircraft, let alone considering the quality force multipliers that RAAF is acquiring (and our region is generally, not).

However the SH builds nicely on top of this and allows RAAF concurrent deployment options that wouldn't have existed with only the 3x Hornet Squadrons. I can't see it as a waste of money at any rate, particularly when the aircraft will be less than 10 years old when it comes time to dispose of them...

One key hurdle to a potential sale of F-22As to Japan is the “Obey amendment,” a provision tacked onto the 1998 Defense Appropriations Act by Rep. David Obey, D-Wis. It prohibits F-22A exports to any nation. Last year, conferees working on a final defense spending bill turned back a House-approved move to nix the provision.

High Conan, some good points but given what I have seen so far, Defence is far from earning a gold star for their efforts. In cases I have mentioned already, the opposite is true in spite of all the spin they try and lay on. File it under: agree to disagree.