Winds of change. Not like less than 10 years ago when there was a more positive outlook on it. Be interesting to see what happens in the next 10.

Yes of course. That is why some in USAF had positive thoughts about it over a year ago and why Japan asked recently. That "letter" isn't especially useful or even heavy in weight. Also Israel isn't an ABC, so they aren't on the same page including they sell weapons tech worldwide.

L.M. is not going to muddy the waters on an already existing JSF team player. The profit is certainly part of it. Including look at how LM is publishing new ideas to help JSF production numbers so LM doesn't eat large costs in F-35. {1}. The job of the CEO of LM is to make a profit for shareholders. {2}Then of course... and this is only one thing, have a look back on all the pied piper promises of JSF home Aus workshare...with continued comments up till recently from Defence to Defence vedors. Upsetting that gravy train isn't going to happnen. And there are only so many billions to go around even if there is consistent budget surplus for the past few years. So yes, it is in fact a business plan.

Not part of Project Archangel. Part goal is to help reduce cost of Super Hornets by getting production numbers up on foreign sales. In turn making costs lower for more U.S. Navy buys, which btw are going to happen. The goal is about making a sale, not what platform is best for the job. I.E. every legacy Hornet customer is automatically a potential Super customer. Helps the sales pitch. Given the way the decision was make in Aus Def to get a stop gap, against the advice of the club pro... any form of logic for what weapons system is the best doesn't apply very well in this situation. In this case the hook line and sinker approach used on Dr. Nelson was an effective quick sale. Misery Accomplished.

In ten years time the F-22 will not have been in production for over 6 years, more likely than not...

There is no absolute that F-22 production will stop with the 183. That may in fact happen but the 183 isn't a USAF requirement. It is a number of what funds were available. USAF still wants over 380 of them. Being that it will win air wars like nobody's business, stopping at 183 is pretty dumb to say the least. Unless congress and admins present and previous turn in their Team America: World Police membership card. Stopping at 183 is amazingly stupid. Also the "cost" on it is overhyped in some press. How much would an F-16, or F-35 cost if you only made 183 of them?



Just because they want it doesn't mean they'll get it. With their record of "leaks" (AEGIS and Link 16 being the most recent) I'd suggest that there is even LESS chance of Japan being allowed to purchase F-22 than Australia.

The real security threat is Chinese espionage everywhere but even more so in the U.S.. We in the U.S. have lost more military tech to that threat than the Japanese have ever done. Including the way WE have handled AEGIS over here. So I am sure someone over here that is a supporter of Chinese investment dollars in the U.S. and doesn't want to see that gravy train go away, will point to the Japan AEGIS event ....or go back even further to the Sub prop tech issue way way back in order to demonize the F-22/Japan issue.

Finland asked for JASSM only a few months ago, IIRC. They were denied...

Considering how screwed up the JASSM program is they are damn lucky.

BTW, RAAF have decided NOT to integrate JASSM onto the SH. They have in fact stated publicly that they will NOT do so. The sources you use for your blog REALLY need a kick up the ****...

That all depends doesn't it? Part of the reason is that when Defence was looking at JASSM they had no clue Dr. Nelson months later would make a snap decision and get the Super Hornet. Left hand...hello this is the right hand.... Some JASSM captive carry has been done with Super Hornet. Assuming JASSM gets saved somehow... the program is so far down the crapper it will take a swan dive to save it.... and if JASSM does show up in Australia ....who knows? Hanging JASSM on the classic Hornet when you have the Super around leaves one to wonder as the classic isn't going very far from the tanker. Australia paid money for the R&D for the ASuW package for JASSM. They may say it is classic only now but time will tell. Having it hang off of a classic when you have Super available isn't too bright. F-35 external carry is still a ways off even more so a working Block III software. All in all a big wait and see. Worst case scenario. Two big tankers(1 being a backup), 3 Super config'd tankers (1 being a backup) and 3 Supers (1 being a backup) each with 2 JASSM might be able to put some reach out there for hiting a high profile target. The classic Hornet showing up for that party is a waste of multiple connects on the tanker.



Would the average L-M shareholder be upset if Australia bought 100 Raptors? I hardly think so. In fact I think such a thing is rather beyond their wildest dreams...


I think the L-M CEO would be ecstatic if Australia ordered and were allowed and could afford 100 Raptors...

Except that there is no way a Defence establishment would have 100 of those things and whatever number of F-35 happens 70-100?. Again, F-22 home workshare value for Australia is a large unknown. F-35 workshare is at least a few steps ahead and of course was part of the big sell and is being worked all the time.



I too think that USN is going to order more SH's, but that decision has nothing to do with Australia ordering a Squadron's worth.

Not with Dr. Nelsons decision.... But certainly part of the sales job Boeing put across as part of their plan. Export sales of Super and all the logistics stuff helps lower sales pitches to USN to get more Supers. It is already being hawked in the sales briefs using all the catch phrases common with sustainment, logistics etc etc.. PowerPoint almost could have a new template in their wizard that helps set up a weapons system sales brief. .... .

Misery accomplished?

I hardly think so.

In fact I can assure you that RAAF pilots and ACO's are "punching the air" at the decision, because RAAF Amberley was going to be out of the "fighter" business come 2010 otherwise...

So that is a good reason to blow $6.6 billion over 13 years even though the top people told Dr. Nelson a gap filler wasn't needed? Great.

F35 is DEFINITLY NOT the aircraft for the RAAF.The Sukhoi Su30 is! It's a no brainer really! Su30 is cheaper AND is superior to F35 throughout the performance envelope.Actually Su30 is superior to ALL western combat types bar F22!China,India and Indonesia have squadron's of this type,more advanced version's than Russia has! China are building there own engines for them and India's software is second to none.F35 may have stealth going in but what about coming out? I don't buy into all the hype.F35 carries a limited payload and its Radar Aperture and Combat Thrust weight qualifies the F35 as a double inferior to Sukhoi superior Kinematic's.Wake up Australia your about to ripped off big time!

Double inferior? I hardly think so...

F-35A vs SU-30MK

Weight: ~12.7 tons (F-35A) vs ~17.7 tons (SU-30)
Internal Fuel: ~8.4 tons (F-35A; configuration 240-4.7) vs ~9.4 tons (SU-30; max. overload w/modifications)
Fuel Fraction: ~0.40 (F-35A) vs ~0.35 (SU-30MK)
Wing Area: 42.7 sq-m (F-35A) vs 62 sq-m (SU-30)
Engine type: 1 x P&W F135-PW-100 (F-35A) vs 2 x Saturn AL-31FL (SU-30MK)
Engine bypass: 0.57:1 (F-35A) vs 0.59:1 (SU-30MK)
Engine thrust (A/B): 19.5 tons (F-35A) vs 24.9 tons (SU-30MK)
Engine thrust (Dry): 12.7 tons (F-35A) vs 15.3 tons (SU-30MK)
Thrust to weight (A/B w/50% fuel): 1.15:1 (F-35A) vs 1.11:1 (SU-30MK)
Thrust to weight (Dry w/50% fuel): 0.75:1 (F-35A) vs 0.68:1 (SU-30MK)
Radar: 700mm class AESA (F-35A) vs 1000mm class MSA or PESA (SU-30MK)
RCS: ~0.0014 sq-m (F-35A) vs ~10 sq-m (SU-30MK)


Courtesy of Dwightlooi's work...

F35 is DEFINITLY NOT the aircraft for the RAAF.The Sukhoi Su30 is! It's a no brainer really! Su30 is cheaper AND is superior to F35 throughout the performance envelope.Actually Su30 is superior to ALL western combat types bar F22!China,India and Indonesia have squadron's of this type,more advanced version's than Russia has! China are building there own engines for them and India's software is second to none.F35 may have stealth going in but what about coming out? I don't buy into all the hype.F35 carries a limited payload and its Radar Aperture and Combat Thrust weight qualifies the F35 as a double inferior to Sukhoi superior Kinematic's.Wake up Australia your about to ripped off big time!

F35 is DEFINITLY NOT the aircraft for the RAAF.The Sukhoi Su30 is! It's a no brainer really! Su30 is cheaper AND is superior to F35 throughout the performance envelope.Actually Su30 is superior to ALL western combat types bar F22!China,India and Indonesia have squadron's of this type,more advanced version's than Russia has! China are building there own engines for them and India's software is second to none.F35 may have stealth going in but what about coming out? I don't buy into all the hype.F35 carries a limited payload and its Radar Aperture and Combat Thrust weight qualifies the F35 as a double inferior to Sukhoi superior Kinematic's.Wake up Australia your about to ripped off big time!

Just because APA calls the F-35, "double inferior" doesn't make it so. That alleged RAND article that has obviously impressed you, is nothing more than an APA fanboy's wet-dream. It is NOT a realistic appraisal of the F-35's capability.

The fact that the presentation QUOTE'S APA as a source in the presentation itself, should be a big enough hint...

The F-35 will be Australia's next generation combat aircraft. Supported for a while by the Super Hornet, whether you like it or not.

Get used to it, guys...

F35 is DEFINITLY NOT the aircraft for the RAAF.The Sukhoi Su30 is! It's a no brainer really! Su30 is cheaper AND is superior to F35 throughout the performance envelope.Actually Su30 is superior to ALL western combat types bar F22!China,India and Indonesia have squadron's of this type,more advanced version's than Russia has! China are building there own engines for them and India's software is second to none.F35 may have stealth going in but what about coming out? I don't buy into all the hype.F35 carries a limited payload and its Radar Aperture and Combat Thrust weight qualifies the F35 as a double inferior to Sukhoi superior Kinematic's.Wake up Australia your about to ripped off big time!

Uhm, welcome to the Forum finalmind- kind of dove right into the mix on the first post eh?

Agree. Even with one percent of it's testing and now with the exchange rate, a really super unaffordable price, Fitzgibbon would be silly not to sign up for it now.

F35 is DEFINITLY NOT the aircraft for the RAAF.The Sukhoi Su30 is! It's a no brainer really! Su30 is cheaper AND is superior to F35 throughout the performance envelope.Actually Su30 is superior to ALL western combat types bar F22!China,India and Indonesia have squadron's of this type,more advanced version's than Russia has! China are building there own engines for them and India's software is second to none.F35 may have stealth going in but what about coming out? I don't buy into all the hype.F35 carries a limited payload and its Radar Aperture and Combat Thrust weight qualifies the F35 as a double inferior to Sukhoi superior Kinematic's.Wake up Australia your about to ripped off big time!

Making RAAF going parity with the competition would be the worst mistake anyone could make. Furthermore Su-30's may have range but lack in many other areas. RAAF also would be as much castrated AA capability like anyone else. Those R-27's were made 20+ years ago. Not to mention the chronic difficulty russia has in logistics for supporting its custumers.


Su-30 for RAAF is pure and utter nonsense.