Australia can be trusted with F-22 Raptor, says Robert Gates

[acker]

What, like the Iraq war, the war they are just about to pull out of? Like their international troops in Japan and Germany which they are withdrawing from? Yes, the US will be very stretched soon.



Who cares? This is the pacific, not the ME we're talking about.



I'd like to see them try, anyway, it's irrelevant to this topic. It will never happen anyway.



Oh, so you're relying on the weather for your plan to work now? You just got worse than paranoid. Even so, it doesn't stop the Us from sending troops.



Terrorists would need a lot of explosives to blow up the Panama. Anyway, most of US trade crosses the pacific so it's irrelevant and would hardly stop a US assault. And anyway, it's unlikely, the Panama Canal has never really been threatened destruction (it's still standing for one) so that scenario is unrealistic.



Why would it? This is a battle with Kurds. Nations without Kurdish populations wouldn't bother.
Israel does something stupid



Something that would actually hurt the chances of Islamist forces forming, since SA is the heartland of Islamist forces and the SA government is one of their biggest backers.



Firstly, the Indonesian gov has little if any links with AQ. Secondly, Russia is putting more security into the protection of it's nukes, especially as it doesn't want nukes falling into Islamist hands with ties to Chechen rebels. Thirdly, Russia are yet to lose any nukes.

Fourthly, any nation who uses nukes on Australia is finished, America would, 100% surely launch a military response if Indonesia nuked Australia. It would be suicide for Jakarta.



Why would they be stupid to do that? Anyway the US can still fight with a few of it's satellites down.

You're clutching at straws acker. Just admit it, you want to paint Indonesia, a mainly Muslim country as some threat to support your theory that Islam threatens Australia.

I'm clutching at straws Richo and you see no need for us to warrant spending anything on defense. I have provided triggers.

I have provided to this argument reason's why

I suggest you do some searching now and come up with reasons why not

And hopefully they are not just because "Richo" reckons we should not with out some hard copy backing up your rhetoric.

 

[Richo83]

I'm clutching at straws Richo and you see no need for us to warrant spending anything on defense. I have provided triggers.

Never said we shouldn't spend money on defence, but said that we shouldn't live in fear of Indonesian attack, and shouldn't but defense equipment based on a fear of a threat that doesn't exist.

Remember these raptors are being bought for a number of reasons not to do with Indonesia (our size of our nation needs air support and our air force is slightly out of date, and buying military equipment from the US helps military relations)

I have provided to this argument reason's why

I suggest you do some searching now and come up with reasons why not

And hopefully they are not just because "Richo" reckons we should not with out some hard copy backing up your rhetoric.

Two reasons, firstly we should be spending money on infrastructure not defence and secondly, there are better options. But if we want to buy defence equipment, go ahead, but don't buy them because you have some irrational fear of Indonesian attack and don't try and tell me that Indonesia will attack any time soon, because that's BS.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

These are really encouraging comments from Gates.

My personal view was that Nelson did not push hard enough for the F22 - he just asked the US, they said no, and Nelson accepted it.

It is essential that we obtain the F22 if we are going to maintain our air superiority over the Indonesians. I can hardly think of a bigger military priority for the Australian nation. According to the most recent Defence White Paper any direct attack on Australia's mainland is likely to come "through or from" the Indonesian archipelago. Maintaining air superiority over the Indonesians must be a top priority of the current Rudd government.

Why not develop defensive weaponry instead, like SAMS to go with our 'over the horizon' radar network? Would they be cheaper than an expensive weapons platform like the Raptor?

 

[dan warna]

Why not develop defensive weaponry instead, like SAMS to go with our 'over the horizon' radar network? Would they be cheaper than an expensive weapons platform like the Raptor?

SAM technology is horribly expensive and remarkably short range and remarkably inflexible in deployment.

we do have 1 or 2 AD regts still equipped with rapier missile systems and we do have hand held SAM launchers, but really when you compare it to a jet that can deliver an anti surface missile from 1,000km away or the fact you have to truck in the SAM at what 60km/hr over rough terrain to get it into place if terrorists are coming in and landing in NT, its not realistic.

the best anti air technology is another jet.

the old nike hercules SAM's were frikken huge and bloody expensive for what they were.

Americas ABM missile system is horribly expensive, and even the high tech patriots are way off 100% effective and they are relatively short range.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

SAM technology is horribly expensive and remarkably short range and remarkably inflexible in deployment.

we do have 1 or 2 AD regts still equipped with rapier missile systems and we do have hand held SAM launchers, but really when you compare it to a jet that can deliver an anti surface missile from 1,000km away or the fact you have to truck in the SAM at what 60km/hr over rough terrain to get it into place if terrorists are coming in and landing in NT, its not realistic.

the best anti air technology is another jet.

the old nike hercules SAM's were frikken huge and bloody expensive for what they were.

Americas ABM missile system is horribly expensive, and even the high tech patriots are way off 100% effective and they are relatively short range.

Fair enough

 

[sydney eagle]

Who do we take out first? My vote is for those good for nothing kiwis.

We can't do that ! Who would play sport against us then ?

 

[acker]

Two reasons, firstly we should be spending money on infrastructure not defence and secondly, there are better options. But if we want to buy defence equipment, go ahead, but don't buy them because you have some irrational fear of Indonesian attack and don't try and tell me that Indonesia will attack any time soon, because that's BS.

Richo unless you can provide something to back up rhetoric

don't try and tell me that Indonesia will attack any time soon, because that's BS

that only carries as much weight as me saying "they will"

And I have a broad range to play with because obviously with the long lead time needed to get these aircraft, the defence force considers 2-3 years as being what the rest of us punters consider "soon"

 

[dan warna]

for gear and equipment, US technology is about the best, for training, america's army might not be as well trained and drilled as some of the european forces but overrall, when added to their technical advantage and numbers they are pretty much ahead of everyone else.

160k troops are struggling in iraq and 30k troops are lost in afghanistan.

indonesia to attack, occupy and quell australia would need a massive number of troops above and beyond what the americans would require, AND that number of troops would currently have to be free from other work (ie paramilitary, quelling and occupying non javanese islands, running dodgy businesses). indonesia doesn't have 150k let alone 300k plus troops lying around being barracks rats.

then there is supply, an army cannot march on its stomach, the indonesians will have to set up substantial logistics in australia, again the indonesian army is not trained or equiped with massive forward logistics.

then there is shipping them here, indonesia doesn't have the capacity for a marine landing of say 10k troops to set up a beach head, we are talking at least 3 heavy assault ships with air support and naval escort. or the capacity for an air assault including logistics for 10k plus troops and probably 3 times that number because at least with a naval assault you can ship your logistics there (look at how long it took the brits to organise shipping 30k troops).

and there is the cost, if the indonesians did buy say 4 naval assault ships, each costing about 1 billion dollars each, if australia did manage to sink one, thats a tremendous capital cost loss, and a massive loss of life if we could pull it off in deep water.

if they did try an aerial assault, shoot down 2 or 3 heavy lift transports that 100million each and 300 dead soldiers for each plane shot down.

further it would be very hard for indonesia to build this capacity without someone noticing given most capital purchases are published everywhere, satellite photography, troop movements etc.

Australia would have at least 12 months and probably 2 years to 3 years notice of a potential substantial invasion and we can build or move or modify our defence to bleed them to a substantial level it would be financially unviable to invade.

even our retaliation against jakarta would be minimal, two of our collins submarines could cut such a substantial swathe through their shipping, that the cost would hurt them more.

sink 3 or 4 container ships and work shipping would avoid indonesia, the SAS burn their wheat fields and given the economic conditions and set up of indonesia, java will starve, and the coalition of islands under the control of the indonesian military will buckle, if the indonesian military gets stretched, held up, or take substantial losses in australia, the west timorese, west papua, aceh and all those other islands under the thumb will take advantage of the situation and buck for control, and these nations are the breadbasket of indonesia.

indonesia is more likely to try and invade another 'wheat field' nation like timor or PNG before having a crack at australia.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

sink 3 or 4 container ships and work shipping would avoid indonesia, the SAS burn their wheat fields and given the economic conditions and set up of indonesia, java will starve, and the coalition of islands under the control of the indonesian military will buckle...

Isn't it a war-crime to target a nation's civilian-use infrastructure like that?

Part IV of Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention; Articles 52 & 54

1. Civilian objects shall not be the objects of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2 (below).

2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.


Article 54. Protection of Objects Indispensable to the Survival of the Civilian Population.

1. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.

2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agriculture areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.

 

[dan warna]

if indonesia or any other country attacks australia by invasion, anything goes.

as for destroying civilian infrastructure, lol hasn't stopped 1. the terrorists doing it, 2. hasn't stopped the americans doing it.

firstly i dont believe indonesia is a threat, but if indonesia starts massing hundreds of thousands of troops, spending billions on naval assault or aerial assault equipment, and invades australia, i would say phcku indonesia, let it burn.

the likelyhood of indonesia invading is so small as to be not worth considering.

 

[Bombermania]

Isn't it a war-crime to target a nation's civilian-use infrastructure like that?

Part IV of Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention; Articles 52 & 54

1. Civilian objects shall not be the objects of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2 (below).

2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.


Article 54. Protection of Objects Indispensable to the Survival of the Civilian Population.

1. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited.

2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agriculture areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.

Strickly speaking you are correct, but dan warna was talk about potential response.

To put this into an historic context, Hilter did not wake up in 1939 and say lets invade Poland, Hilter started building his army in the mid to early 1930s, at the time of the 1936 Berlin games Europe knew full well what he was doing.

To take it further the Indonesians would know invade Australia for the effort required doesn't not match the possible gains, the Indonesians showed after the Tsunami just how volunable they are in terms of logistics

 

[Sanguinarius]

I haven't read this thread, but I'm always interested in knowing why people think the F-22 is suitable to our needs?

The next generation aircraft that Australia are looking at purchasing will be used to replace both our current aging aircraft. The F-22 at this point in time, and in the medium term future, will only be able to cover the role of the the F/A-18, and not the F-111. It was my understanding that this was the reason that we were looking into the JSF, as it was able to carry out the roles of both the F/A-18 and the F-111, and at a cheaper cost per aircraft. Also since we'd be involved in production we wouldn't have to spend as much money on maintenance like with our deal with the Americans over the F/A - 18. If this has been covered then I apologise and will go back over this thread.

I've only gathered this info from listening to my old man who used to write some of the Defence papers for Brendan Nelson (apparently he's a complete idiot - but we knew that)

 

[dan warna]

the F22 ferry range have 2000 nm (about 3k km)
combat range about 750 nm (1.2k km)

JSF has a ferry range of about 1200 NM (2,000km)

the both have about the same payload when equiped with external weapons, which brings the raptor down to the JSF's performance with stealth, but hte raptor has an internal weapons bay which allows it have far greater stealth.

so basically a raptor can go in stealthy, bomb something, and get out faster, the JSF can't, it is as a USAF general called 'a bomb truck"

it is also by and far a superior and effective jet NOW.

the JSF won't be in production and wont be in australia in the next decade, however the performance specs are already matched by Russian jets available now.

further the JSF is already dogged with production faults, and cost overruns.

also because the JSF is so damn late, we have picked up shitty superhornets at a cost of around 6 billion as a stop gap, which is really a filler for the delays in the JSF, and the superduds haven't even been delivered yet and don't come within cooee of similar equipped and geared and priced jets available from europe and russia, or even the US, further they are less than 15% compatable with sparing with our existing hornets so the lies and rubbish nelson put out were complete bollux regarding cost effectiveness of the hornets.

IMO the F22 raptor gives us EXACTLY what we need, a long to medium range strike fighter bomber, that can deliver ordinance and return to australia effectively over long range with high survivability and technical superiority that wont be surpassed in the next 20 years.

the JSF wont be flying for the next 5 years and when it arrives it will already be 5 to 10 years behind what is alreadly available. we will also need longer range refuellers and basically we DONT get a long range strike ability with the JSF that the have now, or the f22 will give us.

 

[Sanguinarius]

found this on a USAF site comparing the two

This thread is so full of inaccuracies and misconceptions it'll take two days to address them all. But basically there are the summary...

(1) The information posted on the F-35 in the initial post is completely obsolete and pertains to the the X-35 with which the F-35 shares not a single component or structure. The F-35 will also not be powered by the ad-hoc F119-PW-611 engine or be armed with a 27mm BK27 derivative gun.

(2) The "real" F-35 will be an 12~13 ton jet powered by a 43,000 lbs thrust F135-PW-100/400/600 engine with 28,000 lbs of dry thrust. The stated performance is a minimum strike radius (lo-lo-lo) of >1,100km with maximum internal loads. Maximum level speed at high altitude will be >Mach 1.6 and its frontal hemisphere RCS is estimated to be ~ 0.0014 sq-m. The F-35 will use the 25mm GAU-12/U 4-barrel gatling cannon which was selected against the advanced 27mm Mauser derivative. The reason being that the 25mm gun has better weight of fire (projectile weight x firing rate) and equally flat trajectory.

(3) There is a big misconception that the F-35 is somehow inadequate as an A2A platform or that it is somehow behind the F-18 E/F or Eurocanards or 4th generation Russia types. The fact is that the physical performance of the F-35 when carrying the typical combat loads is similar these 4th generation aircrafts, while range and endurance is significantly superior. Low speed agility such as extreme AoA maneuverability may be inferior, but high speed maneuverability will not be because extreme alphas will not be attainable by any fighter at higher speeds due to G-loading limits.

(4) In terms of sensor sophistication, integration and comprehensiveness the F-35 is without equal. It is in fact superior to the F-22 in this respect. Radar range will be second to none except the F-22 and only when the F-22 receives the updated AN/APG-77(v)1 radar which uses about 3,200 APG-81 derived T/R elements -- roughly twice as many as the 1600 elements employed in the F-35's AN/APG-81.

(5) In terms of detectability, the F-35 will overall be slightly worse than the F-22, and probably more so from the rear than from the forward sector. But this is not expected to make a significant difference it is ability to totally dominate opponents through its stealthiness. The F-22's RCS is estimated at ~0.0005sq-m whereas the F-35's is estimated at 0.0014 sq-m. By the logarithmic power rule, a radar that detects an F-16 at 200km will detect an F-35 at 25 km (~1/8th) and an F-22 at 20.8km. That for all intents and purposes is good enough.

(6) Compared to the F-16 or F-18 the F-35 is estimated to be 4 times more effective as an air to air platform and 8 times better as a deep striker. The F-35 is in every way and for every mission or role significantly superior to the F-18E/F. The reason it is not replacing the F-18E/F is because the F-18E/F is a relatively new jet which is not due for replacement yet, whereas the F-18C/Ds will be reaching the end of their economic lifespan when the F-35 enters service. Compared to the Super Hornet, the F-35 is about 1 ton (7.2%) lighter while having essentially equivalent dry or wet thrust. Despite its lighter weight, it will carry 27% more internal fuel and can store up to 5700 lbs of weapons internally. Structurally this makes it the most mass efficient fighter ever.

(7) Compared to the F-22 the F-35 is designed to accomplish EVERY mission the F-22 is designed to accomplish with clear superiority over all current and anticipated opponents on all missions and roles. The degree of superiority in A2A missions may be somewhat behind the F-22 but nonetheless sufficient to ensure that even the best 4th generation fighters will experience a loss ratio several times that of the F-35 when pitted against it. When pitted against the best 4th generation fighters the USA currently has to offer, the F-22 is currently expected to experience a loss ratio in excess of 150:1. Even if the F-35 is only 50:1 that is more than good enough.

and on cost

In terms of production costs, the F-22 is currently at 110~130 million bracket and Lockmart believes that as low as $83 million is attainable if production is continued uninterrupted past 2010. There are no specific production cost figures for the F-35 released, but it is expected to be about $35 million.

The biggest difference between the two -- cost wise -- is not only that the F-35 was designed to be cheap to build by design and by its mass production strategy, but that R&D amortization is phenomenally lower than the F-22. The F-22 R&D cost was about $36 billion. At 183 units, that is a whopping 197 million per aircraft. Even if we build 380 like the USAF wants to, that is still ~$95 milllion per aircraft. The F-35 R&D is expected to be around $40 billion, but it is intended to be spread out over ~3,000 airframes resulting in a mere $13 million each. Even f the development goes way overbudget to $50 billion (doesn't look like it now, but who knows), and buy is halved to 1,500 aircraft, that is still only $33 million per aircraft or roughly 1/3 to 1/6th the F-22s.

If 3000 F-22s are built, they will cost around $95 million each total vs $48.5 million for the F-35 @3000 units.

If 183 F-35s are built they'll cost $254 million a piece compared to abotu $335 million for the F-22 at the same volume.

The moral of the story is that it is extremely uneconomical to develop a bleeding edge jet then buy just a handful.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-3168-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-15.html

 

[dan warna]

well not much there that is new.

doesn't deny the range of the JSF is rubbish compared to the near 3,000 km of the F22. (australia is big, the JSF has short range)

it confirms what i"ve said that the superhornet is a shyt truck (6 billion dollar shyt truck)

we are buying 25 odd hornets at 6 billion dollars and maybe 80 JSFs at an estimated unit cost of 60 million each (why so high? because thats what was quoted to us) as we are buy a relatively small quantity.

nice words on performance, the author cunningly disguises the fact that the F22 has 3 times the surviveability of the JSF.

also if the JSF is sent on a long/medium range strike mission we'll have to have a couple of air to air refuelers (read sitting ducks) floating around in the timor sea to pick up the JSF's on the way back because of their shitty range, or if the JSFs with their inferior speed get caught and burn their fuel, we'd have to park the refuelers over jakarta...

read paragraph 7, it is internally inconsistent.

the JSF delivered to Australia is estimated to cost about 60 to 70 million per unit (we have traditionally paid about twice per unit as the americans because of local content application and the discounts for quantity the US gets), add the cost of the superhornets which were purchased as a tech gap because the damn JSFs are so damn late. Which even your author agrees are shyte trucks.

the raptor delivered to Australia will cost about 120 million becuase there are NO discounts for quantity.

the subsequent post further adds to the arguement against the JSF

further it is an opinion piece.

even our own Air marshalls rate the F22 far and away ahead of the JSF.

and finally the F22 is available NOW, it is superior to anything available now, and estimated to be available in the next 20 years...

the JSF maybe flying in australia in 5 to 6 years, maybe

cancel the JSF and superhornets and there's more than enough money for 70 odd F22s which will clearly be a far better outcome for Australia than 100 JSFs and 24 shyte trucks sorry superhornets.

Its been a while since our RAAF got the best, and it will ensure a detterant against attack on our shores when we have a legitimate ability to deploy anyway in the region, as opposed to having the JSFs limited by the fact a floating petrol tank will have to follow them around everywhere.

 

[1jasonoz]

well not much there that is new.

doesn't deny the range of the JSF is rubbish compared to the near 3,000 km of the F22. (australia is big, the JSF has short range)

it confirms what i"ve said that the superhornet is a shyt truck (6 billion dollar shyt truck)

we are buying 25 odd hornets at 6 billion dollars and maybe 80 JSFs at an estimated unit cost of 60 million each (why so high? because thats what was quoted to us) as we are buy a relatively small quantity.

nice words on performance, the author cunningly disguises the fact that the F22 has 3 times the surviveability of the JSF.

also if the JSF is sent on a long/medium range strike mission we'll have to have a couple of air to air refuelers (read sitting ducks) floating around in the timor sea to pick up the JSF's on the way back because of their shitty range, or if the JSFs with their inferior speed get caught and burn their fuel, we'd have to park the refuelers over jakarta...

read paragraph 7, it is internally inconsistent.

the JSF delivered to Australia is estimated to cost about 60 to 70 million per unit (we have traditionally paid about twice per unit as the americans because of local content application and the discounts for quantity the US gets), add the cost of the superhornets which were purchased as a tech gap because the damn JSFs are so damn late. Which even your author agrees are shyte trucks.

the raptor delivered to Australia will cost about 120 million becuase there are NO discounts for quantity.

the subsequent post further adds to the arguement against the JSF

further it is an opinion piece.

even our own Air marshalls rate the F22 far and away ahead of the JSF.

and finally the F22 is available NOW, it is superior to anything available now, and estimated to be available in the next 20 years...

the JSF maybe flying in australia in 5 to 6 years, maybe

cancel the JSF and superhornets and there's more than enough money for 70 odd F22s which will clearly be a far better outcome for Australia than 100 JSFs and 24 shyte trucks sorry superhornets.

Its been a while since our RAAF got the best, and it will ensure a detterant against attack on our shores when we have a legitimate ability to deploy anyway in the region, as opposed to having the JSFs limited by the fact a floating petrol tank will have to follow them around everywhere.

Add to the cost savings another $3.3 billion saved through not having to upgrade the current F18 avionics-theres enough money for another 20 F22 ontop of the 70 you mentioned. A fleet of 90 F22 would dominate local skies for years. Purchase long range serface to surface cruise missiles such as the Tomohawk and that would make me very happy.

 

[acker]

found this on a USAF site comparing the two

When pitted against the best 4th generation fighters the USA currently has to offer, the F-22 is currently expected to experience a loss ratio in excess of 150:1. Even if the F-35 is only 50:1 that is more than good enough.

But does the USA know how it will perform against the best that China or Russia has to offer in 2012 and beyond ?

If then in air to air combat the F22 win loss ratio goes from 150:1 to 15:1 does that mean the F35 win loss ratio goes from 50:1 to 5:1 ?

And if as you point out the F22 has a 150:1 air to air win loss ratio and the F35 has a 50:1 air to air win loss ratio. Does that also mean if they are pitted air to air against each other that the F22 will have a 3:1 win ratio over the F35 ?

It sounds like even at twice the cost per unit that the F22 Raptor is possibly 3 times more likely to have a succesfull outcome in air to air combat.

It's a bit like Chris Judd and Nick Stevens at Carlton. They both have two arms and two legs and get kicks, but Judd is probably about a 3 times more devastating player than Stevens, and rightfully costs a lot more.

I think Fitzgibbon is definitely on the right track trying to get the F22 Raptor.

 

[dan warna]

and don't forget also an important aspect of replacing the F111, the JSF will need to be escorted by a fleet of refuelers, which are flying fat ducks, also has inferior stealth, and evasion.

the raptor will be able to get away better, given its superior speed, ceiling and technology, and have a much superior range to return into defencible airspace.

the difference between 3k and 1.1k km range is massive.

basically the round trip ferry range of a JSF is 500 km...if it doesn't have fight!?!!!@

one bombing run and ditch? while the JS's 1500km ferry range makes it a FAR superior.

you have to wonder what kind idiot pills nelson was on...

 

[acker]

and don't forget also an important aspect of replacing the F111, the JSF will need to be escorted by a fleet of refuelers, which are flying fat ducks, also has inferior stealth, and evasion.

the raptor will be able to get away better, given its superior speed, ceiling and technology, and have a much superior range to return into defencible airspace.

the difference between 3k and 1.1k km range is massive.

basically the round trip ferry range of a JSF is 500 km...if it doesn't have fight!?!!!@

one bombing run and ditch? while the JS's 1500km ferry range makes it a FAR superior.

you have to wonder what kind idiot pills nelson was on...

He probably thought a fleet of F18 Superhornets could defend the refueling planes

 

[dan warna]

who will defend those flying shyte boxes the f18s?

might need a new jet to defend them...

 

[acker]

who will defend those flying shyte boxes the f18s?

might need a new jet to defend them...

The Darwin Archery club.

 

[dan warna]

The Darwin Archery club.

fit their arrows with friend of foe technology because we really can't trust the superhornet to hold up to a direct hit?

 

[acker]

fit their arrows with friend of foe technology because we really can't trust the superhornet to hold up to a direct hit?

Go for insurance write-off "Dan"

I think the superhornet is the only jet built since 1950 that would be vunerable to a ground launched bow and arrow attack.

PNG will definitely be a no go area.

 

[moistie]

A great demo of the jet that the JSF would be up against if China or Indonesia bought it.

http://bobandsylvia.com/FIGHTER.htm

 

[Sanguinarius]

A great demo of the jet that the JSF would be up against if China or Indonesia bought it.

http://bobandsylvia.com/FIGHTER.htm

doesn't really matter how many directions you can change at once if you can't see your opponent, or evade their electronics - of which The JSF will the the best (better than the F-22)