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

[dan warna]

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)

so you say, the facts say otherwise.

i've posted links where management have said the JSF will probably be as good as whats available now....in 5 years time

one USAF general reckons the JSF is a bomb truck and nothing more, with 1/3, yes one third, yes .3 of the range of the f22.

no point in evading electronics if you can' get there, or if you do get there, you can't get back, unless you have a flying elephant following you everywhere

as for the JSF...5 years to delivery...at best.

as for its effectiveness, its not meeting its performance criteria NOW,

the F22 >>>>>>>>> JSF, in every way, faster, longer range, higher surviveablity, higher service ceiling etc.

good thing your backing up your family member but they are a damn fool moron for recommending the govt spend $$ of taxpayer money on the piece of shyte the flying **** JSF is compared to whats available now, and the F22.

fail.

 

[acker]

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)

Is that why they are half the price because they are better than an airplatform that the USA will not let another country buy ?

Read earlier in the thread about their (F-22) 150:1 win ratio compared to the JSF (F-35) 50:1 win ratio against the current competitor jets.

Which we did not have to be Einstiens to work out would work out to be at least 3 F-22 wins to every 1 F-35 JSF win if they were up against each other.

And how long will it be before rather than a Sukhoi-30 or 40 we find ourselves up against a Sukhoi-50,60,70 or 80

 

[Sanguinarius]

good thing your backing up your family member but they are a damn fool moron for recommending the govt spend $$ of taxpayer money on the piece of shyte the flying **** JSF is compared to whats available now, and the F22.

fail.

Ok, fair call. One thing though, explain to me where you get your information from? Is it the internet or is it the documents that have "top secret" stamped on them? Because while i'm certain there is a lot of info on the net about each air craft, there are details that are either flat out wrong, out dated or simply unknown. I am not going to claim i know anything about the JSF above what i read on the net, but i do know that my old man thinks that it's pretty clear cut as to which he'd rather have GIVEN THE NEEDS OF THE COUNTRY.

I'm not even going to try and say the JSF is a better air to air fighter than the raptor, it's not. However, it is not being designed to be. It's designed to be a better multi role fighter than the raptor. And at roughly (and it's really quite impossible to accurately tell at this point) 1/3 of the cost. Even Assuming that it does need as much refueling as you say it does, and has as short a range as you suggest, (which i'll point out that i doubt will be the case in the final production model) why will we be using the super hornet to guard the refueler's when the JSF will be a better air to air fighter than it?

Personally i believe a mix of JSF AND RAPTOR, similar to that that the americans will be using, to be the absolute best possible outcome. However this will not happen as the american's will never sell that level of stealth technology to anyone. They will always want that gap between them and the rest. In the slim chance that we were able to buy some raptor's, they would have lowered capabilities, a poor cousin of their american brothers. Surely that is not what we'd want?

Ps: there is always some idiot somewhere that will trash anything. Unless there is an overwhelming consensus that all the JSF is nothing but a bomb truck, which i don't believe is the case, i'll personally take the comment with a grain of salt.

 

[dan warna]

the range of the JSF and raptor are publicly available, even sourceable from highly reliable information sights such as boeing, janes and lockheed, USAF fact sheets, also comments regarding the quality of the JSF by the USAF and the RAAF are publicly available from without going to sources such as wiki.

the range of the JSF is publicly available as well, and a point of criticism by the various air forces. In theatres such as europe, a crappy range isn't that important, 1,100 km is across europe and back 7 times.

given we will be fighting if ever, in a pacific conflict, the 3k km range of the raptor is clearly advantageous.

as for defending the refuellers, thats was a joke.

the refuelers would be 300 km from the target or so, making them highly vulnerable if the JSF has to 'fight' which starts burning a lot of fuel, how easy do you think the refuelers will be to knock off..

if the raptor has to fight, they refuellers can still be 600 plus km from the target (note ROUND trip not one way, note combat radius not ferry radius)

and you think the JSF will hang around defending the refuelers AS well as doing the bombing run?

logic son, think about the difference between 3,000 km range and 1,100 range.

cost? you are talking cost of delivery per unit to the USAF, not to the RAAF. the raptors will be coming in at 120 million a pop to Aus, the JSF will be coming it at 60 million a pop to Aus, IF they are delivered within then next 10 years that is, if they meet their forecast performance criteria, which to date they aren't.

the JSF is being defended by those who have a vested interest in not being exposed as a mistake for australia. Just as nelsons morons were defending the modification to the submarine which crippled it, the superhornet shyteboxes (6 billion wasted on superceded technology, as a stopgap because the JSF is so late already) and the superseasprite mistakes, the modification to the frigate program etc etc.

nelson era as defence minister is an era of mistakes, disasters, stupid decisions, and moronic management and frankly stupid advise from stupid people.

i hope the gibbon sacks the mentally deficient monkeys who provided advise to nelson because clearly they were ignorant or not up to the task.

as for the bomb truck comment, sure its derogatory for what is still a fine piece of work.

the JSF is still a jet comparable with the top range combat aircraft in the world, but your own facts show it is far inferior to the raptor by a factor of 3:1 on surviveablity, throw in range, stealth and the fact the JSF can be replaced iwht a number of equivalent aircraft and the f22 isn't going to be matched let alone superceded for the next 22 years, and the JSF Is still 5 ot 10 years away, the raptor wins.

 

[Sanguinarius]

the range of the JSF and raptor are publicly available, even sourceable from highly reliable information sights such as boeing, janes and lockheed, USAF fact sheets, also comments regarding the quality of the JSF by the USAF and the RAAF are publicly available from without going to sources such as wiki.

the range of the JSF is publicly available as well, and a point of criticism by the various air forces. In theatres such as europe, a crappy range isn't that important, 1,100 km is across europe and back 7 times.

given we will be fighting if ever, in a pacific conflict, the 3k km range of the raptor is clearly advantageous.

from wiki, USAF fact sheet
F-35:
Combat radius: 600 nmi (690 mi, 1,110 km) (I'll add that this is listed as the minimum, and is expected to be higher since this value is based off of the STOL model)

F-22:
Combat radius: 410 nmi (471 mi, 759 km)
Range: More than 1,850 miles ferry range with 2 external wing fuel tanks (1,600 nautical miles)

I can't seem to find the ferry range of the F-35 A varient (CTOL, the one we're looking at)

the JSF is still a jet comparable with the top range combat aircraft in the world, but your own facts show it is far inferior to the raptor by a factor of 3:1 on surviveablity, throw in range, stealth and the fact the JSF can be replaced iwht a number of equivalent aircraft and the f22 isn't going to be matched let alone superceded for the next 22 years, and the JSF Is still 5 ot 10 years away, the raptor wins.

I've never said that the JSF is a better air to air fighter than the Raptor, it isn't. It's designed to be an allrounder - and that is what we need. If we went after the raptor, got the raptor (and not a watered down varient) we would need to double our spending (as we would still need roughly the same amount of air-craft, and the raptor would be at least double the cost) and then we would also need to find something to replace the F-111. As good as it (the F-111) has been it needs replacing soon.

The JSF with it's source code allows us to replace both as we'd be able to specialise different squadrons into each area.

 

[1jasonoz]

from wiki, USAF fact sheet
F-35:
Combat radius: 600 nmi (690 mi, 1,110 km) (I'll add that this is listed as the minimum, and is expected to be higher

F-22:
Combat radius: 410 nmi (471 mi, 759 km)
Range: More than 1,850 miles ferry range with 2 external wing fuel tanks (1,600 nautical miles)

I can't seem to find the ferry range of the F-35 A varient (CTOL, the one we're looking at), but did



I've never said that the JSF is a better air to air fighter than the Raptor, it isn't. It's designed to be an allrounder - and that is what we need. If we went after the raptor, got the raptor (and not a watered down varient) we would need to double our spending (as we would still need roughly the same amount of air-craft, and the raptor would be at least double the cost) and then we would also need to find something to replace the F-111. As good as it (the F-111) has been it needs replacing soon.

The JSF with it's source code allows us to replace both as we'd be able to specialise different squadrons into each area.

Absolute rubbish-do you no the costs of going with the Raptor verses the JSF?

 

[Sanguinarius]

Absolute rubbish-do you no the costs of going with the Raptor verses the JSF?

we would still need roughly the same ammount of aircraft, whether it be F-35 or F-22, and the F-22 is at least double the price.

 

[1jasonoz]

we would still need roughly the same ammount of aircraft, whether it be F-35 or F-22, and the F-22 is at least double the price.

You obviously have failed to include the cost of the F18 avionics upgrade required due the the JSF delays-$3.3 billion, and the Superhornet purchase at $7 billion to cover the gap due to the JSF delays-add them to the JSF cost which increased from a just under $10 billion to almost $15 billion now, and you have the JSF decision fast approaching $30 billion.

Do you no how many late production F22 we could get for close to $30 billion?

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=259495

DogfightSunday, March 18, 2007
Reporter: Liam Bartlett
Producers: Glenda Gaitz, Howard Sacre
You can forget health, forget welfare — wait till you hear how they're spending your money now. Fifteen billion dollars of it, all for a new war plane. A top secret project called the Joint Strike Fighter (JFS), our biggest defence purchase ever.

I just had a sneak preview of this wonder jet in Texas, and I have to say it sure looks impressive. But then I took a look at the fine print.

For some strange reason, our defence chiefs have gone into the deal without seriously considering any other plane. The JSF has only flown seven times and it might turn out to be a dud, the wrong aircraft to defend Australia. No wonder there's an almighty dogfight in the air.

RELATED LINKS
Video: High-flying dogfight
Transcript

LIAM BARTLETT: We're at 1000 feet and climbing — climbing fast. Heading straight for the heavens at face-flattening speed — 13,000 feet in 17 seconds and we have got two enemy planes on our tail. This is Australia's frontline fighter the F-18 Hornet. And now I know what it's like in the middle of a dogfight. It's our most potent force in the sky, but despite the awesome, stomach-churning speed, this plane has seen its day. It is about to make way for a new-generation fighter, and that is where the real dogfight begins.

This is Fort Worth, Texas — home of America's largest military contractor. If you need something to kill an enemy, Lockheed Martin will build it for you, and business is booming. In here, what Lockheed Martin call Run Station 4, is the biggest new project of all — the next generation, radar avoiding supersonic jet.

It's known as the Joint Strike Fighter, so-called because it has been jointly funded by nine governments, including ours. Come and have a look at this. Six years in the making by a team of 8000 people and one finished plane. Australia plans to buy 100 of these beginning in 2013. It's the biggest defence deal in the nation's history, set to cost at least $15 billion.

LOCKHEED MARTIN'S TEST PILOT: This is the only one flying right now. And it has flown seven times.

LIAM BARTLETT: This test pilot is the only one who has flown it.

LOCKHEED MARTIN'S TEST PILOT: I think the thing that you see there is the future of tactical aviation and air combat.

LIAM BATRLETT: Can we have a closer look?

LOCKHEED MARTIN'S TEST PILOT: I don't think so. I don't think that's in the rules.

LIAM BARTLETT: It's off-limits because it's top-secret. How close can we get?

LOCKHEED MARTIN'S TEST PILOT: Right here.

LIAM BARTLETT: Just here?

LOCKHEED MARTIN'S TEST PILOT: Yeah, that's the rules.

LIAM BARTLETT: The question is, though, has Australia had a close enough look? The price tag on each plane will be well over $100 million. Some of our most distinguished airmen are desperately worried the Joint Strike Fighter will be another in a long line of Defence Department stuff-ups.

AIR VICE-MARSHALL (RET) PETER CRISS: I've been around long enough to smell a rat, and I believe we've tried to take a short cut that has damaged the nation's defence in the long term.

LIAM BARTLETT: Air Vice-Marshall Peter Criss led the Air Force in the battle for East Timor. He wants Australia to buy another plane — the F-22, regarded as the most lethal jet fighter ever conceived. It's almost unheard of for commanding officers to break ranks, but the former air commander of Australia has come out of retirement to fight the Government's decision. So, in buying the Joint Strike Fighter, how many other planes have we considered?

AIR VICE-MARSHALL (RET) PETER CRISS: No others. No others.

LIAM BARTLETT: Not one? None?

AIR VICE-MARSHALL (RET) PETER CRISS: The process was shut-down very early on. A close friend of mine was head of the team to look at the acquisition — under project Air 6000 — he started the process and was told, 'No, stop that. We're not going to do that this time — we know better'.

DEFENCE MINISTER BRENDAN NELSON: Once the decision was made to commit to the Joint Strike Fighter, it was then considered by the Government to be not appropriate to continue to go and look at alternative models.
LIAM BARTLETT: Dr Brendan Nelson is the Minister for Defence. Are you telling me that due diligence was comprehensively done on other planes in making this decision?

DEFENCE MINISTER BRENDAN NELSON: All of the advice that I have is that all of the necessary alternative aircraft were looked at in terms of capability, scheduling, cost, what they could offer to Australia in terms of the future ...
LIAM BARTLETT: Which of the planes were considered?

DEFENCE MINISTER BRENDAN NELSON: Well, I'm not going to go through that now, but ...

LIAM BARTLETT: Well, just tell me for the public record, and it would be if this committee looked at other alternatives, tell me which others were considered.

DEFENCE MINISTER BRENDAN NELSON: Well, I'm not prepared to go through an exhaustive list of ...

LIAM BARTLETT: Well, just give me one.

DEFENCE MINISTER BRENDAN NELSON: Well, the ... I'm not prepared to go through an exhaustive list of the alternative aircraft that were considered. The Joint Strike ...

LIAM BARTLETT: Why not?

DEFENCE MINISTER BRENDAN NELSON: The Joint Strike Fighter was considered to be the best aircraft for us.

LIAM BARTLETT: The Joint Strike Fighter will replace our ageing fleet of F-111s and this plane, the F-18 Hornet. The Hornet is 20 years old, but you wouldn't know it when you ride in one. Even though I'll be just an onlooker, there's a full day of preparation at Williamtown Base. I'll be sharing the cockpit with Group Captain Mel Hupfeld. He led a squadron of Australian F-18s backing up the Americans and British in the invasion of Iraq. If anyone knows what's needed in a war plane, it's him.

GROUP CAPTAIN MEL HUPFELD: I don't want to have a level playing field. I want to have the advantage. I'd love to have the upper hand. We always ask for more fuel, we want more speed, we want to be able to carry more weapons, so that, if we encounter enemy, we have the best possible chance of being able to destroy that enemy to be able to achieve our objective for the mission.

LIAM BARTLETT: To cope with the enormous forces of gravity, pilots wear special G-suits. Squadron Leader Matt Hall explains how to avoid blacking out.

SQUADRON LEADER MATT HALL: And you push as hard as you can, squeezing every single muscle from here down as hard as you can. Basically, if you can try and blow a blood vessel in your eye, you're doing a good job. Now, take a big breath in. Hold it and push. Breathe out and in. Again.

LIAM BARTLETT: The dogfight will involve four aircraft — two F-18s versus these two Hawk trainer jet.

GROUP CAPTAIN MEL HUPFELD: In today's mission, these guys are the bad guys, so their job out there is to try and kill us and stop us from getting to the target.

LIAM BARTLETT: Our target, if we don't get shot down, is a road bridge which we'll destroy with make-believe bombs. The fight is taking place in a huge slab of military airspace over New South Wales.

GROUP CAPTAIN MEL HUPFELD: Okay, we're getting ready to fight. Are you all set? They're out on the right-hand side, Liam, can you see 'em? He's behind us somewhere. I couldn't see him in the sun there, but do you see that?

LIAM BARTLETT: I couldn't see anything, I was concentrating on staying in one piece. You're kidding, aren't you?

GROUP CAPTAIN MEL HUPFELD: No, there he is, his flares. And we're turning back into the target now.

LIAM BARTLETT: I could see now why they taught me to suck in lungfuls of oxygen. We're pulling almost seven Gs, which means my body is seven times heavier than normal. It's like being crushed against the seat by a giant lead weight.

GROUP CAPTAIN MEL HUPFELD: Now we're running in towards the target area. Okay, crossing over … we want to be on the southern side. We're still looking out for enemy aircraft along here.

LIAM BARTLETT: After an hour of white-knuckled flying, the dogfight is over, but I'll have to wait until we are back on the ground to find out if our mission was accomplished. You think about any roller-coaster you have been in in your life in an amusement park, times it by about 20, strap yourself in until you can't breathe, and you start to get the hang of it and then try not feel sick in the process and worry about where the enemy is — behind you or underneath you — it's just phenomenal, is the word, isn't it?

GROUP CAPTAIN MEL HUPFELD: I'm used to it after flying for a number of years, but every mission is different.

LIAM BARTLETT: Did we win?

SECOND PILOT: Yep, so we took out the first guy — you guys shot the first guy — he's gone. We then flew through to the next guy, we IDed him, you couldn't get a missile off, so I shot him with a missile and follow-up gun shot and then we went to the bridge, I got my bombs off, you got your bombs off. Done.

LIAM BARTLETT: Of course, it was all new to me. But the fact is, these F-18 Hornets are old hat. A new generation plane, like the Joint Strike Fighter, is largely invisible to radar, has super advanced weapons systems and can deliver a more potent payload of bombs. But, it's not the best there is. Rolling off the very same production line at Lockheed Martin, is the most awesome jet fighter in the world, the F-22. And every pilot agrees the F-22 is the Ferrari of fighters.

AIR VICE-MARSHALL PETER CRISS: It is the Crown Jewels, without a doubt. It has got a capability that stands it shoulders above any other fighter in the world at present.

LIAM BARTLETT: Why wouldn't you take it?

AIR VICE-MARSHALL (RET) PETER CRISS: Well, that's what I can't understand. That's what I am so frustrated about in this whole process.

DEFENCE MINISTER BRENDAN NELSON: The reason we're not asking for the F-22 is because, whilst it is a brilliant air-to-air combat fighter, Australia needs 100 aircraft. We need a great all-rounder — it can bat and it can bowl it can do air-to-air combat and strike capability.

LIAM BARTLETT: And there is another reason for this decision, but get this, the Minister says he can't tell us about it because it's top secret.

DEFENCE MINISTER BRENDAN NELSON: It's the five percent of this aircraft's capability that is classified to which I have had privileged access and, that's the five percent that really counts. And that's why this is the correct aircraft for us.

LIAM BARTLETT: 'Trust me, I'm a politician?'

DEFENCE MINISTER BRENDAN NELSON: I'm very privileged to have access to all of the information that is available — not only on this aircraft but on a number of others. This is the right aircraft for Australia.

LIAM BARTLETT: You have spent a lot of hours in the cockpit of fighter planes, if it came to war with one of our regional neighbours, would you be confident that you could beat them in the air behind the controls of the Joint Strike Fighter?

AIR VICE-MARSHALL (RET) PETER CRISS: No, no. Because already in our region there are formidable, very formidable, predominantly Russian, mainly Sukhoi family variants of aircraft.

LIAM BARTLETT: Let me get this straight, you're saying most of our regional neighbours will have Russian-made planes that can potentially beat the Joint Strike Fighter?

AIR VICE-MARSHALL (RET) PETER CRISS: Yes. That's why I am saying.

LIAM BARTLETT: That's alarming, isn't it?
AIR VICE-MARSHALL (RET) PETER CRISS: Well, that's why I am alarmed. We're going to go and buy an aircraft, throw it into a region that may or may not be hostile to us then say, 'Well, good luck boys, hope you come back.'

LIAM BARTLETT: Back in Texas, they allowed me into the declassified simulator of the Joint Strike Fighter. The real simulator remains top-secret. Within an hour, I was blowing the enemy from the sky. There's no question it will be a deadly war plane. The question is, will it be the best plane for Australia? It's the biggest military purchase we have ever made, gee, I hope you've got it right.

DEFENCE MINISTER BRENDAN NELSON: I treat decision-making in this area and the capability that we provide to the men and women who wear the uniform of the Royal Australian Air Force as if any one of those men and women were a member of my own family — my own son, my own daughter. I am very confident that this is the correct aircraft for Australia and to protect the interest, safety and well-being of the men and women who will fly it. That's why we're getting it.

 

[dan warna]

typical that you can't understand the difference between combat range and ferry range, but here you go.

F22
# Maximum speed:

* At altitude: Mach 2+[69][70] (1,325+ mph, 2,132+ km/h)
* Supercruise: Mach 1.72 (1,140 mph, 1,825 km/h)[1][68] at altitude

# Combat radius: 410 nmi[68] (471 mi, 759 km)
# Ferry range: 2,000 mi (1,738 nmi, 3,219 km)
# Service ceiling 65,000 ft (19,812 m)
# Wing loading: 66 lb/ft² (322 kg/m²)
# Thrust/weight: 1.26

F35
* Maximum speed: Mach 1.6+[68] (1,200 mph, 1,931 km/h)
* Range: A: 1,200 nmi; B: 900 nm; C: 1400 nm[68] (A: 2,200 km; B: 1,667 km; C: 2,593 km) on internal fuel
* Combat radius: 600 nmi (690 mi, 1,110 km)
* Rate of climb: classified (not publicly available)
* Wing loading: 91.4 lb/ft² (446 kg/m²)
* Thrust/weight:
o With full fuel: A: 0.89; B: 0.92; C: 0.81[68]
o With 50% fuel: A: 1.12; B: 1.10; C: 1.01[68]


Air Marshal Angus Houston, said in 2004 that the "F-22 will be the most outstanding fighter plane ever built."[5]

In February 2008, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he had no objection to sale of the Raptor to Australia

The F-35 is being designed to be the world's premier strike aircraft through 2040. It is intended that its air-to-air capability will be second only to the F-22 Raptor.

Some critics say the more expensive F-22 or the Eurofighter may be better choices, both offering better range, dogfighting capability, and supercruise at a cost that may not be much more than the F-35[29] – claims that as of July 2006 are being examined in a parliamentary inquiry.[30]

as for technology, there are NO guarantee's we will get the top version of the JSF either >< even nelson has said we may miss out on 5% of the technology for the JSF...

so the arguements of JSF v F22 show that the F22 is clearly the best aircraft available to australia, and that the form of the F22 has already been shown.

the JSF however IS STILL 5 years away and WILL BE INFERIOR to the F22....

 

[medusala]

In February 2008, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he had no objection to sale of the Raptor to Australia

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23269471-31477,00.html


US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates was yesterday polite but dismissive of the possibility of the US selling us the Raptors.

....

However, Fitzgibbons's words are quite precise. He has no intention at present of buying Raptors. He just wants to know whether there is any chance the US would sell them if he did want to buy them.

I asked Gates yesterday how realistic the prospect of selling Raptors was, given that it has not been built for export and, to protect the US's most secret technology, it would need to be virtually redesigned for an export model.

Gates answered with admirable candour that he did not know the answer to that; he did not know if any re-design work would be needed. The matter was on the table because the Australians had raised it. Therefore, he said, "it's an issue I intend to pursue when I get back (to Washington) and see what the prospects are and what we'd have to do if we wanted to get the law changed".

As a follow-up, an American journalist pointed out to Gates the Japanese had raised the possibility of purchasing the Raptor a year ago. If in all that time Gates hadn't been briefed on the technical issues, didn't this "kinda" confirm that nothing much was happening here? "That's a fair comment," Gates said.

Later, on Sky TV, Gates said a little more bluntly that he was "not optimistic" about Congress changing the law to allow Raptor exports. [/I]

 

[Perrin]

The new iron curtain continues to be raised around the USA

Imagine how short sighted the soviet union would have been if they didn't export the T-54

 

[Perrin]

To throw my 20 cents worth in any investment in future strike bombers/fighters is high risk to me.

The future is autonomos or remote controlled Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and this future has already arrived (for both civillian and military use). 18yr old kids have the potential (although it won't happen now) to fly a combat mission from their lounge room with an aircraft no larger in size than your plasma tv. These so called modern aircraft will be obsolete before you know it.

 

[Sanguinarius]

typical that you can't understand the difference between combat range and ferry range, but here you go.

F22
# Combat radius: 410 nmi[68] (471 mi, 759 km)
# Ferry range: 2,000 mi (1,738 nmi, 3,219 km)

F35
* Range: A: 1,200 nmi; B: 900 nm; C: 1400 nm[68] (A: 2,200 km; B: 1,667 km; C: 2,593 km) on internal fuel
* Combat radius: 600 nmi (690 mi, 1,110 km)

So you're going to compare one Aircrafts range based on internal fuel (the F-35), and use a different measuring stick for the F-22? The F-22 has not been tested with external fuel tanks yet, so it's range is unknown whith them.


Of course the range of the F-35 will be less than the F-22, as the F-22's range includes external fuel! The range for the F-35 is pointed out to be the bare minimum by most sources I have seen, and some of the tests predict it to be much higher, not quite the range of the F-111, but good enough

as for technology, there are NO guarantee's we will get the top version of the JSF either >< even nelson has said we may miss out on 5% of the technology for the JSF...

so the arguements of JSF v F22 show that the F22 is clearly the best aircraft available to australia, and that the form of the F22 has already been shown.

the JSF however IS STILL 5 years away and WILL BE INFERIOR to the F22....

as for us not getting the full model, I think that would be unlikely. Something far more likely is us not getting access to the source code, like with some of our current aircraft. The F-22 is clearly the superior A2A fighter, I've admitted that. But it doesn't have the flexibility.

 

[Sanguinarius]

You obviously have failed to include the cost of the F18 avionics upgrade required due the the JSF delays-$3.3 billion, and the Superhornet purchase at $7 billion to cover the gap due to the JSF delays-add them to the JSF cost which increased from a just under $10 billion to almost $15 billion now, and you have the JSF decision fast approaching $30 billion.

Do you no how many late production F22 we could get for close to $30 billion?

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=259495

NONE! the F-22 is NOT for sale, so we could not get a single one for $30 Billion.

and that 60min article proved nothing other than Nelson is a twat who is content to show up to interviews ill prepared.

 

[dan warna]

the data is there, the f22 has the far superior range, and is available NOW, the f35, performance specs are far inferior, and wont be available for 5 to 10 years....

your OWN post, infers the F22 has 3 times the surviveability of the f35...

clearly you believe our pilots shouldn't be getting the best, but then again, given the intellectually challenged decisions of the liberal party wrt defence (buying second hand rust bucket abrams for the price of new tanks ><, superseasprites for 100m each or so that were 50 years old, modifying the submarines because reith bought the wrong torpedoes on a junket to the USA, etc etc) you can't expect someone who supported the JSF purchase to accept published facts.

as for range, you can only go by whats published, and clearly the F22 has the jSF covered easily.

 

[dan warna]

NONE! the F-22 is NOT for sale, so we could not get a single one for $30 Billion.

and that 60min article proved nothing other than Nelson is a twat who is content to show up to interviews ill prepared.

you say that categorically and yet the US has never denied us the F22 because we never asked for it, under the liberals or nelson...

as for nelson, he is a poor politician and one of a long line of poor to pathetic defence ministers, no wonder he would believe some rubbish about the JSF that some idiot handed him

 

[Sanguinarius]

you say that categorically and yet the US has never denied us the F22 because we never asked for it, under the liberals or nelson...

as for nelson, he is a poor politician and one of a long line of poor to pathetic defence ministers, no wonder he would believe some rubbish about the JSF that some idiot handed him

Japan and Israel did ask, both were rejected

 

[Sanguinarius]

your OWN post, infers the F22 has 3 times the surviveability of the f35...

clearly you believe our pilots shouldn't be getting the best, but then again, given the intellectually challenged decisions of the liberal party wrt defence (buying second hand rust bucket abrams for the price of new tanks ><, superseasprites for 100m each or so that were 50 years old, modifying the submarines because reith bought the wrong torpedoes on a junket to the USA, etc etc) you can't expect someone who supported the JSF purchase to accept published facts.

as for range, you can only go by whats published, and clearly the F22 has the jSF covered easily.

Each F-35A is expected to cost $48.5 million (in 2005 US$) to build, each F-22 is about $130 right now. The R&D tag on the F-35 is expected to be about $16 million per airframe. That of the F-22 is around $200 million each. If the buyer is asked to pay zero R&D share, the ratio of F-35 to F-22 cost is about 2.5:1, if they are asked to pay the full share of R&D costs it is about 5.1:1. This is just airframe costs. At those figures, they'd damn well better have 3x the survivability of the F-35!!

I have never once claimed the F-35 is the superior A2A fighter - I've simply said that the F-35 is the best all-rounder that will be available for the future. That is what Australia needs.

 

[medusala]

the data is there, the f22 has the far superior range, and is available NOW, the f35, performance specs are far inferior, and wont be available for 5 to 10 years....

As a follow-up, an American journalist pointed out to Gates the Japanese had raised the possibility of purchasing the Raptor a year ago. If in all that time Gates hadn't been briefed on the technical issues, didn't this "kinda" confirm that nothing much was happening here? "That's a fair comment," Gates said.

Later, on Sky TV, Gates said a little more bluntly that he was "not optimistic" about Congress changing the law to allow Raptor exports

 

[dan warna]

we'll never know because nelson never asked, and not sure the gibbon has the balls to ask either.

as for the cost, thats delivery to the US, we paid about twice as much per unit for the F/A18 as the US and about 50% more than the canadians for the same unit, this has been consistent because of the volume discounts offered.

the F22 if sold to Australia has an addition cost per unit of about 120 million, volume discounts wouldn't be applicable as there is no volume with manufacture of this jet.

congress has changed and nelson should have asked when it was far more favourable to australia, however given the precarious nature of the US economy, i would think that a 20 billion dollar plus export order would have the US govt creaming themselves given THEIR current trade imbalance.

and the JSF is still 5 to 10 years away...

 

[Sanguinarius]

and the JSF is still 5 to 10 years away...

since everything else you wrote was simply you re-hashing the same speculative points over and over again that are flying in the face of past experience.... I'll reply to this.

cool. the JSF is still 5-10 years away. This would be an issue, except that in this case we don't really have any option.

Find a Air-craft that's currently in production that would be able to fill the two roles or the JSF and one that will be viable for the next 25-30 years.

....

....

....

dont worry, I'll save you the trouble. Because there isn't any.

 

[dan warna]

since everything else you wrote was simply you re-hashing the same speculative points over and over again that are flying in the face of past experience.... I'll reply to this.

cool. the JSF is still 5-10 years away. This would be an issue, except that in this case we don't really have any option.

Find a Air-craft that's currently in production that would be able to fill the two roles or the JSF and one that will be viable for the next 25-30 years.

....

....

....

dont worry, I'll save you the trouble. Because there isn't any.

speculative points? son i've posted current information and facts, regarding the crappy range of the JSF, the predictions and outcomes from current information.

its your wishy washy 'the JSF is the best' rubbish thats speculative, because the facts CLEARLY show the JSF is based on hopes and dreams and very little substance, a bit like your defence of your relatives pathetic advise.

as for the JSF looks like its being pushed back further in todays news with more cost blowouts...

as for comparisons, the Eurofighter compares well with both the F22 and JSF, and the only man to fly both the F22 and Eurofighter, couldn't seperate them on quality. United States Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper. Also range, payload, combat ceiling, supercruise all exceed the PROJECTED best case for the JSF.

given the JSF is still 5 years away from production to 10 years from delivery to Australia....

and plenty of folks are kindly taking delivery of the new SU russian jets.

sadly due to pathetic advise by morons given to another moron in Nelson, we are lumbered with combat challenged trucks in the superhornets, and wishy washy hopes that the JSF doesn't blow out even more in the next decade before we take delivery, if we do...

of course our airmen don't deserve the best according to you, as long as you justify pathetic decisions, but ignorant liars.

and then theres the F22, which specifications the JSF WONT be able to meet even when its delivered, if its delivered...

 

[Sanguinarius]

the simple fact that you're trying to blame defense advisors for the purchase of the super hornet shows that you clearly only want to listen to information that supports your way of thinking. Never mind that they were bought against the advice of the defence department.

And you still haven't listed one aircraft that will be viable OR one that would be able to perform the jobs we'd need it to.

 

[dan warna]

the simple fact that you're trying to blame defense advisors for the purchase of the super hornet shows that you clearly only want to listen to information that supports your way of thinking. Never mind that they were bought against the advice of the defence department.

And you still haven't listed one aircraft that will be viable OR one that would be able to perform the jobs we'd need it to.

the F22 and the eurofighter are available now and capable of meeting every requirement we have. its you who have your head in the sane with regard to anything outside the JSF.

teh JSF wont match the F22 performance on just about any criteria when it comes out, IF it comes out in 5 to 10 years. FACT.

the Eurofighter performance specs meet or exceed every criteria of teh JSF and is available NOW.

and you continually fudge the price of the JSF.

as for the hornets stupid contract by a stupid government, I've posted that the RAAF didn't want it. Then again the RAAF probably didn't know the JSF was going to be a decade or more late...

 

[dan warna]

hello