Replies

"but not so good news for the F-35 and Lockheed-Martin."

Good.

I still think JSF is a huge mistake, and those kind of stealth technologies are good for first-day-of-war strikes only. There's a reason the Navy invested heavily in the Super-Hornet, and is only buying the F-35 as a supplemental plane...they still remember the last time DOD tried to force a multi-service fighter on them (the navalized F-111B debacle).

There are already serious restrictions on the Navy and USMC versions of the plane right now. The jump jet version will only maneuver at 7 G's max (as opposed to 9 for the USAF version), which will put it at a serious disadvantage in 1 v 1 versus anything from the F-15-generation onwards. And the Naval/USMC versions have less range and payload to boot. Britain is increasingly angry at DOD for not allowing them to get a full look at the software for the fire control system, and have threatened to pull out of the program at least twice. And the per-unit price for USAF version now tops $75 million in flyaway costs. Light and cheap fighter, my @ss. At those prices, you might as well buy F-22's in greater numbers instead to reduce flyaway costs. You'll come out with a smaller but vastly more capable fleet.

As for the Aussies buying F-22's, they've talked about it, but the fact is, even if we exported it, not even Japan could afford them. We can't even afford them in decent numbers (the total buy now hovers around 260 planes). Plus, keep in mind, this is 16 year old technologies for the most part....the YF-22 first flew in 1991 (and many knowledgeable people still think Northorp's YF-23 was the superior of the two contestants). All in all, with Austrailia's long experience with Hornets, this buy makes much more sense than any other plane. I recall talking to an Aussie Colonel at Maxwell AFB's war college in 1990 about their future plans, and even back then he said McDonnell-Douglas was pushing for a souped-up hornet to replace F-111's eventually (we pitched them to England and France for their carrier forces too). The Super Hornet has actually been in developement for a long time, and the Aussies have always liked the MD-Boeing planes.

Frankly, I think the Navy has seen the future, and it's in unmanned aircraft. In 30 years, I look for a typical supercarrier to have a mix of 60 UCAV's and 24 manned fighters, and I think the the manned aircraft will mostly serve to put human eyeballs in the battlespace to supplement the satellite controlled robots. Sad but probably true, the era of primarily manned combat aircraft is probably in its last stages.

There's a reason the Navy invested heavily in the Super-Hornet, and is only buying the F-35 as a supplemental plane...they still remember the last time DOD tried to force a multi-service fighter on them (the navalized F-111B debacle).

The Navy had two choices when the F-14 was close to retirement. Go out and fully bid and compete for a new aircraft, a process that you pointed out with the F-22 is one that would have taken over a decade, or "enhance" an existing aircraft. Boeing and the Navy billed the SuperHornet not as a new aircraft, but as an enhancement to the Hornet line, thereby bypassing the competitive bid and flyoff process.

[T]he Naval/USMC versions [of the F-35] have less range and payload to boot.

Obviously the USMC version is heavier and has less internal fuel because of the lift fan. The Navy version is heavier because of it's beefed up internal structure required for carrier operations, but with it's longer wing it has about the same range as the Air Force F-35A.

Where the Navy really made a bonehead move is in removing the internal gun from both models to save weight. They opted instead for a semi-stealth external centerline gun pod, ala the early F-4s.

the YF-22 first flew in 1991 (and many knowledgeable people still think Northorp's YF-23 was the superior of the two contestants)

Myself included, and I'll never understand why the Navy didn't jump all over the YF-23 to replace the Tomcat.

I recall talking to an Aussie Colonel at Maxwell AFB's war college in 1990 about their future plans, and even back then he said McDonnell-Douglas was pushing for a souped-up hornet to replace F-111's eventually

Given the F-111C/G's role as a long range maritime interdiction aircraft, the F-15K would have been a much closer match to the F-111 in range and payload, and head and shoulders above the F/A-18F.

Australia has also said that the F/A-18F is an interim replacement for the F-111s, with the F-35A as the ultimate replacement.

Where Australia is hurting when compared to their Asian neighbors is in fighter aircraft. Others in the Pacific rim are buying Su-30MKIs and F-15Ks. The F/A-18F has too short a range and is too slow, the F-35 is faster but still range limited.