Posted on 02/09/2012 8:39:32 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Aussies’ modest proposal: Sell us F-22s, mate
For F-35 proponents, every sunrise brings new reasons for unease about the future of the program. It regularly gets bad headlines in the U.S. The Brits now say they’ll wait until 2015 before committing to buy any more jets. And as we’ve talked about before, there are rumblings Down Under that suggest the Australians may be losing their patience.
But proponents in the U.S. and Australia can take heart about one thing — these are the guys they’re up against:
Some of the most vehement critics of Australia’s involvement in the Joint Strike Fighter program had their day in the sun on Tuesday afternoon when they testified before a high level parliamentary defence committee. Representatives of anti-JSF think tank Air Power Australia and RepSim Pty Ltd were given an hour to make their case before the defence subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.
By the time the group was 30 minutes into its presentation at least five of the committee members had left the room.
Remaining committee members, including Opposition defence spokesman Senator David Johnston, were told the JSF program was a failure, the planes only had limited stealth capability and that they were compromised by the use of a core design to produce three different variants; a conventional land based plane, a short take off and landing variant that will replace the US Marine Corps’ Harrier jets and a carrier version.
Air Power Australia wants the Australian Government to abandon the JSF and, instead, exert pressure on the US Government to scrap the program in favour of having Lockheed Martin re-open its F-22 Raptor production line and make that plane, arguably the world’s best air superiority fighter, available to the international partners.
Yeah, that’s gonna happen. You can’t blame them for taking what they believe is the best position for their government — and, after all, they’re standing upside down on the bottom of the planet, so the blood is probably rushing to their heads. But if Lockheed’s own Amur’kun advocates in Congress couldn’t save the F-22, the chances are even more remote that Canberra can do it.
All other things being equal, an export version of the F-22 could be a great idea for the U.S. On the What’s-Good-for-Lockheed-is-Good-for-America front, the company resumes cranking out airplanes down in Marietta. The Australian and Japanese air forces start flying the world’s greatest super-jet from their own fields in the Western Pacific. Lockheed comes back to the Air Force and says, hey, we’re so good at building these things in volume now, we’ll sell you a whole batch for fifty bucks apiece. The waves upon waves of F-22s in the skies block out the sun.
But this schoolboy fantasy will never be. As defense commentator Loren Thompson wrote this week, the U.S. has a spotty track record in dealing with potential export customers for military airplanes. He set up his post as an explanation of why India might have chosen France’s Dassault Rafale over the F-35:
New Delhi is a complicated place, and there were probably multiple reasons for the decision. But here’s one factor that hasn’t been reported. India made three different requests for information to the U.S. government over the last several years about sea-based versions of the F-35, and somehow nobody in Washington ever managed to answer any of them. Not surprisingly, the Indians eventually went away, but the lack of a U.S. response can’t have made a good impression.
This situation is reminiscent of the way Japan, another first-tier Asian power, was treated when it made repeated inquiries concerning possible purchase of the twin-engine F-22 fighter. Military planners in Tokyo felt the F-22 was uniquely suited to Japan’s geostrategic circumstances, and therefore were seriously contemplating its purchase. Their inquiries weren’t just ignored in Washington, but bluntly rebuffed. Tokyo eventually decided to buy the single-engine F-35 instead, which is just as stealthy but not as agile in the most demanding engagements (it’s still far superior to any foreign fighter).
So it seems the Aussies should not feel particularly slighted about either their membership in Club F-35 or a few peoples’ F-22 aspirations. Dealing with the U.S. apparently is a headache for everyone.
The F-22 is phenomenally better than the F-35 which, IMHO, is the Chevy Volt of fighter planes.
We should buy more ourselves.
ping
“We should buy more ourselves.”
Yes we should. I’d suggest scrapping let’s say half of the land-based F-35 buy, and instead put that money into the proven, operational, and far more capable F-22. Given the insane inflation in the F-35’s price, the F-22 now costs a bit less anyhow.
Perhaps down the road we could purchase more F-35s, if it pans out as a good platform. Then there’s the future of autonomous robotic aircraft to consider as well.
I hope the next administration is sane, and restarts the F-22 assembly line. Exports to Australia and Japan make all the sense in the world.
This article has a really good idea F-22a for our strongest allies. Of course the obummer admin will ignore it. Maybe we can export some of the admins leftist idealogues instead.
If we sold the F-22’s to Australia that would mean jobs for Americans wouldn’t it?
Obama doesn’t want anything to do with jobs for Americans., so it is higly unlikely.
Obama likes the unemployment figures.
I like the aussies but they are moving closer to bowing to the chicoms. They are a reason the F-22 is for the US only, and its so we can have air dominance. We need to build more for ourself. I agree.
Getting the production line going again would put the unit cost at around $227 million per copy in FY08 dollars for 75 aircraft, according to a Rand Corporation study.
No way Australia would be willing to pay that much for F-22s.
It would also mean bringing down unit costs for the F-22 and maybe we could buy a few more to augment our austere fleet.
The F22 and F35 have completely different missions and roles.
So from an air dominance perspective, your statement is more than likely true.
But until they fly against one another, we won’t know for sure now, will we?
So who’s going to go in and drop the 2,000lb weapons to take out a hard target? The F35.
Which aircraft is going to ensure top cover for the F35? The F22.
F22 - Air dominance, F35 CAS.
At some point in a campaign, there will be some overlap, but very little.
So attempting to compare them to one another is like comparing apples to kumquats.
“The F22 and F35 have completely different missions and roles.”
That simply isn’t true - there is considerable overlap.
“But until they fly against one another, we won’t know for sure now, will we?”
Let’s see - the F-22 has all-aspect stealth and supercruise. What advantages does the F-35 have? None...
The F-22 should eat the F-35’s lunch every time.
“So who’s going to go in and drop the 2,000lb weapons to take out a hard target? The F35.
Which aircraft is going to ensure top cover for the F35? The F22.
F22 - Air dominance, F35 CAS.”
Er, “CAS” these days mostly consists of a set of geo coordinates uploaded from the ground troops, with a JDAM or other munition to arrive at those coordinates shortly. A supersonic F-22 at 50,000 feet struck a moving target with a JDAM at 24 miles standoff range.
“At some point in a campaign, there will be some overlap, but very little.”
The F-22, using internal stores, can drop two 1,000 lb. bombs, or up to eight small diameter bombs (500 lb. bomb equivalents). It also has four external store hard points capable of 5,000 lb. load each. It seems with a bit of work stealthy stores could be developed for the external stores to make it a bit more of a bomb truck.
On the other hand, I personally think refitting the B1-B bombers with F-22 engines and upgrading the avionics makes for a better all-around bomb truck than either the F-35 or the F-22.
“So attempting to compare them to one another is like comparing apples to kumquats.”
More like comparing a Porsche 911 Turbo to a Honda Accord...except in this case Honda is trying to charge the same amount!
In a broader context, yes. Primary roles, no. Once the initial stages of the campaign are over, the 2 will overlap, I stated as much.
"Let’s see - the F-22 has all-aspect stealth and supercruise. What advantages does the F-35 have? None..."
You don't know what you don't know.
"The F-22 should eat the F-35’s lunch every time."
"should"
"Er, “CAS” these days..."
That's the F35's "role". Didn't get into the definition, but thanks.
"A supersonic F-22 at 50,000 feet struck a moving target with a JDAM at 24 miles standoff range."
It "demonstrated the capability", what will it take to make every F22 "capable"? At what point in a campaign is an F22 diverted from its primary role of air dominance to "bomb truck"? Until then, which aircraft is the "bomb truck" that can penetrate air defenses?
Interesting infor. but no need to come across as uppity about it. It's too bad that folks are so quick to malign something they only read about in articles.
I wonder if the F117 or F16 would have been fielded under similar criticisms?
“So attempting to compare them to one another is like comparing apples to kumquats.”
Yet that’s exactly what is happening when Congress is telling our allies like Canada that the F-35 will have to be the replacement for the CF-18. The Canadians, on the other hand, would rather have the F-22 as the replacement for the F-18 as the supercruise capability gives them the ‘legs’ to patrol their northern territories from existing air bases. The F-35 will require the reactivation of several abandoned NORAD bases from the Cold War.
The main reason Congress wants Canada to use the F-35 is because the Canadians are footing a share of the bill for the development of this turkey. Meanwhile, the F-22 is a production platform that would be cheaper for the Canadians once you factor in the fact that they’d no longer be paying for what looks like an endless development program.
Myself, I am no big fan of the F-35 because it’s the proverbial Jack of all trades and Master of none. It is most definetly NOT a replacment for the A-10 yet the hucksters pushing this thing propose that it will be. Yeah, right.
Australia needs the F-22 to counter growing Chinese assertiveness in their direction and an IOU for a bunch of F-35’s isn’t worth FA compared to the F-22 they could order if Congress and Obama would stop kissing Beijing’s a$$.
You base that assertion on what, exactly?
>The F-22 is phenomenally better than the F-35<
“You base that assertion on what, exactly?”
Simple. The F-22 is in production and the F-35 is so delayed and so plagued by development problems that some countries who were planning on buying it are now considering asking for renewed production runs of the F-18 and F-15. Australia ordered more F-18 fighters in 2009 when they lost patience with the F-35. Canada is now questioning their participation in the F-35 and the RCAF has been talking to Parliament about another order of the CF-18 as opposed to the F-35.
In short, the F-22 is superior because it is in deployment while the F-35 looks destined to join the Avro Arrow in the woulda-coulda-shoulda category of fighter aircraft.
There, fixed it.
If you think the F-35's development is plagued with problems, go read the history of the development of the F-22.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.