F22 Raptor V's F35 Joint Strike Fighter
F22 Raptor V's F35 Joint Strike Fighter
Reading the latest Smithsonian Air & Space magazine has a great profile on the F22 Raptor. With its new designation, now F/A 22 it seems to be able to fullfil the roll of the F/A 18 and F111. Given that it has ;
Unmatched dogfighting ability, even the lendary f15 is outclassed by it
Fairly large bomb load, much of it carried internally........& .stealth
Huge radius un-refuled, coupled with sustained super cruise......given our large distances from even our forward bases (Tindal, Darwin, Sherger etc) to the likely area of engagement.
Un matched radar capability
2 engines
Why the hell are we even looking at the JSF. Doesnt seem to be even in the same league. Ok the F22 is EXPENSIVE but it would give an un matched reach in this region.
The floor is open for our resident experts>
Unmatched dogfighting ability, even the lendary f15 is outclassed by it
Fairly large bomb load, much of it carried internally........& .stealth
Huge radius un-refuled, coupled with sustained super cruise......given our large distances from even our forward bases (Tindal, Darwin, Sherger etc) to the likely area of engagement.
Un matched radar capability
2 engines
Why the hell are we even looking at the JSF. Doesnt seem to be even in the same league. Ok the F22 is EXPENSIVE but it would give an un matched reach in this region.
The floor is open for our resident experts>
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in Japan, flying the Glider Tug, eating great Japanese food, looking at lovely Japanese Ladies and continuing the neverending search for a bad bottle of Red.
Posts: 2,984
Received 111 Likes
on
64 Posts
I had a discussion about seven or eight months ago with a recently retired very high ranking RAAF Officer re this very subject......
PLovett is fairly close to the mark!! Admittedly there were/are not a few other factors involved but the comment is substantially correct according to what I was told.
You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.
PLovett is fairly close to the mark!! Admittedly there were/are not a few other factors involved but the comment is substantially correct according to what I was told.
You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.
Some basic info on the net shows the JSF cant possibly have the range required for out operation and geographic considerations, not even taking in to accound its limited weapons load. Something like 2 bombs and 2 missiles. Thats it!!!
Does our participation in the development program bind us into buying it??
Does our participation in the development program bind us into buying it??
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no military background, therefore not a "resident" expert. More the garden variety "armchair" amateur, but I’ll have a go at tossing an opinion in nevertheless.
From what I’ve read and heard, the F22 is a phenomenal piece of equipment. The electronics and information available to the pilot are the stuff of wet dreams. However, even the USA is trying to find a suitable application for the aircraft since the demise of the USSR. It was designed and built for air superiority in a battle with front line Soviet fighters. It’s a great marriage of stealth with maneuverability. The stealth and sensor capabilities make it a very potent weapon particularly against an enemy with AWACs. The F22 somewhat negates the enemy’s AWAC capability of long range threat detection and response coordination, while its aerodynamic design gives it the upper hand once in a dogfight. In addition, it’s able to deliver a whopping piece of destruction on high value ground targets.
The world scene has changed since the F22 was designed. The current crop of enemy combatents is not so technically advanced. The enemy’s stealth capabilites are reliant on very small, independent and inconspicuous ground based forces equipped with relatively simple weapons. Possessing the element of surprise in this situation is not so distinguishable between the F22 and the F35.
The ops requirement at home seems to place more emphasis on border control where more relatively low tech aircraft (read: lower cost) are better than just a few high tech ones. On overseas ops, Australia is in a supporting role and has to integrate with other forces. We don’t need a huge load of bombs anymore. Just a couple with an accurate delivery system appears ideal for the time being to knock out congregation and staging points. The range isn’t as important, but positioning more aircraft in forward locations with quick response times appears paramount to supporting small, scattered and diverse ground forces. An aircraft that is relatively less complex to maintain, has interchangeable parts common with other forces in the area from other nations and doesn’t require huge supporting logistical teams seems to me to make a good choice.
We’re not under this huge communist threat anymore where we have to be vigilant for a large mass of invaders from the north. It will change sometime in the future again, but for the time being, country to country relations with Australia’s neighbours appears to be on a relatively even diplomatic keel. And we certainly don’t have to worry about an aviation threat from New Zealand anymore (just a continuing rugby threat).
But what would I know?
From what I’ve read and heard, the F22 is a phenomenal piece of equipment. The electronics and information available to the pilot are the stuff of wet dreams. However, even the USA is trying to find a suitable application for the aircraft since the demise of the USSR. It was designed and built for air superiority in a battle with front line Soviet fighters. It’s a great marriage of stealth with maneuverability. The stealth and sensor capabilities make it a very potent weapon particularly against an enemy with AWACs. The F22 somewhat negates the enemy’s AWAC capability of long range threat detection and response coordination, while its aerodynamic design gives it the upper hand once in a dogfight. In addition, it’s able to deliver a whopping piece of destruction on high value ground targets.
The world scene has changed since the F22 was designed. The current crop of enemy combatents is not so technically advanced. The enemy’s stealth capabilites are reliant on very small, independent and inconspicuous ground based forces equipped with relatively simple weapons. Possessing the element of surprise in this situation is not so distinguishable between the F22 and the F35.
The ops requirement at home seems to place more emphasis on border control where more relatively low tech aircraft (read: lower cost) are better than just a few high tech ones. On overseas ops, Australia is in a supporting role and has to integrate with other forces. We don’t need a huge load of bombs anymore. Just a couple with an accurate delivery system appears ideal for the time being to knock out congregation and staging points. The range isn’t as important, but positioning more aircraft in forward locations with quick response times appears paramount to supporting small, scattered and diverse ground forces. An aircraft that is relatively less complex to maintain, has interchangeable parts common with other forces in the area from other nations and doesn’t require huge supporting logistical teams seems to me to make a good choice.
We’re not under this huge communist threat anymore where we have to be vigilant for a large mass of invaders from the north. It will change sometime in the future again, but for the time being, country to country relations with Australia’s neighbours appears to be on a relatively even diplomatic keel. And we certainly don’t have to worry about an aviation threat from New Zealand anymore (just a continuing rugby threat).
But what would I know?
Last edited by Lodown; 16th Dec 2005 at 16:55.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally think you'll find the RAAF leaning / pushing for an F/A-22 option now the MRTT (Multi Role Tanker / Transport) has been approved. Although they want more and more tankers - so the request may be delayed.
I reckon the seniors in the RAAF were worried if they pushed the F22 , it's easier [easier, not easy] to claim "What do you need a tanker for?"
Mind you, Army seem to be getting their "dream team" of equipment of late, maybe it's time for the senior RAAFies to push for F/A-22 replacing F111, JSF replace F/A-18.
Oh, and a SQN of C17's while we are at it
I reckon the seniors in the RAAF were worried if they pushed the F22 , it's easier [easier, not easy] to claim "What do you need a tanker for?"
Mind you, Army seem to be getting their "dream team" of equipment of late, maybe it's time for the senior RAAFies to push for F/A-22 replacing F111, JSF replace F/A-18.
Oh, and a SQN of C17's while we are at it
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would imagine the RAAF would love the combination of F22's, F35's, C17's, tankers and AWACs. It would be the envy of many of the world's air forces. In combination with the Army, Australia could project a capable, self-sufficient force anywhere in the world at short notice. That's the stuff RAAF planners could only dream about before.
Last edited by Lodown; 16th Dec 2005 at 16:41.
Upgrading the army is far more important than RAAF fighters at the moment.
Dump the F111's and a squadron of F18's, arm the P3's with missiles and let's revisit the air threat in a decade- oops, that's what the governments doing already. Bring it forward!
Dump the F111's and a squadron of F18's, arm the P3's with missiles and let's revisit the air threat in a decade- oops, that's what the governments doing already. Bring it forward!
F-22 is waaay too expensive and besides, its not for sale i.e. the Seppos won't export it, anywhere...its that good. Its even too expensive for the US DoD's voracious appetite.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
advantages of F-35 vs. F-22:
- spherical thermal imager linked to HMD
- advanced weapons carriage (beyond JDAM)
- self-designation capability for LGB
- IRST
- APG-81 has more advanced SAR/GMTI capability than APG-77
- intra-flight datalink
- approximately twice as many airframes available for our budget
- designed from outset for multi-role operations
- internationally-constructed aircraft with australian SDD participation and contractor involvement simplifies international arms trading issues
advantages of F-22 vs. F-35:
- better payload-range capability
- true supercruise capabilty
- larger radar aperature
- probable future addition of side-looking radar aperatures
- twin-engine survivability
- vectored thrust boosts post-stall manoeuverability (X-31 technology)
- possibility of future FB-22 airframes becoming available
my opinion:
the lack of many F-35 sensor systems, advanced radar functions, weapons carriage and multi-role design attributes means the F-22 is a less capable aircraft in the CAS/BAI and interdiction/deep strike roles. both aircraft have a similar air combat capability. supercruise, extended payload range and large aperature radar give the F-22 a much better OCA/DCA capability.
australia's requirements are a subject for the NACC team to decide, but revolve around the defence of australia in times of war, responding to security and stability threats in our immediate neighbourhood and region, contributing to global coalition operations that support australia's interests and various peacetime national tasks. the F-35 has the flexibility to provide effective support to most conceivable surface operations that australia could mount, as well as the advanced capabilities to generate long-range strategic OCA/DCA and strike missions alongside MRTT and Wedgetail. the F-22 would extend the range and effectiveness of any wartime area air defence operations we would wish to conduct, but the limited numbers in which we could purchase it and the limitations of its sensor suite and inherent design would make any F-22 capability an inflexible, inefficient capability.
- spherical thermal imager linked to HMD
- advanced weapons carriage (beyond JDAM)
- self-designation capability for LGB
- IRST
- APG-81 has more advanced SAR/GMTI capability than APG-77
- intra-flight datalink
- approximately twice as many airframes available for our budget
- designed from outset for multi-role operations
- internationally-constructed aircraft with australian SDD participation and contractor involvement simplifies international arms trading issues
advantages of F-22 vs. F-35:
- better payload-range capability
- true supercruise capabilty
- larger radar aperature
- probable future addition of side-looking radar aperatures
- twin-engine survivability
- vectored thrust boosts post-stall manoeuverability (X-31 technology)
- possibility of future FB-22 airframes becoming available
my opinion:
the lack of many F-35 sensor systems, advanced radar functions, weapons carriage and multi-role design attributes means the F-22 is a less capable aircraft in the CAS/BAI and interdiction/deep strike roles. both aircraft have a similar air combat capability. supercruise, extended payload range and large aperature radar give the F-22 a much better OCA/DCA capability.
australia's requirements are a subject for the NACC team to decide, but revolve around the defence of australia in times of war, responding to security and stability threats in our immediate neighbourhood and region, contributing to global coalition operations that support australia's interests and various peacetime national tasks. the F-35 has the flexibility to provide effective support to most conceivable surface operations that australia could mount, as well as the advanced capabilities to generate long-range strategic OCA/DCA and strike missions alongside MRTT and Wedgetail. the F-22 would extend the range and effectiveness of any wartime area air defence operations we would wish to conduct, but the limited numbers in which we could purchase it and the limitations of its sensor suite and inherent design would make any F-22 capability an inflexible, inefficient capability.
Further advantage of F35: more likely that "future" airframes will exist..
F22 would be a fearsomely expensive island capability - taking into account the support costs, would you get a squadron or so? And what would be left for CAS, strike, maritime patrol, tactical and strategic transport, long term sustainment? Nice shiny toy.
F22 would be a fearsomely expensive island capability - taking into account the support costs, would you get a squadron or so? And what would be left for CAS, strike, maritime patrol, tactical and strategic transport, long term sustainment? Nice shiny toy.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: S 40°12'07" E 175°22'52"
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
18-Wheeler,
Having flown the Hornet against Flankers, and knowing just how unreliable Russian avionics and engines are, give me American-made any day.
Anyhooo, remember that you fly against the man - not the machine.
...and although I'm not a fan of one engine where two will do, I think money will mean F-35's in the end game.
Having flown the Hornet against Flankers, and knowing just how unreliable Russian avionics and engines are, give me American-made any day.
Anyhooo, remember that you fly against the man - not the machine.
...and although I'm not a fan of one engine where two will do, I think money will mean F-35's in the end game.
I find it interesting that the number of replacement fighters for the F18's & F111's is mentioned as being around 100.
With delays in the JSF programme and no commitment to an interim fighter to replace the F111, how can anywhere near a 100 JSF's be contemplated?
When the JSF is available, my understanding is the F111 will have been replaced by emerging technology ( missiles on the F18 & P3 ) and the operational fighter strength of the RAAF around 40+ upgraded Hornets.
If the army continues to dominate procedings around JSF propsed intro' date- war on terror and peacekeeping operations- this can't augur well for RAAF Brass who would want budget domination in the ramping up of a 40+ F18 fleet to 100 JSF's. I just can't see politicians doubling the RAAF fighter fleet unless the regional tempo up's significantly.
So how will the RAAF Brass get a fleet of shiny new fighters? A push for an interim fighter or small purchase of F22's, alongside upgraded F18's, to maintain respectable fleet numbers once F111 goes? Or a JSF purchase with lobbying for additional STOL JSF's for operations off RAN helicopter carriers?
A RAAF fleet of 100 JSF's seems a long way off. Perhaps 60 at best?
With delays in the JSF programme and no commitment to an interim fighter to replace the F111, how can anywhere near a 100 JSF's be contemplated?
When the JSF is available, my understanding is the F111 will have been replaced by emerging technology ( missiles on the F18 & P3 ) and the operational fighter strength of the RAAF around 40+ upgraded Hornets.
If the army continues to dominate procedings around JSF propsed intro' date- war on terror and peacekeeping operations- this can't augur well for RAAF Brass who would want budget domination in the ramping up of a 40+ F18 fleet to 100 JSF's. I just can't see politicians doubling the RAAF fighter fleet unless the regional tempo up's significantly.
So how will the RAAF Brass get a fleet of shiny new fighters? A push for an interim fighter or small purchase of F22's, alongside upgraded F18's, to maintain respectable fleet numbers once F111 goes? Or a JSF purchase with lobbying for additional STOL JSF's for operations off RAN helicopter carriers?
A RAAF fleet of 100 JSF's seems a long way off. Perhaps 60 at best?
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 30th Dec 2005 at 03:55.
Whilst I have been impressed by the briefings and marketing speel of the F35 pundits, we should be wary of purchasing a single engined F35 and placing so much expectation on it. It reeks of 'plug and play with USA' thinking (on an OZ budget).
Let's not forget the history of single engined jet aircraft in our country. We lost maybe 30 or so Mirages over 20 years, many of them to engine problems - these therefore became lawn darts and the public complained about million-dollar jets falling out of the sky. But our three (fatal) hornet losses were not power related, and there have been quite a few incidents where safe return was made with with one good donk. Ok I conceed MirageIIIO and F35 are like old chalk and new cheese, but birds , FOD and the like just don't give a damn about the price of the metal or the reliability of the systems.
I just dont believe that a 'zero engine redunancy' policy is worth the cost of the F35.
Perhaps the future tactic may be ..."capital expenditure now approved on basis of F35....but hey, we just received stats on single-jet losses, delays on production, and the outcry from the icecream lickers...so the polies now demand we get the twin!" QED
Let's not forget the history of single engined jet aircraft in our country. We lost maybe 30 or so Mirages over 20 years, many of them to engine problems - these therefore became lawn darts and the public complained about million-dollar jets falling out of the sky. But our three (fatal) hornet losses were not power related, and there have been quite a few incidents where safe return was made with with one good donk. Ok I conceed MirageIIIO and F35 are like old chalk and new cheese, but birds , FOD and the like just don't give a damn about the price of the metal or the reliability of the systems.
I just dont believe that a 'zero engine redunancy' policy is worth the cost of the F35.
Perhaps the future tactic may be ..."capital expenditure now approved on basis of F35....but hey, we just received stats on single-jet losses, delays on production, and the outcry from the icecream lickers...so the polies now demand we get the twin!" QED
Last edited by Roller Merlin; 30th Dec 2005 at 09:57.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please, enough with the single engine nonsense!
GA seems to manage OK, and they conduct significantly less maintenance than Defence. For that matter, the level of redundancy built into modern military aircraft is extensive.
Enough with the Mirage examples also, different era. I'm sure that I wouldn't have to go too far back to form a "shock, horror" opinion regarding twin engine aircraft.
GA seems to manage OK, and they conduct significantly less maintenance than Defence. For that matter, the level of redundancy built into modern military aircraft is extensive.
Enough with the Mirage examples also, different era. I'm sure that I wouldn't have to go too far back to form a "shock, horror" opinion regarding twin engine aircraft.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: S 40°12'07" E 175°22'52"
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One engine vs two........
Single engine cessna worth $150k that you can glide in almost anywhere at 70kts following an engine failure, vs multi-million dollar fighter that you may be able to dead stick in if your engine happens to fail while you're at 10,000' passing overhead a 6,000ft runway.
I know if it was my dollar I'd want to slap an extra engine on that sucker as a bit of insurance!!
Single engine cessna worth $150k that you can glide in almost anywhere at 70kts following an engine failure, vs multi-million dollar fighter that you may be able to dead stick in if your engine happens to fail while you're at 10,000' passing overhead a 6,000ft runway.
I know if it was my dollar I'd want to slap an extra engine on that sucker as a bit of insurance!!
Last edited by Fragnasty; 30th Dec 2005 at 21:37.