BTW, here's some info on the F-15K I mentioned above:



www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q2/nr_020419m.html

Boeing F-15K Selected by the Republic of Korea as F-X Fighter ST. LOUIS, April 19, 2002 -- The Republic of Korea has completed its F-X fighter aircraft evaluation and announced it will finalize a contract with Boeing [NYSE: BA] for 40 F-15Ks and associated weapons and support. "We are honored that the F-15K was selected, and excited that we will be able to expand our long-standing relationship with the Republic of Korea," said Boeing Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Phil Condit. "Our best people and strongest efforts will help ensure a successful program for the Korean people." Boeing, the leading purchaser of Korean aerospace products and the world's largest aerospace company, will use the F-15K program to enhance partnerships with Korean companies. Boeing is committed to helping address Korea's industrial and technology development priorities, including the stated desire for Korea to produce its own fighter by 2015. "It is very gratifying that Korea's transparent and fair evaluation led it to decide that the F-15K provides the modern, long-range, multirole capabilities it requires well into the 21st century," said Jerry Daniels, president and chief executive officer of Boeing Military Aircraft and Missile Systems. "This was a great team effort. The Korean Air Force has my full commitment that we will work together to deliver them the world's most advanced fighter-bomber. This will certainly be a 'next-generation' project in every aspect, and we look forward to building on our relationships with Korean industry through this program." In announcing the selection today in Seoul, the Republic of Korea's Ministry of National Defense cited the F-15K's strengths as its multirole performance, payload-carrying ability, combat radius, engine performance, survivability, proven performance, software maintenance and upgrade capabilities, and the fact that 15 new technologies will be applied to the aircraft. Production of the 40 F-15K aircraft will augment current production of U.S. Air Force F-15s at the Boeing facility in St. Louis. The first F-15K will be delivered during 2005, the last in 2008. The F-15K is an advanced derivative of the U.S. Air Force F-15E, the world's most capable long-range, multirole fighter. It can perform air-to-ground and air-to-air missions during the day or at night, in virtually any weather. It can carry more than 23,000 pounds of payload, reach Mach 2.5, and incorporates the latest military technologies. These include the APG-63(V)1 radar, a third-generation forward looking infrared system, a helmet-mounted cueing system, and weapons-control systems that support advanced weapons such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition, or JDAM, Standoff Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response, or SLAM-ER, Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile, or AMRAAM, and Aim-9X Sidewinder.

That is one helluva nice combat aircraft. For those nations wanting an aircraft that can provide credible air dominance and long range attack with a heavy payload and advanced weapons, the F-15K might be the best solution overall. It's not an F-22. But it's probably one of the next best solutions and better than the F-35 if you are wanting a design that will be used to replace something like the F-111.

Just give that aircraft the ability to carry the new longer range missiles in development (the UK's "Meteor" or the US equivalent) and you will have one bad boy with the capability of dealing with the SU-27/30/33/35 Flanker family, as well as most other planned or envisioned foreign combat aircraft. With the AIM-9X, this aircraft would be just as deadly as the Flanker within visual range, even if the F-15K is a bit less maneuverable. Manuevering matters less when all that is required to engage a target is turn your head. The AIM-9X can certainly outmaneuver the Flanker! And with the Meteor radar guided missile, you are talking about a weapon that will provide a higher kill rate and maximum range that will extend 20, 30 or even 40 miles beyond that of the current AMRAAM. So at worst, you will have an aircraft that will at least be equal to the latest SU and MiG fighters within visual range, but far better in beyond visual range engagements. You can kill them at distances that they can't shoot at you from. And if you added IRST to this design, you could even track stealthy fighters out past 100 miles.

IMHO, I almost wish the US Air Force would buy some of these F-15's equipped as mentioned to supplement the F-22's numbers. I worry that the current procurement plans for the F-22 will net us too few air superiority fighters to do what we have done with the F-15. Coverage will be stretched farther. In addition, it'd be nice to have a few extra F-15E/K type aircraft in stock to replace the number of long range strike aircraft given up and never adequately replaced when the F-111 and A-6 were retired. The F-15 is still a good plane as is, but with a few improvements, it could still be cutting edge for a number of years to come. We could upgrade the newer F-15's and replace the older ones that have heavily worn airframes with new ones. The original plans called for buying about 700 F-22's and those were gradually whittled away. We'll be lucky to end up with 200 of them when all is said and done. Therefore I hope we continue to build and buy some more advanced F-15's to carry us over in numbers and abilities until we can get the UAV's into development. Balancing cost, total numbers and capability is key these days. It seems any route you take involves compromise. But I don't necessarily think an improved F-15 would be a bad compromise for anyone, if given the abilities such as I mentioned.

I'm always of the opinion that the battle of the buldge was a good learning. Very often...more often than not actually, superior numbers can defeat superior technology. I personallly think the idea of having the ability to launch many cheap fighters against a fewer good fighters will end up with major casualties to the cheap fighters, but they will still defeat the better ones just because there's so many of them and they are easy/cheap and FAST to replace.

Just my insignificant opinion.

Quoted: Quoted: how does the JSF look? BTW, I wonder if Boeing has considered spiffing up the F-15 and marketing it toward foreign friendly governments who wish to have a more capable air dominance fighter without the price tag of the F-22? The F-15 production line is still open.

The answer is yes.  Potential customers are limited by money or political qualifications.  Countries with marginal air forces use them for show and saber rattling at their neighbors, hence they want lots of cheap airplanes on the ramp.

The way to boost F-15 sales is to get cost out of the airframe.  We actually started a project like that this winter - I was there two full days before it was cancelled.  There is no customer, although there is still talk of redesigning the center fuselage, we need to sell about 60 more airplanes to break even, and that is doing the work without a new static test or fatigue test, which the US government ain't going to sign onto because of the radical changes we were proposing.  The real kicker on the cost reduction we were working is that most of the airplane cost is still in everything but the airframe, but that is about all that's available to work.

JSF was origianally conceived as a low cost fighter - the cost was set, and since airplanes are more or less bought by the pound, the weight was set (about 28000 pounds in 1991), and then the airframe length was set by the weight.  The result is a little airplane with okay capability and insufficient internal volume for everything we would like to carry, crippled by a need to be all things to all users; sort of like hauling your date to the prom in a Chevy LUV with most of the cargo bed rusted off.

We'll see how it shakes out - even with poor contract performance, LM obviously knows how to handle their US government customer.  How they do that is something MDC has been trying to figure out since at least the mid 80's, with little or no success.  And Boeing/MDC seems to love stepping on its dick, repeatedly.  I barely care these days.

Sorry to only "tag" and not add value. I'm still on page 3 and I'd rather "seek first to understand and then to be understood".  Good read so far.


Bomber

What do the Navy/Marine Corps do in the meantime?

That's what the X-47 is for, which is infact now a navy program. More reinforced landing gear wells, an arrestor hook, and a software change, and there you go.

Quoted: What do the Navy/Marine Corps do in the meantime? That's what the X-47 is for, which is infact now a navy program. More reinforced landing gear wells, an arrestor hook, and a software change, and there you go.

It's not even as far along as the X-45. Those Hornets and Harriers need replacing before 2010; X-45 isn't going to reach IOC by then. I see it as at least 15 years out from being reliable enough to replace manned fighters on day-to-day, frontline usage. Sure, it'll start supplementing our forces in maybe 5-10 years, but I doubt anybody's going to want to put all their eggs in that basket until it's a mature technology.

Bumped because these type of threads are always super interesting and I hate seeing them fade away. This one has potential for at least another 2-4 pages of discussion and debate!

Quoted: Quoted: What do the Navy/Marine Corps do in the meantime? That's what the X-47 is for, which is infact now a navy program. More reinforced landing gear wells, an arrestor hook, and a software change, and there you go. It's not even as far along as the X-45. Those Hornets and Harriers need replacing before 2010; X-45 isn't going to reach IOC by then. I see it as at least 15 years out from being reliable enough to replace manned fighters on day-to-day, frontline usage. Sure, it'll start supplementing our forces in maybe 5-10 years, but I doubt anybody's going to want to put all their eggs in that basket until it's a mature technology.

First, there isn't much difference between the -45 and -47, really. The -45 was always going to be a base for the -47.

Second, if Harriers and Hornets need replacing before 2010 then the JSF isn't the way to go either since it won't be operational until 2012 at the very earliest, probably more like 2015.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: how does the JSF look? We'll see how it shakes out - even with poor contract performance, LM obviously knows how to handle their US government customer.  How they do that is something MDC has been trying to figure out since at least the mid 80's, with little or no success. LM has a long and glorious history of suitcases full of banknotes being given to the 'right' people… ANdy

MDC has been doing the same thing, it just gives the suitecase to almost the right people.

If the Aussies are looking for a bomb truck, what about using something like the B-1?

Quoted: Hmm.  What's that?  The lower cost "it will be just as good" isn't actually "just as good?"   It may be that the Eurofighter is a better option for those who cannot afford an F-22

"Go F-22 or go Home"

(go chrome or go home)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What do the Navy/Marine Corps do in the meantime? That's what the X-47 is for, which is infact now a navy program. More reinforced landing gear wells, an arrestor hook, and a software change, and there you go. It's not even as far along as the X-45. Those Hornets and Harriers need replacing before 2010; X-45 isn't going to reach IOC by then. I see it as at least 15 years out from being reliable enough to replace manned fighters on day-to-day, frontline usage. Sure, it'll start supplementing our forces in maybe 5-10 years, but I doubt anybody's going to want to put all their eggs in that basket until it's a mature technology. First, there isn't much difference between the -45 and -47, really. The -45 was always going to be a base for the -47. Second, if Harriers and Hornets need replacing before 2010 then the JSF isn't the way to go either since it won't be operational until 2012 at the very earliest, probably more like 2015.

MC Avplan as of April 2005 had the 35B squadrons standing up (on paper) 2011; was aware of the subsequent problems with the B, but I assumed the conventional versions weren't affected and would have been ready earlier.

Quoted: Quoted: how does the JSF look? Kind of like what you'd expect to see if the F-22 and F-16 had children. www.defence.gov.au/raaf/images/for_site/corporate/f35.gif jfontenot.home.mindspring.com/f-35%20joint%20strike.jpg www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/Fotos/lockheed/X-35AWu.JPG uplink.space.com/attachments/251857-f35-6.jpg FWIW, I still think the F-35 is a very adequate design to do what we want it to do. It will be more stealthy than the F-16 or F-18A and C models it is designed to replace. It should be equally manuverable, while having a reduced radar cross section. And if the price stays in the same general range as projected, it won't cost any more than the F-16 currently costs. The way I see that, it's a win. The F-35 will still offer a first strike capability. This could be accomplished by carrying two bombs internally with no external stores. That would right away give it a tremendous advantage over the F-16 or F-18. Then later on, when enemy air defenses are knocked out, hardpoints can be added and generous external stores carried when being low observable isn't as important. I am not satisfied that the F-35 would be an ideal aircraft for a foreign government if that government is wanting to use it as an air dominance fighter. That is not what the F-35 was designed for. It can go air to air if need be, but it's not as suited to that role as the F-22. That is no great revelation, as we have known that from the start. The F-35 has much the same mission as F-16's. F-16's weren't exactly designed with air dominance as their primary task either. The F-15 did that while the F-16 was used to SUPPLEMENT it in the air to air role and deliver the punch in attacking ground targets while F-15's flew cover. The F-35 aircraft was not meant as a substitute for the F-22, more as a lower cost supplement to it, just as the F-16 was to the F-15. It is merely a replacement for aging F-16's and F-18A and C's.  When viewed in that regard, I can definately see where we will be upgrading by buying F-35's. But the problem with foreign sales is apparently those foreign thought they could purchase F-22 capable aircraft for F-16 prices. That just isn't the case. There is a reason why the F-22 costs more.  If they aren't willing to pay F-22 prices, then they should not expect F-22 quality. It's really as simple as that. And I would agree that there are several platforms I'd consider over the F-35 if air dominance was my primary concern. Or perhaps I would consider buying some F-35's for air to ground roles and something like the Typhoon for air dominance. And if I were the Aussies, I'd keep the F-111 in service for as long as possible. It is a dedicated long range strike aircraft. They aren't going to get anything better. IMHO, even the F-15E can't do some of the things the F-111 can. And no multi-role fighter bomber will be able to match it's long range, low altitude and speed on the deck. Being the Aussies have no long range bombers, I'd look at modernizing the F-111's. Then they should perhaps consider going with the Typhoon or F-18E/F if they want something with a greater emphasis on A2A combat. BTW, I wonder if Boeing has considered spiffing up the F-15 and marketing it toward foreign friendly governments who wish to have a more capable air dominance fighter without the price tag of the F-22? The F-15 production line is still open. So it would seem this could be feasible. Boeing could add some extra goodies, borrowing on the F-22's advanced radar and electronics. You'd then have an aircraft far more capable than the standard F-15, but at a much reduced cost compared to the F-22. You'd give up the low observables game, but with a radar comparable to the F-22's and something like the Meteor missile added to it's armament, I am not sure it would really matter all that much. In fact, perhaps something along the lines of the F-15K the South Koreans have just purchased might be the perfect solution for the Aussies. The F-15K is really an updated F-15E that's even more advanced and capable than our own. Give the Aussie version a better A2A ability (helmet sighted AIM-9X, Meteor or comparable long range missile and AESA radar) and it should be able to adequately handle air dominance and long range strike.  Thus, it could replace their aging F-111's and provide a more credible A2A threat than the F-35. They could then keep in service their fleet of F-18's for the intermediate roles. Or to take this even further, perhaps the Aussies could dig down deep in their pockets and just buy a small number of F-22's or Typhoons to use in the air dominance role and replace everything else they have with the new F-16E/F, which is a poor man's version of the F-15E. It has much increased range with the external fuel bladders, good payload, good electronics and improved radar and is low cost and currently being produced. This is the solution the Israeli's have gone with, as well as the UAE.  Something like this might be the best solution for them. Afterall, everyone's needs vary. Sometimes you have to tailor pick weapons systems to suit those specific needs, rather than trying to solve issues by just tossing out a blanket solution for everyone.

Big +1 here.
The airforces that oppose us aren't very good from a quality standpoint, but their aircraft are improving, and in the case of China and India, there are a lot of them. The simple fact of the matter is that we $12B-$15B AUD per year on defence. To spend any more would not go down well politically, as ever little left-wing interest group would scream loudly about spending money on weapons instead of their pet welfare programmes.

We were offered the F-15A way back in the early 80s as a Mirage III replacement, but instead opted for the Hornet. Had we gone to the Eagle back then, we could have continually upgraded  it and still had a top notch  fighter AND the infrastructure in place to transition from the Pig to the Beagle and make significant cost savings to boot. What governments don't seem to understand is that if you buy better NOW, you usually spend less LATER. We're making that mistake AGAIN with the F-35 to do the job of both the F-35 and the F-111.

Quoted: If the Aussies are looking for a bomb truck, what about using something like the B-1?

Three big problems and one medium sized one:

1) Cost, to buy, to crew and to maintain
2) Infrastructure- We couldn't buy enough to justify the infrastructure outlay. We're going to discover this with the 4 C-17s we're buying
3) The neighbours would have a stroke. They hated our F-111s, they'd go absolutly mental if we bought true strategic bombers. Why is this important? Because we're surrounded by about 2.5 Billion people who don't think we belong here, and pissing them off on a continuing basis doesn't make for sound policy. The B-1 would represent a continual pissing-off, where as we try to piss off the neigbours only on a semi-regular basis.
4) Spares- Although we could plug into the US spares system, we've learnt our lesson (hopefully) of operating a combat aircraft with a very narrow installed base. We were one of only two operators of the F-111, and the only one since its US retirement. I seriously doubt that we want to be in that position with another aircraft.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Big +1 here. The airforces that oppose us aren't very good from a quality standpoint, but their aircraft are improving, and in the case of China and India, there are a lot of them. The simple fact of the matter is that we $12B-$15B AUD per year on defence. To spend any more would not go down well politically, as ever little left-wing interest group would scream loudly about spending money on weapons instead of their pet welfare programmes. We were offered the F-15A way back in the early 80s as a Mirage III replacement, but instead opted for the Hornet. Had we gone to the Eagle back then, we could have continually upgraded  it and still had a top notch  fighter AND the infrastructure in place to transition from the Pig to the Beagle and make significant cost savings to boot. What governments don't seem to understand is that if you buy better NOW, you usually spend less LATER. We're making that mistake AGAIN with the F-35 to do the job of both the F-35 and the F-111. If the RAAF is not going to buy the F-22, the Block 3 Eurofighter Typhoon makes infininately more sense. Compared to the F-35, the Typhoon is far faster, more agile, bigger bombload, more missiles, more range. Block 3 Typhoon wil come with IRST, ASEA radar, direct voice input cockpit, conformal tanks, 2D thrust vectoring, more powerful engines. ANdy

Half the range, stone age avionics, 100 times the radar signature and the maintenance cost of a fleet of helicopters.

But hey! Maybe that avionics upgrade will come through when LMCO decides that hell has frozen over

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Big +1 here. The airforces that oppose us aren't very good from a quality standpoint, but their aircraft are improving, and in the case of China and India, there are a lot of them. The simple fact of the matter is that we $12B-$15B AUD per year on defence. To spend any more would not go down well politically, as ever little left-wing interest group would scream loudly about spending money on weapons instead of their pet welfare programmes. We were offered the F-15A way back in the early 80s as a Mirage III replacement, but instead opted for the Hornet. Had we gone to the Eagle back then, we could have continually upgraded  it and still had a top notch  fighter AND the infrastructure in place to transition from the Pig to the Beagle and make significant cost savings to boot. What governments don't seem to understand is that if you buy better NOW, you usually spend less LATER. We're making that mistake AGAIN with the F-35 to do the job of both the F-35 and the F-111. If the RAAF is not going to buy the F-22, the Block 3 Eurofighter Typhoon makes infininately more sense. Compared to the F-35, the Typhoon is far faster, more agile, bigger bombload, more missiles, more range. Block 3 Typhoon wil come with IRST, ASEA radar, direct voice input cockpit, conformal tanks, 2D thrust vectoring, more powerful engines. ANdy

I've got to say, I know very little about the Typhoon. I pretty much ignored it from the point where its development stalled and it looked like cancellation. That was a long time ago. If it is everything you say it is, then it would make more sense to buy it. The problem is, we need RANGE, and lots of it. Australia is as large as CONUS, our potential enemies range from about 500nm-3000nm from the nearest airbase, and we have precious little in the way of tankers. Short of carrier aviation or top tier fighter/bombers, we're pretty much limited to local defence with the offerings out there. We need something like the F-15, F-22, Su-27/30/35 type of aircraft do do anything beyond defend Darwin. Typhoons and tankers may be a more afforadable mix, but its still only a third rate option

Quoted: Quoted: If the Aussies are looking for a bomb truck, what about using something like the B-1? Three big problems and one medium sized one: 1) Cost, to buy, to crew and to maintain 2) Infrastructure- We couldn't buy enough to justify the infrastructure outlay. We're going to discover this with the 4 C-17s we're buying 3) The neighbours would have a stroke. They hated our F-111s, they'd go absolutly mental if we bought true strategic bombers. Why is this important? Because we're surrounded by about 2.5 Billion people who don't think we belong here, and pissing them off on a continuing basis doesn't make for sound policy. The B-1 would represent a continual pissing-off, where as we try to piss off the neigbours only on a semi-regular basis. 4) Spares- Although we could plug into the US spares system, we've learnt our lesson (hopefully) of operating a combat aircraft with a very narrow installed base. We were one of only two operators of the F-111, and the only one since its US retirement. I seriously doubt that we want to be in that position with another aircraft.

Definitely good points.  The general problem is that there is nothing to really replace the F-111, as no one designs medium-range bomb trucks anymore.  You either have to go up to the true bomber, or down to the strike fighter.  I guess the F-15E would be the closest to the F-111 in terms of capability, as others have pointed out.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If the Aussies are looking for a bomb truck, what about using something like the B-1? Three big problems and one medium sized one: 1) Cost, to buy, to crew and to maintain 2) Infrastructure- We couldn't buy enough to justify the infrastructure outlay. We're going to discover this with the 4 C-17s we're buying 3) The neighbours would have a stroke. They hated our F-111s, they'd go absolutly mental if we bought true strategic bombers. Why is this important? Because we're surrounded by about 2.5 Billion people who don't think we belong here, and pissing them off on a continuing basis doesn't make for sound policy. The B-1 would represent a continual pissing-off, where as we try to piss off the neigbours only on a semi-regular basis. 4) Spares- Although we could plug into the US spares system, we've learnt our lesson (hopefully) of operating a combat aircraft with a very narrow installed base. We were one of only two operators of the F-111, and the only one since its US retirement. I seriously doubt that we want to be in that position with another aircraft. Definitely good points.  The general problem is that there is nothing to really replace the F-111, as no one designs medium-range bomb trucks anymore.  You either have to go up to the true bomber, or down to the strike fighter.  I guess the F-15E would be the closest to the F-111 in terms of capability, as others have pointed out.

Yep. Not a fun situation. UCAV would solve alot of those problems, if it were cheap enough. I hate the concept from an asthetic point of view, but then again, I also think that horse cavalry is more glamorous than tanks too.

Quoted: I've got to say, I know very little about the Typhoon. I pretty much ignored it from the point where its development stalled and it looked like cancellation. That was a long time ago. If it is everything you say it is, then it would make more sense to buy it. The problem is, we need RANGE, and lots of it. Australia is as large as CONUS, our potential enemies range from about 500nm-3000nm from the nearest airbase, and we have precious little in the way of tankers. Short of carrier aviation or top tier fighter/bombers, we're pretty much limited to local defence with the offerings out there. We need something like the F-15, F-22, Su-27/30/35 type of aircraft do do anything beyond defend Darwin. Typhoons and tankers may be a more afforadable mix, but its still only a third rate option

And popping on conformal fuel tanks still adds to RCS.

Personally, I think this bit about the stealthiness is a bit overblown. The F-35 was never meant to be a lest costly F-22. It was meant to be an F-16/18 replacement with more stealth. That it has. Somewhere someone got the idea it's a junior F-22. That it is not.

That being said, I think it's horrible the was Congress is treating our Brit and Australian allies over this.

Quoted: I think the F-16XL would be an excellent aircraft but would  probably not meet naval requirements with one engine. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bf/F-16xl.jpg

Clearly, the Typhoon was inspired the F16-XL....

Dport said:
"That being said, I think it's horrible the was Congress is treating our Brit and Australian allies over this. "

Why is it ok to provide AEGIS technology to everyone and their brother (Japanese, Koreans, Spanish, etc.) but the F-35 source code is so damn secret?  Is there a real UNCLAS answer?
Especially the level of stuff that presumably goes through on the UKUSA sigint side?

And the DPW deal, Medicare reform, and Social Security reform and illegal immigration.  Even a stopped watch is correct twice a day.

Quoted: Dport said: "That being said, I think it's horrible the was Congress is treating our Brit and Australian allies over this. " Why is it ok to provide AEGIS technology to everyone and their brother (Japanese, Koreans, Spanish, etc.) but the F-35 source code is so damn secret?  Is there a real UNCLAS answer? Especially the level of stuff that presumably goes through on the UKUSA sigint side? And the DPW deal, Medicare reform, and Social Security reform and illegal immigration.  Even a stopped watch is correct twice a day.

It's not a matter of just providing the tech. It's a matter of the access to the engineering of the technology.

Quoted: Personally, I think this bit about the stealthiness is a bit overblown. The F-35 was never meant to be a lest costly F-22. It was meant to be an F-16/18 replacement with more stealth. That it has. Somewhere someone got the idea it's a junior F-22. That it is not. That being said, I think it's horrible the was Congress is treating our Brit and Australian allies over this.

I wonder if all this is sparked by the F-35's KNOWN lack of stealthiness from the rear.

We didn't spend the money to block out the rear fan blades, so it's got a vunerability there.

Maybe that's all this is... It's not all-aspect stealth, so it's 'Not as stealthy'.

If that's all it is, then it's not a big deal at all. A little more trouble with mission planning and a little less capability with VERY heavily defended airspace.  That's it.  

I've said it before, I'll say it again... The F/A-18E is noones answer but the Navy's.  It solves some of the Navy's problems by giving them a stop-gap aircraft to replace the F-14A (The A+'s and D's go away because there aren't enough of them to be viable) and give them something with more legs than an F/A-18C.

The USAF doesn't have these issues.  For the Aussies, it MIGHT be a viable choice to replace their F/A-18A's... Except that pretty much everyone agrees that buying the Hornet was a bad idea from the start for Austrailia... Wrong plane for the job.

The Aussies can't afford to Upgrade their F-111's themselves, so they've got to be replaced.  Off the shelf, the F-15 and F-22 are about it with similar capabilities.  The F-35, however, is a much better aircraft than the F/A-18A's it will replace in RAAF service, and it will still be more than credible against the SU-27... And it will also do many, if not all, of the F-111's missions.  So, if they're going to get just one, then the F-35 makes sense.

However, those economics are based on F-35 costs of 50-60 million.  If it gets anywhere near 100 million... Buy F-22's.  

I think, personally, that the F-35 will be fine.  Stealthy from most angles, able to penetrate most airspace, F-16 class manouverability... and AMRAAM capability.  SU-27's probably won't even see the F-35's before they die.  And niether, BTW, would Typhoons.

Neither the F-22 or the F-35 are designed to get in a dogfight... Though both have more than adequate capability should it be necessary.  They're designed, when Air to Air, to sneak in, light up their radars, shove an AMRAAM up someone's ass, and sneak away.  Sneak away very, very fast, in the case of the -22.

Nothing in the world will compete with them.  Because they can see everyone else... and nothing else can see them.

South Korea is only buying 40 F-15Ks?  Doesn't North Korea Have a healthy supply of Migs?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Big +1 here. The airforces that oppose us aren't very good from a quality standpoint, but their aircraft are improving, and in the case of China and India, there are a lot of them. The simple fact of the matter is that we $12B-$15B AUD per year on defence. To spend any more would not go down well politically, as ever little left-wing interest group would scream loudly about spending money on weapons instead of their pet welfare programmes. We were offered the F-15A way back in the early 80s as a Mirage III replacement, but instead opted for the Hornet. Had we gone to the Eagle back then, we could have continually upgraded  it and still had a top notch  fighter AND the infrastructure in place to transition from the Pig to the Beagle and make significant cost savings to boot. What governments don't seem to understand is that if you buy better NOW, you usually spend less LATER. We're making that mistake AGAIN with the F-35 to do the job of both the F-35 and the F-111. If the RAAF is not going to buy the F-22, the Block 3 Eurofighter Typhoon makes infininately more sense. Compared to the F-35, the Typhoon is far faster, more agile, bigger bombload, more missiles, more range. Block 3 Typhoon wil come with IRST, ASEA radar, direct voice input cockpit, conformal tanks, 2D thrust vectoring, more powerful engines. ANdy

What size Radar Cross Section does the Typhoon have?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: F-111 pilots I have spoken with in the past reckon nothing could catch them on the deck. A Phantom could...and then some. www.ila-media.de/galerie_2004/McDonnell_Douglas_F4-Phantom.jpg It was a fast bastard, for sure.   www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/f4/d4e-237096.jpg Sageburner, flown by an early F4H-1 (Bureau Number 145307), set a low-altitude speed record on 28 August 1961 that has not been bettered. www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/f4/d4e-237096.html ETA: That's 902 MPH, in death valley.

Couldn't the B-1 beat its record?  I mean the B-1 was meant for very low level flying right?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: F-111 pilots I have spoken with in the past reckon nothing could catch them on the deck. A Phantom could...and then some. www.ila-media.de/galerie_2004/McDonnell_Douglas_F4-Phantom.jpg It was a fast bastard, for sure.   www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/f4/d4e-237096.jpg Sageburner, flown by an early F4H-1 (Bureau Number 145307), set a low-altitude speed record on 28 August 1961 that has not been bettered. www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/f4/d4e-237096.html ETA: That's 902 MPH, in death valley.   Couldn't the B-1 beat its record?  I mean the B-1 was meant for very low level flying right?

The B-1A was intended for low-level dashes, but the B has weaker engines and a slightly different design.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: F-111 pilots I have spoken with in the past reckon nothing could catch them on the deck. A Phantom could...and then some. www.ila-media.de/galerie_2004/McDonnell_Douglas_F4-Phantom.jpg It was a fast bastard, for sure.   www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/f4/d4e-237096.jpg Sageburner, flown by an early F4H-1 (Bureau Number 145307), set a low-altitude speed record on 28 August 1961 that has not been bettered. www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/f4/d4e-237096.html ETA: That's 902 MPH, in death valley.   Couldn't the B-1 beat its record?  I mean the B-1 was meant for very low level flying right? The B-1A was intended for low-level dashes, but the B has weaker engines and a slightly different design.

Man the B One is a beautiful plane though isn't it?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: F-111 pilots I have spoken with in the past reckon nothing could catch them on the deck. A Phantom could...and then some. www.ila-media.de/galerie_2004/McDonnell_Douglas_F4-Phantom.jpg It was a fast bastard, for sure.   www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/f4/d4e-237096.jpg Sageburner, flown by an early F4H-1 (Bureau Number 145307), set a low-altitude speed record on 28 August 1961 that has not been bettered. www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/f4/d4e-237096.html ETA: That's 902 MPH, in death valley.   Couldn't the B-1 beat its record?  I mean the B-1 was meant for very low level flying right? The B-1A was intended for low-level dashes, but the B has weaker engines and a slightly different design.

Yup, the B-1A had variable intakes, heavier, more expensive, but fast as hell!  The B-1B can barely do Mach 1 (juuuust barely, really).  At sea level thats about 780 mph IIRC, so its still at least a hundred mph shy of the F-4.  

Love the bone though, awesome airplane!  

.

Andy, you make a good point about the viability of IRST, but you miss the fact that you've got to have a wall of IRST up inorder to defend against stealth...

The modern air-operation doesn't work like that...

Usually the US is able to keep a long term monitoring sheild up... we'll know what our enemy is gonna do...   then  we attack in a swift manner and destroy his defenses, ususally before he gets most of his planes off the ground.

The only IRST's we'll deal with in most senarios will be the limited CAP that is airborne, radar identified and getting our best fighters vectored to it via data link, and encyphered coms from an AWACS well away from the battle....  and we tend to attack these already airborne CAPS with a large numerical advatange to us (because we controll the  when and the where of the fight).

If the target counry EW (early warning) system relies on radar (which most do to the extreme) then we still get an advantage; the enemy CAP will have little to no idea that its about to get engaged.

The game in war is information, surprise, and keeping your enemy from being able to fight you.   Stealth is one piece of the US strategy to this effort.

Now my Air-Operation senario works well on just about any enemy short of and all out war on China... they are a little to big and deep for us to take controll of the entire country at once... but we could do it regionally....  and hold on to that region we chose.

But contries like IRAN would be toast in an air war...  even if they had the sweetest Flankers on the planet (which they don't).


ETA... I'd hate to think it, but we could dominate all of western Europe, Typhoon or not, in the manner above....  most of them Typhoons would be smoking holes in the ground  between the cruise misilles and coordinated airstrikes...

What is IRST?

Quoted: What is IRST?

It's a passive (undetectable) infrared detection and tracking system.

It's kinda funny. I first saw this system on a couple Flankers that showed up in Everett, WA in 1990.

When Germany was reunited, we were taken by surprise with their off-axis, helmet-mounted aiming system in the Mig-29. They had an advantage in the field we simply were unprepared for.

The Russians have had anti-stealth radar systems in place for several years, using wide-area radar networks to catch the aircraft in their more vulnerable aspects. Their radars compare observations and build up a radar track. They can look for holes in the radiation field for a negative image where the stealth technology is scattering the radar. Maybe the beam doesn't bounce back, but it still stops traveling in a straight line, and they can read that.

Of course, we quickly adapt the technology, but it seems to me we've been playing catch-up in a lot of fields for a couple decades.

Oh, but wait...that's right, nobody can touch us......nevermind.

Quoted: What is IRST?

OK, that.

I knew they had that back in the 90s.  Neat trick- don't have to radiuate to lock up a target.  Only problem- what is its effective range?  80-90km?

Quoted: Quoted: What is IRST? This……

That sucks.

Miffed U.K. Still Wants JSF

InsideDefense.com NewsStand | Carlo Munoz | March 24, 2006

Senior defense officials from the United States and the United Kingdom have moved closer to quelling a testy public debate over Joint Strike Fighter technology transfer issues, with U.K. officials indicating they could sign off on a key F-35 procurement pact later this year.

After “continued talked with with [Bush] administration,” British defense officials are optimistic about the headway made between the two countries since public barbs were traded last week in separate hearings on Capitol Hill, U.K. embassy spokesman Steve Atkins told Inside the Air Force this week.

“What we are hoping to see is continued progress,” Atkins said, adding the U.K. feels the one-on-one negotiations, held late last week, were “positive.”

Coming out of those talks, British defense officials are “confident we can move forward” and sign an expected memorandum of understanding sometime in December, Atkins noted.

“We were hearing all the right things,” he added.

The MOU is anticipated to lay out a set of principles that will formally articulate the international fighter project's production track. It also is expected to cover sustainment and follow-on development issues for the next-generation, multibillion-dollar aircraft, according to U.S. defense officials.

Perhaps more importantly, the MOU could dictate terms and an overall number of transfers that would be granted the list of U.S. allies participating in the F-35 program.

Informal negotiations between the two close allies' defense procurement chiefs, British Lord Peter Drayson and the Pentagon's Kenneth Krieg, and Deputy U.S. Defense Secretary Gordon England came only a day after Drayson, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 14, threatened to opt against signing the F-35 MOU if the technology sharing issues were not resolved by Pentagon brass.

Appearing before the Senate panel along with the air chief marshal of the U.K. air staff, Sir Jock Stirrup, Drayson bluntly stated the future of British involvement in the JSF program was dependent on being granted access by the Pentagon to key technologies. The U.K. is the nation with the second largest investment in the program, trailing only the United States.

If “we do not have the information or technology to make that decision, I shall not be able to sign the MOU,” Drayson told the committee last week (ITAF, March 17, p.16).

With $2 billion already invested in the fighter's development, the U.K. has been designated as a Level 1 partner and is expected to procure upwards of 150 aircraft. Other international partners include Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Norway, Denmark and Canada.

While the primary intent of the March 14 Senate hearing was to debate the future of an alternative F-35 engine program, the embassy official said the second engine debate had less to do with the U.K's hardline stance to the MOU than the technology transfer issue.

A congressional staffer familiar with the program said technology transfer concerns and the alternative engine debate were “two different issues that came together to create more anxiety or hostility than they would have on their own.”

But in spite of the U.K.'s perceived progress over the technology transfer stalemate, Atkins was quick to point out last week's talks are not a sign that British officials are ready to back down.

He added Drayson's threat to pull out of the JSF agreement “was not off the table” and that “we do have to wait and see” how the Bush administration plans to proceed with sharing a list of key -- and secret -- fighter components.

“Only time will tell,” Atkins said.

However, the senior congressional staffer noted the somewhat unusual structure of the international agreement in the JSF program undoubtedly inflamed emotions among U.S. partner nations.

“This is a unique program,” he said, adding that in past international defense cooperatives clearly mandated dictating work-share agreements among participating nations. However, such agreements were lacking in the JSF program.

“Your money buys you a seat at the table,” the staffer added. “I don't know if that was really understood” by the international partners, the source noted.

Despite a perceived miscommunication among the Pentagon and its global JSF partners, the staffer said it is still somewhat difficult to determine whether British hints about withdrawing from the fighter program was a case of shrewd economic gamesmanship or a tangible threat from the Pentagon's largest international supporter.

“It's very difficult to know if its posturing or if they're serious,” the staffer noted.

However, simply remaining ambiguous over their intentions could be interpreted as a strategic ploy by U.K. officials. “Why would you want to play [this game] with all your cards showing?” the congressional staffer asked.

Additionally, the staff member said British defense officials could be angling to acquire shared assembly rights for the JSF aircraft because “that's where they would learn the most” about the fighter's super-secret technologies.

But if the Pentagon declines to extend such authority to the U.K., or if some other issue arises over transfers that brings both countries to an impasse, DOD officials could offer a “dumbed down” version of the fighter to the British, the staffer added.

As that debate continues, the Pentagon, State Department and JSF program officials already have made concessions to facilitate a smoother technology transfer process, according to a Government Accountability Office report issued this month.

The March 14 report highlights the four-pronged strategy federal agencies have enacted to ease restrictions and expedite processes related to such transfers.(ITAF, March 17, p.17).

The approach includes a comprehensive “international industrial plan” designed to anticipate time frames for disclosure and data transfer decisions, as well as revamping requirements in the transfer process under a Global Project Authorization designation, the report states.

While a U.K withdrawal would not trigger a domino-effect pullout by a majority of international JSF partners, the staffer noted that none of the remaining countries would be able to step up to the U.K.'s Level 1 status.

“Nobody's going to step in if they didn't do it before -- why would they do it now?” he asked. “Nobody's got the budget.”

So strike radius is less but similar to the F-111 with a smaller bomb load, whilst the AD radius is much greater than the Hornet, but is still really only good for local defence without refueling. This makes it a really good 2nd tier fighter to replace the F-16/18. but not the F-15/111. That would make it both a step up and step down for the RAAF.

Quoted: Quoted: Personally, I think this bit about the stealthiness is a bit overblown. The F-35 was never meant to be a lest costly F-22. It was meant to be an F-16/18 replacement with more stealth. That it has. Somewhere someone got the idea it's a junior F-22. That it is not. That being said, I think it's horrible the was Congress is treating our Brit and Australian allies over this. I wonder if all this is sparked by the F-35's KNOWN lack of stealthiness from the rear. We didn't spend the money to block out the rear fan blades, so it's got a vunerability there. Maybe that's all this is... It's not all-aspect stealth, so it's 'Not as stealthy'. If that's all it is, then it's not a big deal at all. A little more trouble with mission planning and a little less capability with VERY heavily defended airspace.  That's it.   I've said it before, I'll say it again... The F/A-18E is noones answer but the Navy's.  It solves some of the Navy's problems by giving them a stop-gap aircraft to replace the F-14A (The A+'s and D's go away because there aren't enough of them to be viable) and give them something with more legs than an F/A-18C. The USAF doesn't have these issues.  For the Aussies, it MIGHT be a viable choice to replace their F/A-18A's... Except that pretty much everyone agrees that buying the Hornet was a bad idea from the start for Austrailia... Wrong plane for the job. The Aussies can't afford to Upgrade their F-111's themselves, so they've got to be replaced.  Off the shelf, the F-15 and F-22 are about it with similar capabilities.  The F-35, however, is a much better aircraft than the F/A-18A's it will replace in RAAF service, and it will still be more than credible against the SU-27... And it will also do many, if not all, of the F-111's missions.  So, if they're going to get just one, then the F-35 makes sense. However, those economics are based on F-35 costs of 50-60 million.  If it gets anywhere near 100 million... Buy F-22's.   I think, personally, that the F-35 will be fine.  Stealthy from most angles, able to penetrate most airspace, F-16 class manouverability... and AMRAAM capability.  SU-27's probably won't even see the F-35's before they die.  And niether, BTW, would Typhoons. Neither the F-22 or the F-35 are designed to get in a dogfight... Though both have more than adequate capability should it be necessary.  They're designed, when Air to Air, to sneak in, light up their radars, shove an AMRAAM up someone's ass, and sneak away.  Sneak away very, very fast, in the case of the -22. Nothing in the world will compete with them.  Because they can see everyone else... and nothing else can see them.

We should have bought the F-15 at the time, and it still would have been doing the job. Governments on both sides have been trying to kill the F-111 for years, in fact, before we even got it. I honestly don't know how we've managed to keep it, politically, for so long. Nobody wants to offend the neigbours or pay the maintainance bill. The thing is, we need to replace or upgrade the F-111 more than we need a new air defence aircraft. Getting here is really difficult, and its a stretch for any attacker to hit anything worthwhile. On the other hand, having the ability to penetrate the airspace of our neighbours and kill anything we want is a capability that we really need. If we got Typhoons for air defence, and a small number of F-22s for deep strike and opening phase air dominance, then we would be good to go.

Quoted: The Aussies can't afford to Upgrade their F-111's themselves, so they've got to be replaced.  . Governments on both sides have been trying to kill the F-111 for years, in fact, before we even got it. I honestly don't know how we've managed to keep it, politically, for so long.

As long as there are spare parts sitting in the Arizona desert you guys will keep flying the F-111's.

If the F-35 gets in a close-in fight, can it launch AIM-9's from the recessed weapons bays while pulling hard G's?

Can the F-22 do it?

Quoted: Quoted: The Aussies can't afford to Upgrade their F-111's themselves, so they've got to be replaced.  . Governments on both sides have been trying to kill the F-111 for years, in fact, before we even got it. I honestly don't know how we've managed to keep it, politically, for so long. As long as there are spare parts sitting in the Arizona desert you guys will keep flying the F-111's.

I wish that were so. The retirement date is 2012, I think