USMC general praises Canadian troops.

Should've gone for the Gripen aircraft.

A smaller cheaper aircraft, both to purchase, and maintain, with good all round performance.

Taking into account cost and sortie rates, 12 F-22 would be expected to face 102 F-16Cs, which means that F-22s in stealth configuration would still be outnumbered by time of the merge even if BVR missiles had Pk of 90% (which they don't: Desert Storm statistics imply 34% against non-manuevering opponents with no counter measures...).

Of course, there is the added cost of training 90 more pilots, and the commiserate numbers of ground crew... Not a trivial expense, to be sure.

Considering the capabilities of potential enemies what on Earth does Australia need the F-22 for?

Secondly, as the European venture attempting to create a No Fly Zone over Libya showed; Without the US, Europeans would not have been able to support their own operations. It is truly pathetic how little force projection Europe actually has. Air-refueling capability, EW, Suppression of enemy anti-air assets and AEW&C to name a few. IOW, the less sexy, but vitally important missions in the modern era that allow the posterboys of the airforce to get on and do their job.

I can't imagine that Australia is in a better place.

So it all looks sexy good buying F-22's but they still don't have IRST, and don't really increase the capabilities of the RAAF against potential enemies.

 

The F-22's in the past would have been ideal for us as they have twin engines and more stealthy then our F-18's both Classical and Super Hornet however with recent developments in the upgrade package for the Super Hornet that actually reduces the signature over 50% makes the Hornet that much more suitable and capable at a better price, Not to mention the fact would cost even more to restart production on the F-22 then to keep buying in production Super Hornets.

The Gripen is a good aircraft but is more suited towards dog fight's, Know I wouldn't be against us having a couple squadrons of them but on a purely financial position for such a small air force it would not make senses for the RAAF to operate so many different aircraft types. We need an aircraft that can do everything, Maybe not be the best at any single one aspect but capable of doing all of them adequately and at a reasonable price.

We need aircraft now and the F-35 won't be ready for actual deployment until 2020, Will leave the RAAF with a big capability gap as our Classical hornet's aren't expected to last beyond 2020 at the latest. Wouldn't go amiss ordering another 36 Super Hornets and 72 of the Advanced upgrade packages for them and our current ones until the F-35 is ready to a reliable level. From there our Super Hornet fleet can be stored at Alice Springs or AMARG for sale of complete airframes or part's to other nations (likely only the US).

 

The advantage of having more aircraft is a quality of itself.

JAS Gripen is a true multirole aircraft, as the "JAS" signifies Jakt-Attack-Spaning (Fighter-Attack-Reconnaisance).

Regardless of capabilities of the platform, each aircraft can only fulfill one task at a time.

F-35A's unit price of 98-85 million USD is a lot for Australia. 72+28, 100 aircraft, is not many multirole aircraft for a country as large as Australia, so I'm guessing the Hornets will be expected to soldier on for quite a while longer?

I do agree that you want as fewer aircraft frame types. Suggesting that the possibility of acquiring F-35B's for the Oz navy is not a bad idea.

 

Actually, I was thinking an amalgam of both your ideas yesterday...would it be too far an idea to approach the Swedes on a joint fighter?

 

GS,

True there is an advantage in number's but sadly it is very hard to change the mind set of not just the government but also the people. They see us having 70 - 100 combat aircraft, So they are reluctant to expand that number even if it is at a lower cost per and aircraft and cheaper operating cost.

As to Gripen vs Super Hornet, Looking at various sources with fluctuations depending on the specific factors the Gripen is the better air to air fighter, SH is the better ground attack aircraft, SH is the more flexible (Carrier capable, buddy refueling, Electronic warfare), While both need very little maintenance both in stand down mode and turn around time to get them combat ready again the Gripen is the faster of them, With a 6 man team able to refuel and rearm a Gripen for air to air combat in under 10 minutes. The Gripen also on average only requires 1 hour of maintenance for every 3 hours of flight when the average for other aircraft is 1:1.

All said both have advantages and disadvantages though both are probably two of the most capable multi-role aircraft on the market. On the subject of not being able to support too many airframes I may have been a bit too hasty, The latest Gripen variant and the Super Hornet actually use the exact same engine. May not be beyond the realm of possibility to have both aircraft active in a small air force such as the RAAF. Having the Super Hornets provide ground support, Growlers jamming enemy radar and the Gripens taking on the enemy combat aircraft could be a very effective force. Benefit of also having the Super Hornets and Gripens able to lend a hand to each other as needed.


CAC,

I'm not sure Sweden would want such a fighter for them selves, However I wouldn't rule them out on being a lead developer in helping us create something to suit our unique needs (If only Abbott would allow them to bid on the Collins class replacement). I'd imagine if we could jointly develop a twin engine stealth aircraft that a number of nations would be interested in it to make it far more viable (Japan, Canada to start with, Other nations that are operating F-18's and F-15's would also have a good chance). I also wouldn't rule out Boeing showing interest.. Perhaps said air craft being a 3rd evolution of the Hornet?