F-22A and F-35A is too expensive for use in a close air support, reconnaissance, homeland air defence and even air defence against Al Qaeda.

that is exactly what the F-35 will be used for

in SH and Viper fighters are places for operators as can manage the new demand of situational environment instruments as AESA, UCAV, NCW, electronically warfare, missiles, threath a.s.o. and of course they as understanding new trends have more explanation and so.

all that extra person means is that they will be more ‘situationally aware’ that they’re about to be blown out of the sky by an S-300

as SAMs become more sophisticated, stealth becomes a prerequisite

if you aren’t stealthy, don’t even bother coming to play

They are in many case much more economical than very expensive fighters as almost only can be used as fighters.

the F-35 is going to be a lot more economical than you think

Please tell me what kind of bombs more than the developed “small diametric bombs” planning for the F-22A and F-35A?

first, i get the impression you aren’t impressed with SDBs. If so, you are sadly mistaken. These are the future of CAS. Obviously there will be situations that call for other weapons, but the SDB is very formidable. Nonetheless-

F-22 – 1000 lb JDAM, WCMD
F-35 – Brimstone, AGM-154, AGM-158, CBU-99/100, CBU-103/105, GBU-10, GBU-12, GBU-16, GBU-24, GBU-31, GBU-32, GBU-38, MK-82, MK-83, MK-84, MK-84 BSU-50, Stormshadow

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/F35ctolstores.jpg

Irtusk: sorry, that war is already over, Boeing is merely trying to make a graceful retreat (picking up as many orders as possible before shutting down the lines)
Roffe: Is that really correct?

yes

the AF has already stated that they do not want to buy any more ‘legacy’ fighters (F-15/F-16), Australia is considering the SH ONLY because the F-35 isn’t here yet. And they’re only considering the F-35 because we won’t sell them the F-22. Israel is salivating over the prospect of the F-35. Lockheed is trying to lure India into buying F-16s now by promising them F-35s in the future.

Roffe: What…you tell us 4 external F-22A hardpoints? Why then build a very expensive stealth aircraft as not is stealth with external weapons?

if stealth is required, legacies aren’t even in the running
in situations where stealth is no longer required (such as in current day Iraq), then it can carry more than legacies

in either case, it is more effective

and don’t forget that the F-35 can carry even more. For A2A it could carry 12 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders. For A2G it could carry six 2000 lb bombs, 2 AMRAAMS and 2 Sidewinders

Roffe: Oh yes, I still love P-51 but not” without a backseat operator”

then i guess you would really love the P-61 Black Widow, it has a back-seat radar operator and up to 5 hardpoints

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-61

The last named SH is going to be in the sixth generation class.

not even Boeing is arrogant enough to say that, they ‘only’ claim 4.75 for it (which is a joke in and of itself)

Boeing is developing a new generation fighter Block 3 F/A-18 Super Hornet as going to be classed as a 6th generation aircraft and I believe them.

you misread the report, they will be developing a ‘4.75 gen’ SH and then a completely separate ‘6th gen’ (whatever that means) plane that might be ready in 20 years but in all likelihood will never see the light of day

You can´t only look at the stealth capability as your insurance which only is functional in the frontal aspect[/I]
Irtusk: F-22 has all aspect stealth
Roffe: Are you quite sure?

yes

it’s not equally effective from all angles, but it’s still ‘stealth’ from most angles

The best fighter during this period was the two seat SAAB J 32 Lansen (with a radaroperator).

computers and electronics have progressed since them

comparing what was the best back then isn’t particularly relevant to what is the best today

How can you use your F-22A and F-35A in a warzone?

very effectively

Are you completely sure you can use those very expensive F-35A and F-22A in close-air support at places were the risk to be downed is very heavy and without an operator?

1. the purpose of the F-22 is not CAS so that’s not where it’s going to be used most of the time
2. you again overestimate the expense of the F-35
3. CAS is changing, it’s all going to be done from 30k. Even the A-10s are being upgraded to allow them to perform CAS from high altitude

speaking of the A-10, it has always been single-seat and never seemed to have any problem delivering CAS

Four eyes are better than two and you have more freedom to handle exactly right as a pilot.

1. computers are going to make much of the work you expect the 2nd person to do superfluous
2. manpower is a major expense for the airforce. Any marginal value from having a 2nd person in the cockpit is nowhere near as great as the value of having a 2nd plane in the sky that can be somewhere else at the same time

i’m not saying that there is no place for 2nd person, the Growlers look particularly useful and will be around for a while, but in most situations, it simply isn’t needed

Should you feel safe in a B 767 as a passenger if you discovered that the airline had simply reduced the crew to one pilot and left the right place empty?

this gets back to the argument of the one-engined F-16 vs the two-engined F-18. Some say the F-18 is better because having the 2nd engine makes it more reliable. This is true to a point, but it isn’t twice as reliable and the truth is that the F-16 is reliable enough that the savings from only having to maintain one engine are more than enough to pay for the difference in attrition replacements.

likewise a 2nd person may provide some marginal utility in some situations, but not enough to cover the expense of having a 2nd person all the rest of the time. Plus having a 2nd person increases weight (which reduces speed, acceleration, reduces range and reduces payload) and increases size (which might have a detrimental effect on RCS and decrease survivability in some situations)

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/02/01/221236/japan-cuts-back-funds-for-atd-x-steath-demonstrator.html

Japan cuts back funds for ATD-X steath demonstrator

Japan’s plans to build a stealth fighter demonstrator have been set back after funding for the project was cut in the fiscal year 2008 defence budget. The Mitsubishi ATD-X project has been allocated ¥7 billion ($66 million) of the ¥49.9 billion requested

On going projects:

KF-X

this one is likely to die soon

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/01/205_18011.html

South Korea is likely to scrap an ambitious project to build its own version of a stealth fighter as it has been assessed as nonviable economically and technically, military sources said Sunday.

Lockheed. Hows that? Ever look at any of their briefings? There are several that show the graph of F-117 operational cost, including the pretty, happy-face 2006 JSF one.

that chart (p 52) just shows that the F-35 will require relatively less maintenance on the stealth coatings than the F-117, it doesn’t say anything about the absolute amount of maintenance the F-117 requires and how that compares to other legacy jets

(the chart axis are a lot less clear than they appear at first glance, for instance is that hours per flight? hours per flight hour? hours per month? and what is that about ‘Maintenance Actions’? it’s almost like they are showing hours on one side and switch to incidents on the other)

F-117 is almost a one trick pony. Where an F-111 in that region has other non-big war uses because of it’s range and fuel.

those other uses are all well and good, but they aren’t CRITICAL

F-18s can do CAS, not as well, but they can do it
maritime patrol can be done by just about anything

most of the other roles of the F-111 can be handled by other planes, maybe not as well, but handled nonetheless

but there is one role that cannot, and that is why you need the F-117: strategic deterrence

F-117 is getting dated in it’s usefulness

this is a fine distinction, but you’re wrong

it is just as useful as it has always been

that the USAF now has planes that are even better does not mean that the utility of the F-117 has declined

and needs U.S. style IADS attack: Lots of Tomahawks, jamming, and other platforms where it is only a part of the show.

ideally you want jamming support and all the rest

but if you don’t have it, you go with what you have

even without jamming support the F-117 has a far smaller detection range than the F-111, agree or disagree?

( where again here an F-22 with less jamming support can at least get out of a negative stealth event).

but australia doesn’t have the F-22 and it doesn’t look likely that they will get it anytime in the near future

thus any comparison to F-22 capabilities is basically irrelevant

F-117 with no air to air ability to cover any other kind of goof up. Bad since every adversary is putting IRST on their new jets.

good thing it won’t show up on radar so they won’t even know that it’s there, much less where to look

(IRST is not some magic bullet, it has a limited range to begin with and can be limited even more by atmospheric conditions)

Combine IRST and lower band GCI which isn’t too impressed by stealth saying “look over there someplace”, an F-117 without a lot of resources to back it up will be in trouble.

1. which of your neighbors are planning to get such a system in the near future?
2. low band isn’t going to provide a very good fix so it’s still going to take some time to hunt around and find it
3. that’s preferrable to the SH (or F-111) getting blown out of the sky by a SAM before it even reaches the coast

Then again, the idea that an F-117 would be useful in future SAM threats has to be examined. If someone goes out and buys an S-300 with all the trimmings, F-117 doesn’t have enough defense.

that is a meaningless statement

at whatever range an S-300 or whatever could detect an F-117, it could detect an F-111 or SH even further out

the point is that what looks like a solid line of radar coverage to an F-111 or SH looks like a line with huge gaps to an F-117

the rise of superior SAMs is an argument FOR LO not against it

if you don’t have LO you aren’t even in the game

ONE screw being out of place and showing up like a beacon on radar sets on test ranges…

which is why you have procedures to prevent such occurrences

“Even a standard turning maneuver could increase the aircraft’s radar cross section by a factor of 100 or more”.

good thing that even 100x the F-117 RCS is still 1000x less than the F-111 or SH

USAF went to the well three times and each time they picked an aircraft that had less stealth.

you don’t know the final decision criteria so again this is a useless comment

Without some F-22 like insane performance to back it up, your risk where you can go around some stiff IADS will be a problem.

LO plus speed is great, but if you don’t have LO you aren’t even in the game

the F-117 might have difficulties against a ‘stiff IADS’ but a SH won’t even attempt it because it’s impossible

F-117 doesn’t have performance and gas to do anything in a negative stealth event.

and the SH is one big ‘negative stealth event’

This is also why USAF pukes have come out before and saying F-22 can go places in IADS work JSF shouldn’t go.

again australia doesn’t have the F-22 and isn’t going to get the F-22 anytime soon

so the question is: what is a better replacement for the F-111s rapidly declining deterrent value- the SH or the F-117 or life extending the F-111s

those are your only 3 realistic alternatives

between those 3, only one has LO and only one has a chance to penetrate good defenses

An F-117 in RAAF service in your scenario wouldn’t be able to do very much.

it would only have to do one thing: put the fear of allah in other countries

And giving all the billions in dollars Defence is loading up on in a variety of programs, it just wouldn’t happen.

but if obtaining the F-117 was cheaper than maintaining the F-111 for another 10-15 years and provided a better deterrent effect to boot, then maybe you shouldn’t be so quick to judge

But the -111 has a speed asvantage that the F-117 doesn’t (useful to quickly leave a dangerous zone), a radar, terrain following capabilities, and can carry ordinance a F-117 can’t

unfortunately for Australia, any attack path is going to involve a long over water stretch, water having notoriously little terrain to follow

as far as speed, better to have never been seen in the first place, because in a race between you and a SAM, the SAM is going to win an awful lot of the time

as far as weapons, i don’t see it as a big deal

the point of maintaining the F-111 fleet until the F-35 arrives is for strategic deterrence. No one dares strike because they know you can strike back

the F-117 would fill the same role but even better and cheaper

I’d rather suppose that the F-117 is will, nowadays, be more effective and safer in a force structure that Australia doesn’t have

any plane (even the F-111) would be more effective with a better support structure

The costs of maintaining the RAM coating on the -117, as well as some shortage in older parts being one of the reasons why it is being retired.

people keep saying this but have yet provide any evidence backing it up

So you want to replace a maintenance problem with another one?

obviously parts can be obtained for both so we’ll call that even (though in reality i would still give the edge to the F-117)

however, the F-117 is FAR simpler than the engineering marvel/nightmare that is the F-111

the F404 is a far more modern (1980), simpler, more reliable, easier to maintain design than the TF30 (1964) and is in fact still in production, unlike the TF30 which went out of production 22 years ago

the F-117 doesn’t have the fuel tank sealing issues that the F-111 does

the F-117 doesn’t have a swing wing

less things to break, less things to go wrong, hardly a maintenance nightmare

to quote from FAS

“The aircraft maintenance statistics are comparable to other tactical fighters of similar complexity”

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-117.htm

for an interim strike capability, how about the Nighthawk?

– stealthier than the F-111
– the US is soon retiring their entire fleet
– if the US were inclined to sell, it would probably be at super discount prices
– afaik the retirements are simply because they have better options (B-2 + F-22), not that the airframes themselves are worn out
– better range than the SH
– while the stealth coatings would be more maintenance intensive, i believe as a whole (engines, fuel tanks, fuel economy, etc) they will be FAR cheaper to run and maintain than the F-111

the pilot training program was shut down in 2006(?), otherwise it is still very much active so wouldn’t be much restoration work

as far as technology transfer issues, well it is OLD plus it has already been compromised with that downed frame in kosovo

Norway is looking at Gripen and Typhoon also.

The Typhoon is no longer looking at Norway

Apparently David Hamilton (CEO of Eurofighter) says that Norway has unofficially made JSF the winner and provides a bad competitive environment, and therefore Eurofighter withdraws from the bidding competition for new fighter jets for the RNoAF.

(stolen from militaryphotos.net)