Like what? Drop bombs? Fire missiles? About the only thing the F-4 had going for it was the larger payload. It was slower, less manueverable, and had less range. If you wanted to drop a butt load of Mk117s while under escort then the F-4 was your man. Other than that though. . .

First, the Super Cru’s basic airframe design was a bit older than the F-4’s….not by much, but older. The two airplanes were designed for very different missions and quidelines within Navy service…….the Crusader was a lighter, cheaper fighter for use from the Navy’s smaller, WW-2 era carriers to replace the likes of the Banshee and the Panther for which it was a tremendous increase in capability. The F-4 was intended as an air-dominance interceptor to operate from the Navy’s newer class of large carriers with all-weather BVR.

Second, the F-8 airframe doesn’t allow much in the way of growth space. It is what it is and it was never intended to be a multi-purpose, all weather combat aircraft. The F-4 was. Need a bigger radar and all the associated equipment? The F-4 had that ability while the F-8’s profile did not allow much in the way of change. One two-seat F-8 was built……..ever…..and it wasn’t something that caught the Navy’s (or anyone else’s eye.)

Third, single-engine reliability. Remember, we are talking 1960s-era engine tech and the Navy was extremely concerned with that at the time. Today, not as much a big deal, but then they weren’t buying anything that wasn’t very cheap that didn’t have twin-engines……F-4…..A-6…..RA-5…..A-3…..etc. They were buying F-8s and A-4s because they were cheap and simple.

Fourth, someone mentioned the Sparrow and single engined fighters. Not many American airplanes were carrying Sparrows with only one crewmen in the 1960s. In the 1970s the Italians were using it with the F-104 and the USAF was beginning to toy with it on the new F-16s. But, since those early Sparrows required continuous radar lock upon the target up to detonation for any degree of success, that didn’t allow the pilot to fly the airplane in an intense combat situation. A fighter on a purely interception mission could do that…….a fighter in a contested sky could not.

Don’t get me wrong, the F-8 is a classic airplane that earned it’s place it history. But, the -3 was not contender for the F-4 and the history since then only reinforces that.

The Super Hornets will eventuality be replace by F-35’s and very possibly UCAV’s something like the X-47B. Really, it was designed as a bridge until the arrival of the F-35 and future Stealthy Types.

Which is pretty much the route Australia will be taking over the next coming decades………coincidentally, just like everyone else. The SHs will serve the USN (and RAAF well) for the next 20 years or so but will then be replaced themselves with UCAVs like the X-47 as the F-35 takes over as the teeth of the manned force and the unmanned become the primary platform for strike and countermeasures.

But, as the Aus posters here have already told us, unless Australia can belt-strap the country to get a couple of squadrons of F-22s then their country is finished. One must then assume that Aussie emigration to the U.S, Canada, and South America will soon begin in haste, so, I will be investing heavily in real estate until that time comes.

I’m glad you know whats good for your allies….. sort of sums up americas attitude to its allies. you dont know what you want, we do. You cant have what you want….Japan and Australia have a mutual defence policy….. maybe we should dump america and look to the EU…….. Typhoon looks better all the time. considering our current and future needs, typhoon would handle anything up to F-35 an F-22 anyway…

I wonder how america would be without bases in japan and australia? because australia and japan are a big risk to pass on F-22 secrets……

Dude, chill.

The American pols are worried about protecting U.S. technological advantages or so it seems. If you were Lord of Australia and decided to go with the Typhoon or Rafale then more power to you but they are older designs with less room for development potential than what’s being offered by the U.S………..both were flying in the mid-1980s. You could probably bet a sweetheart deal from the Brits on Tranche 3 Typhoons right now, but, the Aus leadership doesn’t seem very keen on that option at all. And, no it would not handle the F-22. It would have good range and lots of nice stuff but it would also shine-up much brighter on a radar screen at farther away than an F-35 of similar capability.

The U.S. doesn’t have any permanent military bases of any signifigance in Australia (tracking and testing sites only) but we do stage through and make port calls. Japan relies heavily on the U.S. presence on it’s soil and in the Pacific Ocean for any major war in the region. Nothing like that is going to happen.

For the amount of money the Auzzies are looking to spend on 100 F-35s, you could probably get around 45-50 F-22s. Seriously consider ekeing out three squadrons of around 15 planes each or so, one of which would have to be largely dedicated to training and operations, then consider normal maintenance/down time, and this type of fleet could probably have around 30-35 airplanes available for duty at any given time. The F-22 is a good airplane but it can’t be in two places at once and to me that number sounds scary low to provide air defence over a country roughly the size of the U.S. lower 48.

In the coming 20 years will show serious growth in the realm of UAVs, both combat and non, and Australia will be seriously interested in that. Nobody right now is further ahead in that area than the U.S. and Australia will want to be involved in that.

The best the USAF can hope for is another 60 F-22s. The Bush Admin, be it during the Rumsfeld or Gates DOD era, wasn’t big on it and was much more a fan of the F-35. Obama has decided to be GWB-III in this area so if another 60 get through it’s a victory for the line. The USAF will get them or some portion of them based upon Congressional support but after that it’s purely F-35 or Super Hornet based apart from Strike Eagle orders which will be all foreign at this time.

Japan isn’t going to get the F-22 and nor is Australia.

Both are better served buying the advanced versions of current aircraft, opting into the F-35, and getting more and better AEW and tanking. Australia seems to be following this line while Japan was still wanting to be a part of the upper tier status it had with the F-15.

It’s not happening anymore…….

If the RAAF was wanting the quickest and cheapest and most available airplane then they would go for the B-47. A good airplane that was more conventional but had still lot of life in the airframe for the money.

The Vulcan was one of the most forward-looking and adaptable aircraft ever devised………somebody could produce the design today and they’d have customers for it.

But, in the end, both were largely intermediate types and in 1959 as an RAAF officer looking at planning, budgets, etc………I’m fronting the B-47 since it’s cheaper, proven, and very available. Consider they were planning it would serve until the mid-70s and the USAF began considering the F-111 a B-47 replacement by the the same time period and the RAAF was ironically buying the F-111 along the same time.

But, Australia wasn’t invaded during that time regardless of the airplanes they used so I suppose it’s all moot at this point.

Well, sorry, guys, the XF8U was a creepy looking concoction that couldn’t have done 1/4 of the things the F-4 has done.

I am a fan of the F-8 AND the A-7, maybe the most un-sung workhorse to serve in the modern era of military aircraft, but the Super Crusader was not the future. The A-7F was stunningly appropriate and solid but unfortunately didn’t get the nod.

Super Crusader? An historical aeronautical oddity that was better left 40 years ago.

take the 50 best F-111’s from AMARC (and some EF-111’s) and rebarrel them.

The 50 youngest F-111s in AMARC were built no less than 30 years ago, have been sitting in the desert for around 15 years, and were withdrawn from service a decade-and-a-half ago because the USAF thought they were too costly then to continue to operate.

Good Lord, I can’t imagine the time and money on that type of project.

Competition or not, the F-35 represented the best technological improvement, economy of scale, and support of any of the aircraft shortlisted. No mistake, it’s not being bought “replace” the F-111 in the sense that it is expected to do the very same things as the -111 does equally or better and neither is the SH. It can’t and practically no airplane today can. Both the F-35 and SH will be doing different things than the F-111 while some will overlap and others will not.

Per current plans, Australia will be buying a number of items over the coming years to increase its military capability from AEW to MRTT to the Canberra class, etc.

I still don’t get this obsession-like death grip that some AUS posters have on the F-111. The Indonesian hordes, Vietnamese infantry, and Chinese navy are not waiting to rush the island of Australia the minute the last F-111 is retired from service……….Australia lived before and will after it is gone. And, it really is quite something that AUS is planning to add all the new assets in the pipeline, increase the number of combat airframes, and add new offensive navy capabilities all at the same time. A LOT of countries should be very jealous of them.

The F-22 was designed for pure air superiority.

What and how it might be used otherwise today is up for speculation. I know it’s been cleared for some ATG weapons and for a short while wore the “F/A” moniker to make it more acceptable for some circles.

But, with only 243 to be built (183 already approved plus the most recent funding for 60, assuming no further production) I don’t now how often the F-22 will be performing an ATG role considering air defense will be its overriding priority.