I have 3 things to say.

1. In a neutral competition (one which does not count in the type-similarity advantages for the SH given by the RAAF’s current F/A-18 use), the F-15E is indeed a better (not a lot, but enough to matter) replacement for the F-111 at this time.

When the type-similarity advantages for the SH, the continuing long-term USN use and support for the SH, and the USAF’s planned phase-out of the F-15E (a couple of decades, yes, but still relevant) are also added in, the balance swings to the SH.

Since the F-111 replacement would be the last airframes replaced by the F-35, they would be in service until well after 2025… at which time F-15Es would be being phased out by the USAF (no “resale value”), and would need a major modification program to be usable for SK/Singapore. If an F-15K/SG is purchased, the price would be above the SH’s, but they could be sold off later. If the SH is purchased, the USN would be very likely to buy them back when the RAAF replaces them, as they are to be USN-standard aircraft (or very minimal mods).

2. The repeated comments of most of those in the “anything but an American aircraft” camp show that, for most of them, the choice of a European/Russian/etc. aircraft is intended to be the first step in a drawing away of Australian political/military policy from the USA, and toward other alliances… and this is perhaps the strongest objection they have toward the SH/F-35, etc… that they will keep US links with Australia relevant.

3. The repeated demands of another camp for “Aussie F-22s” shows either a desire for NO new aircraft (since Australia can’t get the F-22 at all, an “F-22-only” stance is really a “no new aircraft” stance), or a complete rejection of that part of reality… which brings into question their grasp of the rest of the realities driving the whole process, and thus the validity of their opinion on anything.

It all boils down to this:

If the RAAF intends to keep their F-111-replacement aircraft after the F-35 is delivered, then buy new F-15E/K/SG variants.

If the plan is to replace everything with F-35s, then buy F/A-18E/Fs.

If the plan is to pull away from the US, then buy all the new planes from your new “best friends”.

It really is as simple as that.

You can read about much of that here:

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher4/newa3.html
selected as winner of contract March 31, 1949; first flight October 28, 1952 (with Westinghouse J40 engine, later changed to J57)

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b66.html
selected as winner of contract November 29, 1951; J71 ordered August 5, 1952; first flight June 28, 1954

Piasecki 16H-3… a smaller cousin of the rotodyne, under development in 1974, but cancelled.

http://www.piasecki.com/compound.htm

Note that the production division of The Piasecki Helicopter Corporation was renamed Vertol in 1956, and was purchased by Boeing in 1960.

From everything I have read, the YF-23 was faster and more stealthy, but the YF-22 was more maneuverable and looked to be easier/cheaper to manufacture.

Both are things you look for in a mass-produced air-superiority fighter.

Well, it also, in the same sentence, refers to the engine being “high altitude”, so they may be referring to something which compensates for the thinner air at its planned operating altitude.

I love this sentence “In 1947 how ever the Soviets asked the Junkers design team in the USSR to develop this engine.”
:rolleyes:
I am sure Uncle Joe went (cap in hand) to their luxury hotel suites, and asked “pretty please, could you interrupt your vacations to help us out a bit?”.

Sir, or Ma’am (abbreviation of Madam, and pronounced with a short a sound similar to ham [not a dig, just an explanation]) was standard in the USMC when I was in a “tree suit” from 1981-1989… and in the USN as well.

Well,I wouldn’t count on a NY Times writer knowing what the aircraft was supposed to look like (much less know what was major damage), nor to understand what someone else wrote, so I would wait for further, authorative word before giving up hope of recovery of the aircraft.