Replies

If the F-22 is not available the Australians should turn to Europe and buy up-to-date Rafales, Gripens or Eurofighters. Those planes are able to deal with the newest Russian products. Outdated US planes like F-15s do not necessarily.

Besides - the Australians were the staunchest buddies the US can dream of. WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Iraq etc. pp. The Aussies lost a lot of their sons for the defense of America. Therefore it is a dumb and primitive insult not to sell them F-22 fighters. To offer old BS is despicable. I could understand such mistrust on other US allies in central continetal Europe, but in difference to Australia they do not need to buy US products since they are building suitable planes on their own. Australia needs a helping hand and the US fail to reply the friendship they recieved from the land down under.

The US foreign policy concerning its friends is strange sometimes. No matter if we talk about the visa policy in eastern Europe or those planes in Australia.

It would be tragic in a future military engagement if most of our airforce was to be swept aside nonchalantly by a hostile regional neighbour. It would be even worse, bordering on unthinkable, if our then weakened defence environment emboldened such an adversary to attack a major civilian target like a city. It occurs to me that the $6 billion to be invested in the Super Hornet would be much better spent on the F22. I’m sure the Americans would be selling it to us in the event that the Government presented its case very strongly (I’ve listed a number of points which seem logical to me below .) 1. The US doesn’t have a closer or more supportive ally than Australia. 2. The massive land mass of Australia dictates the need for a long range aircraft. 3. The massive land mass of Australia and the fact that we are an island dictates the need for a twin engine aircraft. 4. The proliferation of Sukhoi class aircraft in the region dictates that such an aircraft must be superior to the Sukhoi class of aircraft if Australia is to remain at least competitive, or ideally retain some deterrent capability. 5. Australia has a role counterbalancing the expansionist military ambitions of China – an aspect of retaining a good trading and cultural relationship with China is for our military to command their respect. How can Australia counterbalance an adversarial relationship between China and the US if our closest ally refuses us access to the weapons system we need to perform that role? 6. How can Australia command a genuine deterrence capability in our region if our military capacity is seen to be riddled with weakness or vulnerability? 7. In dealing with a more powerful enemy, survival usually entails being able to outwit, outrun and evade him, while at the same time striking a telling blow. According to the technical information available in the public domain, the FA/18A-E has neither the speed, the range, the altitude, the manouverability or the offensive capability to defeat a Flanker. 8. Australia is absolutely awash with money at the moment from the minerals boom. We can certainly afford the Raptor in significant numbers. The purchase will be good for the Americans as well – they can increase their own order. To seal the argument, the F35 costs are going up an up all the time and now appear likely to rival the cost of an F-22. With my limited technical knowledge, it would appear that the F22 Raptor is a more appropriate aircraft for our geopolitical requirements than both the FA/18A-E and the F-35. I also find the arguments against the early retirement of the F-111 compelling; at least to the extent that a prototype program could be undertaken to retrofit an F-111 with contemporary engines and avionics at a relatively modest cost to ascertain the feasability of retaining it as a viable asset well into the future. The availability of large numbers of spare F-111 airframes at minimal cost from the US would only enhance exploring this course of action.