New Australian Government Wants to Consider F-22 fighters

Australia’s new Labor government is likely to join Japan in seeking to overturn the U.S. ban on exporting the F-22 Raptor, although Canberra is far from deciding it wants to buy the Lockheed Martin stealth fighter.

The government of incoming Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who won a landslide Nov. 24 election victory, is showing a commitment to the armed forces at least as strong as its predecessor’s, with a defense policy that calls for greater readiness for the Australian Defense Force (ADF), not cutbacks.

Australian defense analysts expect Labor to back the main procurement decisions of the former Liberal-National government of John Howard, although the new administration plans a policy review and might face a budget shortfall in a few years.

While in opposition, new Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon repeatedly called for Australia to consider the F-22 instead of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning, the previous government’s preferred next fighter.

Under project Air 6000, the Royal Australian Air Force will next decade replace its 70-odd F/A-18A and B Hornets and, possibly, the 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets that Canberra ordered this year. Up to 100 combat aircraft are planned.

Though Fitzgibbon hasn’t gone as far as saying Australia should buy the Raptor, in the election campaign he said that Labor would ask Washington to lift the ban on sales so Canberra could reconsider its options.

The Australian Defense Dept. strongly prefers the cheaper and more flexible F-35 over the F-22, whose design emphasizes air combat. The department is likely to present Fitzgibbon with the same advice now that he has become its minister.

The U.S. Congress reaffirmed the ban on F-22 exports as recently as July. Japan, which is keen to buy the aircraft, responded by launching development of its own stealth fighter demonstrator (AW&ST Sept. 3, p. 24).

Rudd plans to pull Australian troops out of Iraq, but only after consultation with the Iraqi government and with the U.S. and Britain. He may decide simply to switch emphasis from Iraq to Afghanistan, following Britain’s lead.

Moreover, there’s no other sign that the new government lacks commitment to Australia’s U.S. alliance. Rudd, a Mandarin-speaking former diplomat, has always voiced unusually strong support for the alliance, and he lists it first among the three pillars that support his defense policy. (The others are active membership of the United Nations and comprehensive engagement with Australia’s neighbors.)

Any changes in procurement policy are most likely to appear in a planned review expected next year.

“The new defense white paper will address the requirements for the ADF to deploy more units at higher readiness levels, deploy at shorter notice [and] sustain operations for longer periods,” according to the official Labor policy statement.

The defense budget has been expanded by 3% a year above inflation since 2001, and Labor says it will stick to that policy at least until 2016.

But Australia is planning significant new capabilities for its armed forces while renewing old ones. Analyst Mark Thomson notes that the budget is more stretched than generally realized, saying “the new government will find that there is not enough money to do all the things the previous government planned to do.”

Thomson, of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, says the budget will buy new capabilities but doesn’t have the funds to sustain them. For example, it will pay for six Boeing Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft, based on the 737, but there’s no additional money for their running costs.

The same goes for extra NH90 helicopters that Eurocopter will build in Brisbane and a pair of 27,000-ton assault ships to be supplied by Spain’s Navantia.

Thomson expects that the Defense Dept.’s habitual slowness in getting projects to contract might cover the gap. If it doesn’t, he thinks the government, awash with cash amid a strong economy, will probably allocate the extra money.

Labor’s policy largely avoids mentioning specific equipment requirements, but two programs for the Royal Australian Navy are emphasized.

One is that Labor wants to get an early start on preliminary work on replacements for the navy’s six Collins Class submarines, even though none of those boats is due to leave service before 2025. Local construction will be necessary, Labor says, partly because an off-the-shelf design wouldn’t fill future requirements—meaning it wouldn’t be big enough to deliver the necessary range and weapons load.

The new government also describes an order for a fourth air-defense destroyer as a “strong option.” Local contractor ASC has been tapped to build three of the 6,250-ton ships to a design by Navantia. Former Defense Minister Brendan Nelson, now leader of the opposition, says a fourth unit would cost A$1.5 billion ($1.3 billion)—an extraordinarily high figure for a production design, indicating the great premium paid for local development and construction.

The new government doesn’t appear likely to drop support for local industry, however—most notably, shipbuilding.

I must have caught the cranial rectumitis from the guy who decided to put two separate engine and rotor systems on the wingtips of the original XV-15. Even the slightest asymmetry of lift from one side to the other and the thing rolls over and kills everyone every single time. Because you’re lifting the aircraft by solely its wingtips it has to be structurally built like a brick. Because of the either engine hiccups everybody dies scenario an enormous drive shaft system from one wingtip to the other had to be installed creating yet another battleship heavy band-aid for bad design anchoring this turd to the ground. An aircraft designer with a brain would have mounted the rotor system on a central pivoting pylon above the craft that would allow the craft to fly hands-off without a computer controller balanced like a pendulum under the rotor in hover mode and allowing the pylon to pivot forward then placing the rotor system in front of the craft much like a conventional single engine propeller aircraft for forward flight. But No!, that would be too simple and obvious. We had to pick the frigging Rube Goldberg design and see if we could do what shouldn’t be done. Anyway, we’ve paid dearly for this ignorance and arrogance. Decades and years later, Billions and Millions of taxpayer dollars later, Way too many dead marines without a single enemy bullet later, It is time to scrap the HoverBrick and stop trying to cheat the laws of gravity and physics when we can work with them and build the cheap simple more efficient more stable more reliable craft we really wanted.
Quite frankly if you can’t see what’s so obviously wrong with the V-22 Ostrich then you don’t know the fundamentals of rotorcraft stability, control, and effective configuration, and should not presume to mock those of us aerospace wizards who make things happen everyday in the for-profit end of the industry.

ME-262, you aren’t the only one that has trouble navigating in here..... I do too so I’ll post the article again in full. Hope nobody else minds.

A lot of threads have been put together with discussion concerning whetehr or not Australia should be given access to purchase the F-22 Raptor. I’s like to state the Australian case as there seems to be precious little insight as to why we want, and in fact need, this vital piece of equipment.

1 - Australia is not a client state of the USA. We aren’t obligated to purchase American equipment, including JSF. Final contracts for procurement have not been signed by any of the partner nations, including Australia. We can shop wherever we like for our fighters. At the moment we are paying for the development of content we don’t particularly need, most notably STOVL. Assessment of ALL available options makes good sense. That way you define the strengths and weaknesses of each available platform and make an informed decision. Unlike the arbitrary decision to purchase Super Hornet by Brendan Nelson, our former defence minister.

2 - Australia was offered in the late 90’s an opportunity to assess the suitability of the F-22 for our new fighter project. At the time it was rejected as being too expensive compared to JSF. This situation is changing as the difference in cost is narrowing.

3 - Australia DOESN’T have carriers. Why buy JSF and carriers when F-22 and F-111 can do the same for less money? Australia having dedicated carriers is a ridiculous notion. You don’t just buy a carrier! You have to support it with supporting combat and logistics ships and have the resources for adequate maintenance. So you can’t make the argument “Australia can’t afford F-22, they should buy carriers instead.”. It’s ridiculous! And Australia is a wealthy nation that CAN afford F-22.

4 - Australia has fought more wars as an ally of the USA than any other country. What do we have to do to gain the trust of the USA? I notice in another thread that the suggestion has been made that we might “sell secrets” because we have a Labor government. This betrays an absolute misunderstanding of Australian politics which is probably the most centrist political system in the world. There actually isn’t a great deal of difference between the two major parties (Labor and Liberal). This difference is certainly far smaller than that of the USA’s two major parties. Furthermore the statement has been made (in other threads) that Japan and Israel could be considered for purchase. Well, guess what? China is one of, if not the biggest of, Israel’s defence industry clients and Japanese companies have been caught red handed selling secrets to the then Soviet Union in the 80’s (Google Toshiba-Kongsberg incident)! Australia has never been so much as suspected of selling ANY secret or using it for a commercial advantage. The fact is that sales of F-22 to Australia are hamstrung by concerns over Israel and Japan is not given much play. Imagine Japan and Israel - “Hey you sold it to the Aussies, why won’t you sell it to us?” Australia is in many ways the USA’s most trusted ally.

5 - Labor is NOT pulling out of the “War on Terror”. They are reducing the number of troops in Iraq because they have completed their combat mission and have successfully trained the Iraqi forces in their area. They now only fulfil an “overwatch” role and for the last 18 months have not been called in for backup in this role. Re-construction and the security detachment for those reconstruction troops will remain. Furthermore Labor has pledged an INCREASE in the amount of troops in Afghanistan, for an overall net increase in the amount of deployed troops in the “War on Terror”. Those stating otherwise need to check their facts before posting. Labor has committed to the same defence spending increases as the previous government. It may actually increas expenditure in line with a commitment to ensure “...all funding requirements for new an existing programs are met.”.

6 - JSF is wholly unsuitable for Australia’s defence needs. It is a battlefield interdiction aircraft that at this stage has little utility as an air superiority fighter. A quick look at a map of Australia will reveal we need a few things from our fighters and bombers. Speed, range, long range engagement capabilities. Australia needs strategic fighters in the mould of Flanker, F-111 and F-22. F-35 is designed to operate in an environment where air superiority has been gained. It is completely inferior to SU-27/30/31/35 in air combat. It also will require dragging aerial refuelling tankers into the battle making them vulnerable to the Sukhois which can field A2A missiles with ranges exceeding 300km. Furthermore, because it has a vastly inferior range on it’s radar, F-35 will also drag AWACs aircraft closer to the battle, making them vulnerable. JSF is all but useless for Australia’s air defence, as is Super Hornet. Australia’s vital interests lie in defending our sea lanes to our north. To our Northwest are some of the busiest sea lanes in the world. Keeping sea trade open during a time of conflict is vital to an island nation like Australia. This more than anything else is why we in fact NEED an air force and navy. All other uses for these forces are periphery. We need aircraft with the range to engage ships and aircraft in this area and a “blue water” navy that can operate a long way from port. Preferably under air cover. We can’t rely on the USA to protect our interests just as we couldn’t rely on Britain to protect us in World War 2. Remember the fall of Singapore?

7 - There are real strategic advantages for the USA to sell F-22 to Australia. Southeast Asia is the fastest militarising in the world. Would it not be good to have an ally in the region that has the best equipment looking after the region in a manner that is in line with American views? All of a sudden the USA doesn’t have to commit 50 of its 180 odd F-22s to Southeast Asia because Australia has it covered. Not to mention the reduction in unit costs for the US, so perhaps the US can now afford more than the 180 or so it is now looking to finally procure. Also, if we are talking coalition operations, what is not well known is that in the two Gulf Wars against Iraq the limiting factor on the tempo of aerial operations was not the amount of combat airframes available, but the ability of tankers to refuel them all. Tankers are the bottleneck in modern aerial warfare. Would it not then make sense for allies to bring aircraft that reduce the burden or your aerial refuelling capacity?

I hope this clarifies the Australian position which seems little heard in your discussion. I’d be keen to hear anyone’s thoughts on this matter.

I’ll also post this as well which covers a few more areas of interest in this debate.

I’m not saying I have an absolute understanding of all of the intricacies and am only giving my “laymans” understanding of the issues. The thing is that I’m willing to hear how JSF is a better aircraft for Australia’s needs but have neither seen nor heard any analysis supporting that position. I’m also willing to hear how the assessment of the F-35’s capabilities is “suspect”.

To achieve the range required to operate with suficient loiter in an air defence senario of the Australian mainland JSF isn’t stealthy. Why? Because it needs to carry external tanks! Australia is a big country with few airfields and a lot of coast. So how it can be argued that tankers won’t be dragged into the battlespace in a long range strike mission is beyond me. As yet I haven’t heard a reasoned argument anywhere to the contrary.

“The F-111’s are not survivable in the modern air defence environment without escort.” That’s why we need F-22! JSF can’t run as far or as fast. So what’s the alternative? B-1, B-2? TU-160 maybe? Tornado? I’m not sure that the assertion about it’s survivability is even valid when you bring F-22 into the situation. F-22 sterilises the battlespace into which you insert F-111. Even ultra modern air defence systems have trouble aquiring and engaging fast moving targets flying just above the trees. You are never going to remove the risk inherent in strike missions. Fact is, at the moment, our region doesn’t have a modern air defence environment anyway. Granted, this will change. This also sells the F-111s abilities short as it can do so much more than the traditional bombing of land targets we tend to think of when thinking of this aircraft.

The power of your radar is directly related to the size of the antenna. Granted, there are other factors that come in to play (gain, power etc). Again, I’m not an expert but I know that this is a good rule of thumb. Its like a car engine. You might get a high tech 2 litre engine that makes more power than a 4 litre engine, but pack the same technology into the 4 litre engine and it will make more power. Every time. Because it’s bigger! Fact is that the Russians aren’t that far behind in radar technology anyway and are fielding radars of similar capabilities to their western counterparts. Have a look at the nose of a Flanker then have a look at the nose of the F-35. Not to mention that Russian missiles have much longer ranges than western missiles, including AMRAAM. So the Flanker sees first, shoots first. Remember, F-35 is an aircraft that is designed to replace the A-10!

It is absolutely true that Carlo Kopp is not popular in the halls of defence. Probably because he questions the wisdom of their decisions. And before the argument is made that “Well, defence should know” this is the same organisation that gave us Seasprite (well one day will give us Seasprites.... maybe), FFGs that can’t go to war, subs that can’t dive too deep because they leak (seriously!), and the Abrams. What the hell do we need Abrams for (other than to hotseat crews into U.S. tanks). This is also the department that gave the main reason for the retirement of F-111 as wing fatigue. When it has been shown that the ONE test that was carried out was done incorrectly. It was the TEST that caused the wing to fail! I’ve been in the forces and let me tell you, Defence is an absolute rabble. The only arguments I’ve seen against Kopp, Goon and Airpower Australia’s position have been personal, not technical, attacks.

I think that the JSF/F-35 is a great plane. It’s just not the plane for us (at the moment), and it certainly isn’t the plane to be both a strategic fighter, and a bomber. Something that it is being asked to do for Australia.

Like I said, I’m happy to be proven worng. I just haven’t heard the arguments for that yet!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.