The Royal Australian Air Force?s decision to go
ahead with buying the F-35 might be surprising, but not when one looks at what
the alternatives had been. The Australians had been considering ten options for
the future of the RAAF. These options were a mixture of proven capability (like
the F-15E and F-16), and the cutting edge (like the Eurofighter, F-22, and
robotic warplanes, or UCAVs). Yet, not all of them made the cut. What is unique
about the RAAF competition is the frank discussion of the pros and cons
of the contenders that emerged. Usually, not a lot of information is released,
either for the sake of the country doing the buying (in order to avoid tipping
off potential opponents) and the companies involved (in order to preserve a
chance at future sales by keeping competing aircraft firms from knowing
weaknesses in another design).



Australia is planning to replace both its F-111s and F-18s with the F-35. The
F-35 is a stealthy multi-role aircraft with a top speed of 1,900 kilometers per
hour, and a combat radius of over 1,100 kilometers. The aircraft comes in at
anywhere from $37 million (the U.S. Air Force?s version) to $48 million (the
U.S. Navy?s carrier version). Why was the F-35, which is not yet in service,
chosen over other aircraft, some of which have been proven in combat (like the
F-15 and F-16), or which have had most of the bugs worked out (Rafale, Su-30MK,
Gripen, F/A-18E/F)?



The answer is what Australia was looking for ? they wanted a modern, multi-role
fighter that could last a long time (the planned retirement date is 2040). They
also wanted stealth, good sensors, and long range. Looking these requirements
over helps explain why some planes did not make the cut.



The F-15 and F-16 were state of the art through the 1970s and 1980s, but fell
behind the Rafale and Eurofighter, and are slated to be replaced with the F-22
and F-35, respectively. To an extent, the F-18E/F also fell victim, even though
it had much in common with RAAF F-18s currently in service.



The Rafale had two problems. The biggest was interoperability. Australia and
the United States have fought together in a number of major conflicts dating
back to World War I. There is very little expectation that this will change,
and Australia wants to simplify matters like logistics. What also plagued the
Rafale, as well as the Gripen and Eurofighter were issue with stealth (not
enough), and sensors (the small radomes raised concerns). The Gripen also
failed on range.



The F-22 was one of the planes considered. Performance and logistics were not
issues ? cost was. The F-22 was coming in at $150 million a plane, and it was
optimized for the air-to-air role, with the attack capability added on after
many of the parameters were set. The most expensive variant of the F-35 comes
in at $48 million. So, for the price of one F-22, one could get three F-35Cs or
close to four F-35As (the variant Australia is purchasing). One F-22 can beat
one F-35, but one F-22 would have a much difficult time beating three F-35Cs or
four F-35As ? and it cannot be in three or four places at once.



Two the competitors were never serious possibilities. The first was the
Su-30MK, which was non-stealthy, had serious inter-operability issues, and
would have been extremely controversial. In essence, there were some questions
as to why it was even considered despite its range and powerful sensor suite.
The other competitor quickly wiped out were unmanned air combat vehicles
(UCAVs). The Australians figured that UCAVs would eventually supplement manned
combat aircraft, but would not suffice as replacements.



The last aircraft standing was the F-35. While it is a paper airplane, it is
well under way, and Australia will be able to get a version of the F-35 that
will meet its requirements through 2040. Other countries will also be buying at
least one variant of the F-35, including the United Kingdom, Norway, Turkey,
and the Netherlands. The F-35 will likely be the F-16 of the early 21st
century.