he 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.