The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - October 11, 2008

Advertisement


Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Would you support Australia obtaining the F-22?
1stCohort    2/20/2008 8:09:37 PM
As long term allies, would u support australia making a successful request for the F-22 raptor, to Defence Sec Robert Gates this weekend?
Many analysts in Australia has indicated it would like to have a mixed cap of F-35s and F-22s.
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

kensohaski       2/20/2008 8:28:42 PM
Oz may not have the money to purchase the F-22.  The F-35 may well suffice....
 
Quote    Reply

1stCohort       2/20/2008 8:36:27 PM
We currently advocate 16 billion for replacing our current fleet and 6.6 billion for SHornets that may well be cancelled. So essentially we have about $21 billion US to play with.
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer       2/20/2008 8:42:07 PM

As long term allies, would u support australia making a successful request for the F-22 raptor, to Defence Sec Robert Gates this weekend?
Many analysts in Australia has indicated it would like to have a mixed cap of F-35s and F-22s.

I am by no means an expert on Aircraft so feel free to savage my opinion....costructively please :).  But as far as I can make out the RAAF doesnt "Need" the F22 to maintain its superiority over any potential adversarys in the region or as part of a multinational force participating in a further afield military endevour. 
Can anyone put forward a scenario where this opinion can be shown to be in error? 
 
From a cost point of view is the F22 even viable for Oz?  I know discussions about the cost of F22 vs F35 vs Typhoon vs Rafael vs Gripen vs Super Bug etc gets a bit heated at times, but realistically what type of dollar value would Oz have to pay for the Number of Airframes needed plus a spares pack and some type of Life Cycle Support Contract with Lock Mart?
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       2/20/2008 9:08:44 PM
 
No.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       2/21/2008 3:04:06 PM

 

No.

 

 

DB is something of an authority.

He knows the merits of the arguments probably much better than I do..

But I've looked at it.

If they need an air superiority fighter they  have other more affordable options than the F-22 . F-35 is only one such option.

What they need is a ten hour BOMBER, more tanker support, and maritime patrol aircraft. I believe the RAAF address this, but I'd like to see them improve their planned force base a bit.

What I find ironic is that here is an argument, We've got $21B Aus. to buy F-22s. Let's buy some! Yet I see in another thread that the USAF who asks for $20B US to buy some additional F-22s.............no, we can't afford it!

????????????????????????

Huh?

Herald .
 

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       2/21/2008 3:47:39 PM
I can't see any meaningful and/or logical reason as to why we should be buying F-22's.
 
There are better ways to spend the money.
 
Quote    Reply

FJV       2/21/2008 3:55:32 PM
I think it makes very good sense for the US should have the policy of keeping their most advanced and best weapons exclusively for themselves. I don't see any reason for the US not to keep the F22 for exclusive use by the US only. I would do the same as it ensures that when it comes to weapons the US has always one step better than everybody else.





 
Quote    Reply

The Lizard King       2/26/2008 12:27:44 PM
It would hurt Oz in the long run tie-ing up so much money into a platform they do not need.
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       2/26/2008 9:00:19 PM

The USAF still has to pay for the replacement of tankers that are some 50 years old. They need to at least make the C-5 more reliable, or better yet a replacement. They need to replace/refurbish transport aircraft that are rapidly wearing out supporting OEF/OIF. They need to develop something to replace the B-52, which is 40+ years old or at the very least develop a regional bomber replacing the. They need to start replacing their F-16s, which are reaching 30 years old.  Oh and they decided to get on the V-22 bandwagon, which isn't a cheap option. Not to mention the normal inservice upgrades for existing aircraft. 

In order to support everything the USAF wants we'd have to add to the USAF budget the same amount of money the Aussies have to spend for this single buy for a period for FIVE years. That's according to USAF numbers, which I regard as optimistic.

The political reality is the USAF budget will not get any larger after this year, and will in all likelihood shrink.

That said, if Australia wants them, I think they should be able to purchase them. I don't see the need, but if they get a bee in their bonnet and want them so be it.
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       2/26/2008 9:44:33 PM
That said, if Australia wants them, I think they should be able to purchase them. I don't see the need, but if they get a bee in their bonnet and want them so be it.

Look, it ain't just about Oz.  Once the foreign sales door is open then the lobbyists will set in motion the escalating disclosure of F-22 tech and methods, which will be shared among self-interested friendlies and enemies alike.  That's partly why I despise sharing F-35 source with the UK.  I'll accept increased F-22 US buy simply to postpone expenditure on anti-Raptor-Raptor dev.  We absolutely need tankerage and other support more and thus need to delay as long as possible the spend on nextgen A2A. 

Our AF budget is going to experience significant overall cuts in the decade ahead, we would do well to mitigate effects.  Deny the foreign customer -- and our competitors -- the F-22 platform please.  We are not going to have the funds to counter tech transfer next round.  Many Americans will support sending our forces into a meat grinder before they support increased borrowing or taxation.  Eisenhower was right, the MI complex is just another self-sustaining profiteering bureaucracy.  Screw this spiral.  You're not getting more from my household.

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       2/26/2008 10:02:30 PM
The USAF still has to pay for the replacement of tankers that are some 50 years old. They need to at least make the C-5 more reliable, or better yet a replacement. They need to replace/refurbish transport aircraft that are rapidly wearing out supporting OEF/OIF. They need to develop something to replace the B-52, which is 40+ years old or at the very least develop a regional bomber replacing the. They need to start replacing their F-16s, which are reaching 30 years old.  Oh and they decided to get on the V-22 bandwagon, which isn't a cheap option. Not to mention the normal inservice upgrades for existing aircraft. 

 
In order to support everything the USAF wants we'd have to add to the USAF budget the same amount of money the Aussies have to spend for this single buy for a period for FIVE years. That's according to USAF numbers, which I regard as optimistic.

Not that this aids the argument one way or the other, but the USAF isn't alone in having to come to terms with budget expenditures and block obsolescence.
The RAAF needs to replace Boos that are as old as your Buffs and strokers. We have pretty much retired the last couple of geriatric B707 strokers and the Pigs and Bugs are fatigued. USAF isn't alone in this quandry.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       2/26/2008 10:55:54 PM

I would do the same as it ensures that when it comes to weapons the US has always one step better than everybody else.

Selling the F-22 is as logical as selling off packaged CVN, Seawolf, or Virgina technology.
 
Its just plain dumb - esp when modern designs are integrated and almost symbiotic systems.  Even if you dumb it down, there are core features that a bit of considered logic will start to unravel if given enough time.
 
You (rhetorically speaking) develop tipping point assets to disrupt and gain advantage as long as possible - you don't develop it as a revenue generator.  I think there is some confusion in a lot of peoples minds that the sale of an asset automatically will be governed by the builder/developers commercial reality. (Hence this ia bigger problem for companies that build subs as they are immediately restricted in their client base, so its not as if they can absorb development into commercial unclassified programs straight away)
 

 


 
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy