Glosters UK

If the JSF is further delayed, will countries such as Australia choose an extention on Super Hornets and maybe a suppliment of Typhoon's/Rafale as a alternative?

Injecteer

I think, the answer is pretty simple: if a country has had a jet in a service for years, then it will replace the AC with a similar one, from the same manufacturer.
Otherwise the country would have to change the whole maintenance infrastrusture, re-educate pilots and ground stuff etc., and I assume it causes more headache, if you even managed to save a couple-o-millions per plane

-{SpoonmaN}-

Well for us, the JSF is a really different plane to anything we've operated since maybe the Mirage-III. It's single engined, single seat only, short ranged, smaller payload and stealth. The last one is what got it bought by us.

__________________
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."

gunnut

I thought you're talking about the successor of JSF rather than a substitude.

The strike role of the JSF will probably be filled by the B-52 after all the F-35 airframes retire from service. The B-52 has what...150 years of service life left?

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Tasman

Australia would almost certainly order more Super Hornets so that the SH/JSF mix would change from the 24/72 expected now (with the 24 SHs maybe replaced eventually by a fourth squadron of JSFs) to something along the lines of 48/48.

Cancellation of the F-35A would open up a whole new ball game as I am not sure that an all FA-18E/F force would suit Australia's needs. In this scenario I think we would see Australia requesting an 'export' F-22 to supplement the SHs. I guess aircraft like the Eurofighter Typhoon would be examined if the F-22 was still unavailable for purchase.

Cheers

__________________
Learn from the past. Prepare for the future.

-{SpoonmaN}-

I do get the point about the Super Hornet not having jazzy things like super-cruise, but otherwise I don't see it as being a bad choice as our standard AC. It has proven strike capability, a fair amount of operational flexibility (Growlers and the buddy-tanking system) and it would be a lot cheaper for us to convert over to it than it would to convert over to the JSF, as we would have to change less of our infrastructue around. Obviously there are range concerns however I don't see us needing or wanting to set up a large MEZ anytime soon. A 100+ fleet of Hornets would also allow us to maintain total dominance over our neighbourhood, since we'd have at least a 3 to 1 advantage over all our neighbours in gen 4.5 planes. Couple that with better avionics packages, better weapons and superior training (Especially concerning flight hours) and we'd be looking pretty good against our neighbours. More to the point, having a massive superiority is really just something we want to flash around, we WILL NOT be fighting a hot war with any neighbour in the coming decades. If anything, the RAAF is going to be defending our neghbours.

Tasman

I agree that it would not be a 'bad choice'. The RAAF would almost certainly include a number of EA-18G Growlers in an enlarged purchase and the cheaper cost, compared with the F-35 might allow the total number of aircraft to be increased beyond 100. A mix of say 48 FA-18Fs, 48 FA-18Es and 16 EA-18Gs would enable the air combat force to equip 5 squadrons with the SH. However, I still think a mix of SHs and JSFs is the most likely outcome. I do like the idea of some EA-18Gs being included in the mix.

I don't see much likelihood of the RAAF being in conflict with a neighbour but I think there is a strong possibility of RAAF squadrons being deployed in support of coalition operations. For that reason the RAAF needs aircraft that can operate efficiently alongside American squadrons. Both the SH and the JSF will be able to fill that role well.

Cheers

-{SpoonmaN}-

My point exactly. Between Malaysia and Singapore, both of whom are close enough allies that we train their pilots and have an integrated AD network them, Indonesia who have neither the money nor the inclination to put together anything resembling an offensive air force (All they need is a few Interceptor sqdns, ground attack planes for which I think the Frogfoot would be a superb buy, light airlift and helos), Thailand doesn't have the money and only really needs to be able to dominate Burma (Not hard), and all of Indo-China who are 25 years behind the rest of the nighbourhood, Australia faces no local threat. Nor will we in the 20-25 year period these planes will be serving.
For coalition Ops, the thing we need to consider is are our forces going to be value added. I think the Multi-Mission nature of the SH is very handy for this, and we could probably afford more of them (given the likelyhood of further cost blowouts for the JSF) than we could of the F-35. Then again, I doubt we'll pull out now.

hello

This thread is wrongly named. When I read 'JSF successor', I thought '6th Generation, UAV, near-hypersonic, super-stealth, speculation too far into the future'.

Anyway, I think Australia should go for an F/A-18F and EA-18G combination with a few F-35Cs. The F-35C has longer range than the SuperBug, and if combined with the bug's tanking system, it will have even better range. It doesn't really have much of a stealth payload, but it's non-stealth is better than the bug's(but without stealth, the JSF's biggest advantage is gone). It also has better avionics with the APG-81 radar and EOTS.

However, the 'Lightning 2' is very expensive, and is an overkill considering that Australia is not going to fight anyone in such a war during the JSF's generation.
BTW, JSF doesn't have the fancy F-22 stuff like supercruise and TVC.

Bowman

I'm struggling to see why the JSF/F-35 is considered to be such an advance in capablities over current aircraft. It doesn't seem that fast. It would not appear to be able to dogfight with an Su-35 or similar. It doesn't have supercruise and it's payload can't be much more than an F-18E. I understand that it's stealthy, but it's going to be based on very un-stealthy aircraft carriers. Given the expense of the aircraft, should the U.K. look more closely at the feasibility of a navalized Typhoon? Wouldn't Typhoon be a more sensible aircraft for Australia, too? It's much cheaper and is considerably better than the Honda Accord/F-18.

Wraith601

The F-15 would be an even better choice than the F-18 IMO. The F-15C is still a very good A2A plane, nothing in the region compares, and the F-15E is almost unrivaled as an all-weather strike fighter. Not to mention they're still cheaper than the F-35.

__________________
"We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France."
-Sir Arthur Wellesley

Glosters UK

Raith- I agree however you cant compare a Typhoon to the latest F-15 models.

RedArmySurplus

i think that if we are going to spend lots of money to update our airforce we may aswell buy the most modern and best aircraft available to us. F-18s may be acceptable now, but we probobly wont be updating again for a while and by then they will be obselete.

__________________
die, no0b

Stan

I really dont thing there will be any major issues for thre JSF and I think Australia is doing the right thing.


In terms of the UK I hope we never get involved in another European consortium to build a new fighter. In future if we can arrange proper terms for technology transfer like with the JSF the Royal airforce and Royal Navy should work with the US to produce 6th generation fighters.

Bowman

Very valid points from everybody, if you don't mind me saying. Australia would probably benefit greatly from the F-15E's ground attack capability. I wonder why the U.K. would choose to buy Eurofighter Typhoons rather than consider that plane. Is it purely political; the inertia of a cooperative development program and responsibilities to allies? Are we looking at profiting from sales to other nations? Or does anybody think that the Typhoon offers a significant increase in capability over the F-15?