F22 Raptor V's F35 Joint Strike Fighter

[nomorecatering]

Reading the latest Smithsonian Air & Space magazine has a great profile on the F22 Raptor. With its new designation, now F/A 22 it seems to be able to fullfil the roll of the F/A 18 and F111. Given that it has ;

Unmatched dogfighting ability, even the lendary f15 is outclassed by it

Fairly large bomb load, much of it carried internally........& .stealth

Huge radius un-refuled, coupled with sustained super cruise......given our large distances from even our forward bases (Tindal, Darwin, Sherger etc) to the likely area of engagement.

Un matched radar capability

2 engines

Why the hell are we even looking at the JSF. Doesnt seem to be even in the same league. Ok the F22 is EXPENSIVE but it would give an un matched reach in this region.

The floor is open for our resident experts>

[PLovett]

In a word. Money.:ok:

[Pinky the pilot]

I had a discussion about seven or eight months ago with a recently retired very high ranking RAAF Officer re this very subject......
PLovett is fairly close to the mark!! Admittedly there were/are not a few other factors involved but the comment is substantially correct according to what I was told.

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

[nomorecatering]

Some basic info on the net shows the JSF cant possibly have the range required for out operation and geographic considerations, not even taking in to accound its limited weapons load. Something like 2 bombs and 2 missiles. Thats it!!!

Does our participation in the development program bind us into buying it??

[Lodown]

I have no military background, therefore not a "resident" expert. More the garden variety "armchair" amateur, but I’ll have a go at tossing an opinion in nevertheless.

From what I’ve read and heard, the F22 is a phenomenal piece of equipment. The electronics and information available to the pilot are the stuff of wet dreams. However, even the USA is trying to find a suitable application for the aircraft since the demise of the USSR. It was designed and built for air superiority in a battle with front line Soviet fighters. It’s a great marriage of stealth with maneuverability. The stealth and sensor capabilities make it a very potent weapon particularly against an enemy with AWACs. The F22 somewhat negates the enemy’s AWAC capability of long range threat detection and response coordination, while its aerodynamic design gives it the upper hand once in a dogfight. In addition, it’s able to deliver a whopping piece of destruction on high value ground targets.

The world scene has changed since the F22 was designed. The current crop of enemy combatents is not so technically advanced. The enemy’s stealth capabilites are reliant on very small, independent and inconspicuous ground based forces equipped with relatively simple weapons. Possessing the element of surprise in this situation is not so distinguishable between the F22 and the F35.

The ops requirement at home seems to place more emphasis on border control where more relatively low tech aircraft (read: lower cost) are better than just a few high tech ones. On overseas ops, Australia is in a supporting role and has to integrate with other forces. We don’t need a huge load of bombs anymore. Just a couple with an accurate delivery system appears ideal for the time being to knock out congregation and staging points. The range isn’t as important, but positioning more aircraft in forward locations with quick response times appears paramount to supporting small, scattered and diverse ground forces. An aircraft that is relatively less complex to maintain, has interchangeable parts common with other forces in the area from other nations and doesn’t require huge supporting logistical teams seems to me to make a good choice.

We’re not under this huge communist threat anymore where we have to be vigilant for a large mass of invaders from the north. It will change sometime in the future again, but for the time being, country to country relations with Australia’s neighbours appears to be on a relatively even diplomatic keel. And we certainly don’t have to worry about an aviation threat from New Zealand anymore (just a continuing rugby threat).

But what would I know?

[Pass-A-Frozo]

I personally think you'll find the RAAF leaning / pushing for an F/A-22 option now the MRTT (Multi Role Tanker / Transport) has been approved. Although they want more and more tankers - so the request may be delayed.

I reckon the seniors in the RAAF were worried if they pushed the F22 , it's easier [easier, not easy] to claim "What do you need a tanker for?"

Mind you, Army seem to be getting their "dream team" of equipment of late, maybe it's time for the senior RAAFies to push for F/A-22 replacing F111, JSF replace F/A-18.

Oh, and a SQN of C17's while we are at it :) :):ok:

[Lodown]

I would imagine the RAAF would love the combination of F22's, F35's, C17's, tankers and AWACs. It would be the envy of many of the world's air forces. In combination with the Army, Australia could project a capable, self-sufficient force anywhere in the world at short notice. That's the stuff RAAF planners could only dream about before.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Given announcements over the last few days, I think the C17 is more likely than the F22

[Gnadenburg]

Upgrading the army is far more important than RAAF fighters at the moment.

Dump the F111's and a squadron of F18's, arm the P3's with missiles and let's revisit the air threat in a decade- oops, that's what the governments doing already. Bring it forward!

[Chronic Snoozer]

F-22 is waaay too expensive and besides, its not for sale i.e. the Seppos won't export it, anywhere...its that good. Its even too expensive for the US DoD's voracious appetite.

[charlie6XX]

advantages of F-35 vs. F-22:

- spherical thermal imager linked to HMD
- advanced weapons carriage (beyond JDAM)
- self-designation capability for LGB
- IRST
- APG-81 has more advanced SAR/GMTI capability than APG-77
- intra-flight datalink
- approximately twice as many airframes available for our budget
- designed from outset for multi-role operations
- internationally-constructed aircraft with australian SDD participation and contractor involvement simplifies international arms trading issues

advantages of F-22 vs. F-35:

- better payload-range capability
- true supercruise capabilty
- larger radar aperature
- probable future addition of side-looking radar aperatures
- twin-engine survivability
- vectored thrust boosts post-stall manoeuverability (X-31 technology)
- possibility of future FB-22 airframes becoming available


my opinion:

the lack of many F-35 sensor systems, advanced radar functions, weapons carriage and multi-role design attributes means the F-22 is a less capable aircraft in the CAS/BAI and interdiction/deep strike roles. both aircraft have a similar air combat capability. supercruise, extended payload range and large aperature radar give the F-22 a much better OCA/DCA capability.

australia's requirements are a subject for the NACC team to decide, but revolve around the defence of australia in times of war, responding to security and stability threats in our immediate neighbourhood and region, contributing to global coalition operations that support australia's interests and various peacetime national tasks. the F-35 has the flexibility to provide effective support to most conceivable surface operations that australia could mount, as well as the advanced capabilities to generate long-range strategic OCA/DCA and strike missions alongside MRTT and Wedgetail. the F-22 would extend the range and effectiveness of any wartime area air defence operations we would wish to conduct, but the limited numbers in which we could purchase it and the limitations of its sensor suite and inherent design would make any F-22 capability an inflexible, inefficient capability.

[18-Wheeler]

Smarter option - Get neither.
Get the SU-37 Super Flanker. Better at just about everything than both the other planes.

[steamchicken]

Further advantage of F35: more likely that "future" airframes will exist..

F22 would be a fearsomely expensive island capability - taking into account the support costs, would you get a squadron or so? And what would be left for CAS, strike, maritime patrol, tactical and strategic transport, long term sustainment? Nice shiny toy.

[Fragnasty]

18-Wheeler,

Having flown the Hornet against Flankers, and knowing just how unreliable Russian avionics and engines are, give me American-made any day.

Anyhooo, remember that you fly against the man - not the machine.

...and although I'm not a fan of one engine where two will do, I think money will mean F-35's in the end game.

[wessex19]

stealth Wessex Mk 31C-"plus" with winglets (not sure where the winglets would go but put em on!!!!:ok: )

[Gnadenburg]

I find it interesting that the number of replacement fighters for the F18's & F111's is mentioned as being around 100.

With delays in the JSF programme and no commitment to an interim fighter to replace the F111, how can anywhere near a 100 JSF's be contemplated?

When the JSF is available, my understanding is the F111 will have been replaced by emerging technology ( missiles on the F18 & P3 ) and the operational fighter strength of the RAAF around 40+ upgraded Hornets.

If the army continues to dominate procedings around JSF propsed intro' date- war on terror and peacekeeping operations- this can't augur well for RAAF Brass who would want budget domination in the ramping up of a 40+ F18 fleet to 100 JSF's. I just can't see politicians doubling the RAAF fighter fleet unless the regional tempo up's significantly.

So how will the RAAF Brass get a fleet of shiny new fighters? A push for an interim fighter or small purchase of F22's, alongside upgraded F18's, to maintain respectable fleet numbers once F111 goes? Or a JSF purchase with lobbying for additional STOL JSF's for operations off RAN helicopter carriers?

A RAAF fleet of 100 JSF's seems a long way off. Perhaps 60 at best?

[Roller Merlin]

Whilst I have been impressed by the briefings and marketing speel of the F35 pundits, we should be wary of purchasing a single engined F35 and placing so much expectation on it. It reeks of 'plug and play with USA' thinking (on an OZ budget).

Let's not forget the history of single engined jet aircraft in our country. We lost maybe 30 or so Mirages over 20 years, many of them to engine problems - these therefore became lawn darts and the public complained about million-dollar jets falling out of the sky. But our three (fatal) hornet losses were not power related, and there have been quite a few incidents where safe return was made with with one good donk. Ok I conceed MirageIIIO and F35 are like old chalk and new cheese, but birds , FOD and the like just don't give a damn about the price of the metal or the reliability of the systems.

I just dont believe that a 'zero engine redunancy' policy is worth the cost of the F35.

Perhaps the future tactic may be ..."capital expenditure now approved on basis of F35....but hey, we just received stats on single-jet losses, delays on production, and the outcry from the icecream lickers...so the polies now demand we get the twin!" QED


:yuk:

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Should make the kiwi's contribute to the cost of them since we are their "stop gap" in air defence :p

[Point0Five]

Please, enough with the single engine nonsense!

GA seems to manage OK, and they conduct significantly less maintenance than Defence. For that matter, the level of redundancy built into modern military aircraft is extensive.

Enough with the Mirage examples also, different era. I'm sure that I wouldn't have to go too far back to form a "shock, horror" opinion regarding twin engine aircraft.

[Fragnasty]

One engine vs two........

Single engine cessna worth $150k that you can glide in almost anywhere at 70kts following an engine failure, vs multi-million dollar fighter that you may be able to dead stick in if your engine happens to fail while you're at 10,000' passing overhead a 6,000ft runway.

I know if it was my dollar I'd want to slap an extra engine on that sucker as a bit of insurance!!

[Point0Five]

Too simple.

Consider the failure rates for flight critical systems on each aircraft. The Cessna is still more dangerous.

At the risk of sounding like a zealot, do you honestly believe that Lockheed are wandering around, completely oblivious to your well reasoned concerns?

Technology moves on, heaven forbid that we'd ever have aircraft flown "by wire"!

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Eject and get your tie pin :}

What\'s the failure rate on other modern era single engine fighters? Anyone know?

[Air Ace]

The US Air Force took delivery of its last F-16 Fighting Falcon on March 18, 2005, the last of 2,231 F-16s produced for the Air Force. The first delivery was in 1978.


So, tell me why the US bought 2,231 single engine aircraft over 27 years? Obviously never learnt from their mistakes?

The year 2000 was one of the F-16's best years for export orders. Firm export orders totaled 220 aircraft as follows: Israel (50), Greece (50), UAE (80), Korea (20) and Singapore (20).

I guess a few other countries made the same mistake?

I'm sure there's more, but one site (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-16-losses.htm) quotes only three F-16 losses and in every case "...the pilot ejected safely from the single-seat aircraft..."

Seems to be a better record than Australia's F-18's?

[ftrplt]

the F16 isnt known as the Lawn Dart for nothing

[Gnadenburg]

Statistics & apples versus oranges. How do you compare safety of an F16 operator versus, say the RAAF's twin engine F18's? And then enter this into the one engine versus two debate? Too many variables including whether they fly predominantly high or low altitude, training quality and training tempo, aswell as maintenance. So an Arab F16 operator, with contracted American engineers, limited operational expectations and rarely flying outside of a flight level band in a training area, is going to come out statistically in favour in a single engine argument. Despite the occassional aberration where the well connected Prince may test the ejection seat.

As the JSF is a stealth fighter, doesn't that mean it will operate in the Flight Levels? Flying low may enhance it's stealth but it certainly won't fly low over a battlefield where two versus one engine survivability may come into play. A new generation of technology, simulators etc, perhaps negating the argument. Besides, what else has two engines and is/will be available?

Precious ( JSF ) & cargo, comes in undetected, delivers a bomb from the safety of a flight level, on a target with a turban & AK47- with an ejection seat as back up. Gotta feel for those Army Aviation types in the wartime.

[Gnadenburg]

Interesting week of developments.

Firstly, a Saudi purchase of Eurofighter has ended any possibility, however unlikely it was, of cheap, unwanted RAF Eurofighters being made available to the RAAF as an interim fighter.

JSF development hitches and F22 low numbers would suggest the Americans would have a shortage of combat aircraft if we look forward a decade aswell.

Good news.The F15E production line has been extended with a Singaporian order. However, a common sense replacement of F111 with this aircraft unlikely.

So, in a few years time "if" an interim fighter is essential due JSF development problems and cost overuns, I am sure the politicians of the day will find a second hand option such as upgraded ex-Canadian F18's or the like!

It could get real ugly for the RAAF. From today's Australian.





Costs hit fighter jet order
John Kerin
January 04, 2006

AUSTRALIA may halve its order for US F-35 joint strike fighter jets to 50 planes because of continuing cost blowouts on the $256billion project, a move that could threaten regional air superiority.

Australia had pledged to buy 100 of the radar-evading stealth aircraft to replace an ageing air wing of 71 F/A-18 attack aircraft and 26 F-111 tactical fighter bombers.

The first of the US-built Lockheed Martin joint strike fighter aircraft are due to be delivered to Australia in 2014.

Australia has joined its allies in the project to build the planes, which has enabled the order to be purchased for a reduced total of $16billion, including maintenance, spare-parts and other costs.

But a senior Defence official has warned a parliamentary inquiry in Canberra that Australia could be forced to reduce its target order if the US slashes the number of planes it plans to build, because this would further drive up costs of the troubled F-35 project.

The price of the aircraft has reportedly already blown out from $45million to $60million per plane, but this could rise further if the US slashes its order of 2500 aircraft by one-fifth, as some US reports have suggested.

"The (Defence) white paper from 2000 says (we buy) 100 ... but depending on who you speak to ... some other people think 50 would be good," deputy Defence secretary Shane Carmody has told an inquiry into Australia's defence relationship with the US.

"A factor in the cost blowout, I think, would be if the US decided to reduce the number of aircraft it is acquiring.

"We certainly have some concerns if the (joint strike fighter) gets very expensive ... and ultimately, sometimes you have to cut your cloth, but we are a long way short of that at this point."

The US Congress has already recommended slashing $270million from the Pentagon's joint strike fighter budget next year.

Under the project, Lockheed aims to build 2500 stealth fighter aircraft for the US and several hundred more for its allies in the most ambitious defence project of its kind.

Australia is interested in buying the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) version for delivery by 2014 to replace its F/A-18 fleet.

But US Defence News has cited Pentagon sources as saying the US Air Force may be forced to scrap the CTOL version and opt for a smaller number of the more expensive navy version of the fighter.

Mr Carmody told the Australian inquiry that Canberra had still "not committed on aircraft type or numbers".

"I think there is a lot of analysis going on within Defence at the moment by Air Force, the project office and DSTO (the Defence Science and Technology Organisation) to ... look at the numbers we need, how many missions they need to carry out," he said.

Aldo Borgu, author of a report for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute on the joint strike fighter, saidbuying only 50 would leave Australia's air defences "very vulnerable". "With 50 fighters, you simply would not have enough to provide for Australia's air defences or to deploy fighters on combat missions overseas," he said.

Mr Borgu said there was now talk that, as part of the US Quadrennial Defence Review due to be completed next month, Washington might axe the CTOL version and force the US Air Force to buy the navy version.

[Bobster]

Gnadenburg, Sssshhh, we have bought second hand from the US in the past, what with F-111G and troop ships, let alone tanks now, and what did those babies cost us to get up and running.

The F-15 in Taiwanese form on paper looks good and the F-18E/F is the Hornet the USN wanted in the first place. With the cost esculations as they are now, are not these aircraft worth consideration?

[Gnadenburg]

Bobster

That's my point. The only aircraft available as an interim capability, are brand new. I don't think anyone in defence would push an upgrading of 2nd hand fighters.

The love affair with the F111 , and the gamble on JSF technology, will leave Australia considerably exposed in a decade.

At any stage in the last decade, a small F15E purchase to replace F111, would have held the RAAF ( with upgraded F18's ) in good stead. Until new technology proven and available. Surely such a purchase cost effective considering the cash in expensive upgrades of airframe and weapons, to keep a few flights of F111's operational? Pundits of the F111 should be tarred and feathered for their short sightedness.

Forward to 2015. No F111's. 40 worn out Hornets and a similarily tired P3's. And maybe no JSF! :uhoh: Not viable for the nation with the biggest mouth in the region.

[heliduck]

Bobster

The love affair with the F111 , and the gamble on JSF technology, will leave Australia considerably exposed in a decade.

Forward to 2015. No F111's. 40 worn out Hornets and a similarily tired P3's. And maybe no JSF! :uhoh: Not viable for the nation with the biggest mouth in the region.


What will our threat be in 2015? I'm pretty sure a JSF won't be able to pick a suicude bomber out of the crowd at Darling Harbour! I've lived in Indonesia for 2 1/2 years now & I can say that the small percentage of radical muslims won't be coming over the Timor sea in landing craft, they'll be coming via Bali on Garuda, & most of them already have a post office box in Bankstown. The US are the super power of the day(that may change in the future) & won't allow anyone to invade Australia due to their facilities here, so why waste our limited resources on 100 fighters when our limited resources can be more effective in other areas? The ADF are good at supplying quality, not quantity. Why not do a deal with the US - we'll supply the SAS & aircrew, they supply the planes. With a population of 20 million it's pretty hard to find enough tax payers to be a stand alone force in an ever shrinking world, so surely an expansion of our alliance with the US can't hurt. I believe we need to concentrate on a 2 pronged strategy - 1. Border protection, i.e. helicopters, spotter planes, intercept marine craft, international airport security, laws to allow the border protection crews to be effective. Stop the buggers coming in.
2. Internal security, i.e. a concerted effort to weed out the undesirables already entrenched in our society that are determined to get us all fighting amongst ourselves by killing civilians. Get the buggers out who are already here.
"But it will make us a target for terrorists!" I hear you say. We already are, & when they blow the lid off Lucas heights or let off a bomb at the Grand Final it won't matter how many we have or who paid for the planes sitting on the ground at Williamtown!

Rant over.

[griffinblack]

Heliduck, I understand what you are saying, but our government has wants to be a global player and integrate into coalition operations with a meaningful capability. You suggest that we can supply the aircrew and they (the US) supply to aircraft. This may be model that can be used with tanks, but given airworthiness (operational and technical) and other issues, this would very hard to achieve.

Apart from a small contribution to the air campaign 2 years ago, we have not achieved a very good return on our Mirages, A4’s, F/A 18’s and F111’s in terms of operational sorties. But the point is you don’t know you need a capability until you need it. We saw how unprepared we were in almost all our previous conflicts, particularly WW1 and WW2, but also our most recent – East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq.

My guess is 100 aircraft is a pipe dream – simply based on cost. I would guess we will end up with about 60-70. I would like the commanders to think outside the box a bit. I am not convinced the F35 offers the best capability for the cost of the aircraft. I think it would be worth considering other contenders – Eurofighter (now that it has achieved a major export, the unit cost may go down significantly), F15E (+?) or F18E/F.

The issue of single versus twin. No doubt today’s engines are very reliable, and there would be a factor calculated to include losses due to engine failures and thus more attrition aircraft would be needed. But the one thing not mentioned about single engine in a combat environment is battle damage. Think air defence (AAA or guided missile) and small arms fire – this can all damage an engine. In this case I would like the luxury of a second, thanks very much.

[4Greens]

Old rule and still relevant:

Single engine is cheaper in wartime and two engines are cheaper in peacetime.

In fighters where the two engines are co-located, battle damage generally does for both.

[griffinblack]

Interesting article in the Australian today about the possibility of the Poms pulling out of the program due to problems with the Yanks exporting the stealth technology. Apparently it was proposed the legislation would be passed in 2003 in order to allow the technology to be exported to the UK and Aus but it is now in danger of not happening, hence the UK withdrawing from the program and thus not purchasing 150 acft.

I guess the implication for the ADF would be that any reduction of orders is likely to increase per unit costs. Furthermore, with the possible sanctions of the stealth technology, the whole premise of the program is questionable.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Interesting that the Poms will consider pulling out. There are not many (if any!) Harrier replacements on the design sheets.

[Magoodotcom]

How about this for a scenario for our 'blue collar' air force...?

2007 to 2012

2OCU - retires its 8 worst 'classic' Hornets in 07 and inducts 8 x F/A-18F with APG-79/JASSM/JDAM in 08/09.

6SQN - retires its F-111Gs and transfers its F-111Cs to 1SQN in 08. Disbanded.

10 & 11SQNs - Best 12 AP-3Cs retained for LockMart re-wing program (complete with databus to hardpoints) in 09/010 and consolidated into one SQN. Remaining SQN converts to 12 x GA Mariner UAV from 09.

1SQN - retires its F-111Cs in 010 and converts to 16 x F/A-18F & 4 x EA-18G in 011.

3, 75 & 77SQNs - Disband one SQN (3 or 77?) in 010 and consolidate best of 'classic' Hornet fleet into two remaining SQNs.

33SQN - Three additional A330 MRTTs acquired in FY09. All A330s upgraded with 'smart tanker' data relay capability in 010/011.

Orbat at end 2012: 24 x F/A-18F, 4 x EA-18G, 50ish F/A-18A/B+, 8 x A330, 6 x Wedgetail, 12 x AP-3C+, 12 x Mariner UAV

2012 to 2018

2OCU - retires remaining 'classic' Hornets in 014 and takes first of 16 F-35Cs from 015.

76 & 79SQNs - Hawk 127 fleet undergoes MLU from 013 to 016 to better represent F-35C.

77SQN - Reformed in 013. Takes first of 24 F-35Cs from late 015.

3 & 75SQNs - both SQNs retire balance of 'classic' Hornet fleet in 013 & 015 and introduce 24 x F-35Cs each from 015 & 017.

Orbat at 2018: 24 x F/A-18F, 4 x EA-18G, 72 x F-35C, 8 x A330, 6 x Wedgetail, 12 x AP-3C+, 12 x Mariner UAV

Yes, it means we'll be operating two combat types, but it also gives us a lower risk transition to the F-35 (I suggest the C model due to more robust airframe/landing gear and longer range of bigger wing), provides a capable, networked platform with which to replace the F-111, and allows the 'hugged' F/A-18A/B fleet to be wound down gracefully without having to resort to replacing any centre barrels @ >$12M and 12+ months downtime per airframe.

Thoughts?

Magoo :ok:

[Pass-A-Frozo]

I'm thinking buy another 24 Hercs or transport aircraft. More useful for what we are doing now-adays :) Then the Army could almost expect us to act like Unimogs. ( I said Almost )

[griffinblack]

P-A-F, only 24? I thought you would want at least 36!!!

[Point0Five]

To be fair, we'll keep the Js, so the additional 24 will give us 36 Hercs:)

They should look quite nice next to our C-17s!

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Well they did have an option for another 24 J's that they let expire. Silly I think, given how much more a J model costs now. Still though, buy 24 more :) :}

[W800i]

I like MAGOODOTCOMS suggestion.
The RAAF having an electronic attack capability with 4 G model Super Hornets would be interesting

[Magoodotcom]

I like MAGOODOTCOMS suggestion.
The RAAF having an electronic attack capability with 4 G model Super Hornets would be interesting

The good thing about the F/A-18F is that all Block 2 airframes are built with the EA-18G's wiring, and 'for, not with' the sensors and electronics modules, so you can always have four airframes available by swapping the systems out regardless of maintenance requirements. Perhaps we could even acquire extra ALQ-99s and associated systems and have them on standby in case additional electronic attack support is required.

If we're talking transports, I'd also like to see another squadron of Js added to the fleet, especially now that we've sorted out the first batch of Js and they're now earning their keep. As much as I love the Hs, four of them are almost knackered and the rest of the fleet may require a new wing carry-through box before 2012, so it might be time to trade them in while they're still worth something. :{

As for C-17s - really nice idea but it's an expensive aircraft to acquire (>$250m each), and expensive to run if you're only running four or six of them! Anecdotal evidence suggests that, although the Brits love the aircraft, the lease is not necessarily the most cost effective way of operating them. Meanwhile, the A400M is still a long way away from being a reality (2010+ delivery), and the only nations to sign up to date have been industrial partners.

Maybe we can spend a bit of Costello's 05/06 surplus on six C-17s instead of a $10/week tax cut! But then again, the hospital waitlists are up, the roads need fixing, and my kid's school still has to raise its own funds for a hall and classroom air conditioning...hmmm....:uhoh:

Magoo:ok:

[Gnadenburg]

If we are opting for a fleet of "stealth" fighters, why would we need an "electronic attack" capability? Perhaps we should be playing hardball with the Yanks- which the Pom's now seem to be doing- ensuring access to something more than export quality stealth.

With a million Australians now working abroad with dependants, and half again touring the planet at any one time, there is real justification for a long range transport aircraft ( on top of current evolving ADF airlift requirements ).

Personally, if I was being evacuated, C17's with hot galley equipment and more seat pitch and less noise, definately preference to a C130, with it's canvas seats and those awful ration packs.

[Magoodotcom]

If we are opting for a fleet of "stealth" fighters, why would we need an "electronic attack" capability?

Frontal aspect stealth and LPI sensors/datalinks may not be sufficient to defeat a modern enemy IADS alone. You'll note I also have F/A-18Fs in the mix as well as the F-35s.:hmm:

Perhaps we should be playing hardball with the Yanks- which the Pom's now seem to be doing- ensuring access to something more than export quality stealth.

Don't believe everything you read about "export quality stealth". Every partner nation who signed up for the development phase, every partner who then signs up for the sustainment phase, and every paid up customer have been or will be promised a specific level of performance to which they will have agreed before paying their money. Whether that level of performance is less than that which the US is getting is neither relevant nor is it likely to be known by the partner nation/export customer.;)

With a million Australians now working abroad with dependants, and half again touring the planet at any one time, there is real justification for a long range transport aircraft ( on top of current evolving ADF airlift requirements ).

Agreed, although one must question the value of only 4-6 airframes (at least one or two of which will likely be unavailable) if we were forced to evacuate more than a few hundred Aussies from anywhere. I think you'll find civil aircraft would be quickly pressed into service in such a scenario.:ooh:

Personally, if I was being evacuated, C17's with hot galley equipment and more seat pitch and less noise, definately preference to a C130, with it's canvas seats and those awful ration packs.

If I was being evacuated from a trouble spot by the RAAF, I wouldn't care whether it was by C-17 or Tiger Moth. I doubt evacuee comfort is high on the list of priorities for those planners considering whether to buy 4-6 C-17s @ $250m+ each or 12-15 C-130Js @ ~$70m each.:confused:

Magoo:ok:

[W800i]

Replacing the 12 C-130H herky birds would seem to me to be a sensible idea, considering their various ages and conditions. The J model line was apparently nearly shut down recently thus Lockheed Martin may be ready to price them very competitively. I dont remember where I read it but I do recall that the RAAF werent entirely impressed with the technical back up they received from Lockheed sorting out the various software and propellor bugs the J model initially had. If this is true then the RAAF might be a little reluctant to purchase new J model herc's?

Having walked thru a C-17 at Avalon I would say that having them in the RAAF inventory would without doubt be a plus. I remember an announcement saying that the C-17 could land on the grass strip at the back of Avalon if it were 20 metres longer. This ability to get into tight and short runways would be of great tactical benefit to the army in particular. I have to say that I am uncomfortable seeing ADF personnel & equipment being transported in Russian airlifters thus just on this point I believe a C-17 purchase is justified.

Two questions to finish on. I believe that the new A330 tankers will be delivered without a main deck cargo capability, is this correct?

Also I have discovered podcasting on my new phone, does anyone know of any aviation or military podcasts. I found the aero news newtork daily podcast but would like to hear of any others out there please!

[Magoodotcom]

I believe that the new A330 tankers will be delivered without a main deck cargo capability, is this correct?

This is correct, as Airbus are yet to certify the A330 with a cargo door and the ADF doesn't necessarily want to be lead customer on such a program. This does not preclude a retrofit down the track. Airbus has certified A300 and A310 freighters which have essentially the same fuselage tube cross section as the A330, although there are different materials, CG and no doubt other issues to deal with.

Magoo

[Gnadenburg]

Magoo

It was in jest, my creature comforts reference to C17's. But again, personally, I think there is real justification for a very long range jet transport aircraft- the numbers of Australians abroad now is staggering.

Your proposed order of battle for the RAAF is, in the decade of the army, beyond budget and beyond the personnel resources. We will never see a 100 aircraft combat fleet- how many operational fighter & bomber crews do we have anyway? Work with 16 interim fighters and a JSF order for 50 to 60.

[Magoodotcom]

Magoo
It was in jest, my creature comforts reference to C17's. But again, personally, I think there is real justification for a very long range jet transport aircraft- the numbers of Australians abroad now is staggering.

Agreed, it's just that it's fairly long bow to draw a link between the need to strategic transports and the number of Aussies abraod. Now, today's announcement of two Chinooks to be deployed to Afghanistan - THAT'S a reason!;)

Your proposed order of battle for the RAAF is, in the decade of the army, beyond budget and beyond the personnel resources. We will never see a 100 aircraft combat fleet- how many operational fighter & bomber crews do we have anyway? Work with 16 interim fighters and a JSF order for 50 to 60.

I agree that 100 combat aircraft is wishful thinking, but there's still an idealist streak inside me somewhere. And yes, if we were to ever sustain such a force, the whole aircrew recruitment and retention policy needs a close looking at! Now that the airlines are hiring again after a few lean years, I hear the fast jet ranks, especially at that vital middle management level (FLTLT, SQNLDR), are thinning fast. :oh:

However, look for some radical solutions in the next decade or so which may allow us to afford, if not sustain 100-odd combat aircraft. ;)

Magoo:ok:

[griffinblack]

Magoo, I am interested in what you think is the problem with "the whole aircrew recruitment and retention policy". You may be aware we have just had a review of ADF flight pay, and given the current numbers (I think you will find the ADF is actually surplus), I am not optimistic of a favourable outcome. I am not sure that FLTLT is middle management in the fast jet ranks - you rarely come across anything less, expect brand new bogies.

We will never see a hundred combat acft again.

[Magoodotcom]

Magoo, I am interested in what you think is the problem with "the whole aircrew recruitment and retention policy". You may be aware we have just had a review of ADF flight pay, and given the current numbers (I think you will find the ADF is actually surplus), I am not optimistic of a favourable outcome.

I wasn't aware of the flight pay review, but I doubt it can touch even a training first officer's salary over at the Red Rat. But I stand to be corrected. The other considerations are that many FLTLTs and SQNLDRs are in their late 20s to early 30s, starting a family, and wanting more stability than a two year rotational posting cycle can provide. There are those that are happy where they are (some of the guys at 76SQN for example), but once you get to SQNLDR level and are a flight commander or XO, then you're likely on the steep career slope and will have to spend some time at Russell Hill if you want to go further, or you get out and take your skills to the airlines or the contractors. :(

I am not sure that FLTLT is middle management in the fast jet ranks - you rarely come across anything less, expect brand new bogies.

Most of the QFIs at 2OCU are FLTLTs, so I'd call them middle managers in that they are qualified to go to war, plan coalition missions and lead a flight, however if you want to play semantics, I'm happy to call them 'supervisors' if you like.:hmm:

We will never see a hundred combat acft again.

Unfortunately, I think you're right.:ugh:

Magoo

[griffinblack]

I am not really “in the know”, but I just don’t see, or have not heard of any great issues recently with out SQNLDR, QFI or pilot numbers. Given numbers are stable, would it not follow then that there is no issue with recruitment or retention? What you are talking about is natural attrition. A 2 year posting cycle is probably on the rareish side and many would do back to back postings in the same locality. Mot postings are of greater length than 2 years.

A line QFI is not a manager, irrespective of which school or unit he/she is in. Unfortunately, if you upright and breathing now a days, you are qualified to go to war. Most cat D's, after SQN induction, are taken - Bougainville, Afghanistan, Iraq and East Timor. I agree, QFI's are best described as supervisors.

In respect to the F35 - “Whether that level of [stealth] performance is less than that which the US is getting is neither relevant nor is it likely to be known by the partner nation/export customer”. I disagree, it is vital.

[Gnadenburg]

Magoo

I would only be drawing the long bow, if the large numbers of expat's & travellers abroad, was the only justification I had used for strategic airlift. I always stated it was in addition to current and evolving ADF airlift requirments. Perhaps, with consideration to both the humanitarian reach of a C17 fleet and a responsibility to Oz expatriates and tourists, there could be extra funding alocated to defence for this new capability.

What non-core assets can the RAAF strip, to get anywhere near a respectable fighter fleet? Caribous, Hawks, Roulettes, airfield defence palmed of to the army? They still got a marching band?

[griffinblack]

Gnadenburg,

I tend to agree with you in respect to a C17 purchase, but not perhaps with your reasons why. But that is neither here nor there.

Your hit list of non core assets are interesting. My personal opinion is that the RAAF does have quite a bit of fat able to be trimmed, however the RAAF are very good at justifying and protecting what it has. However, as I’ve stated in another post, Caribou, although not a high priority perhaps for the RAAF, is integral to the land forces ability to conduct manoeuvre. Tactical lift (rather than C130 role of theatre/strat lift) may not need to be conducted by the Caribou or indeed the RAAF, but it is a vital component of land manoeuvre. The Roulettes have no tactical or strategic role, but they are an integral component of recruitment (which is vital). Likewise the Hawks are our lead in fighter – again vital. Airfield defence is not an army role, therefore is not core role of army – at the end of the day if you want airfield defence you have to rob Peter to pay Paul, and the RAAF are best served to do the role. None of the capabilities you have identified will purchase or sustain a fighter fleet of 100 jets. And all of the capabilities are in there own way vital.

[Bobster]

Back to the F-35 question, back in 2002 Boeing was quoting a flyaway price of $US65-70M for the F-15E and about $US50-53M for the F-18E/F. As stated earlier with the F-35 going past $US60M and esculating, Australia would have a competetive mix with a Strike Eagle/Super Hornet fleet mix (logistics aside). As Fragnasty said, you fly against the man, not the platform. Korea, considering its security issues, has opted for the F-15 and now Singapore has commited to the type.

[W800i]

As Bobster points out there are other options in the market place in the short term instead of the F-35. As I have said before I am not qualified to say whether the F-35 will or wont be a success. However I am uncomfortable in putting all of our eggs in one basket. I just wonder whether the RAAF are backed into a corner regarding this however. The RAAF have spent alot of money on the current F-18 fleet to bring it up to a better standard. The decision to retire the F111 fleet is made and decisions for stand off weapons and new FLIR pods are either made or close to it. I understand that the RAAF will be joining the centre barrell effort set up by the Canadians(I think) which is by all accounts a huge job on each air frame. All this says to me that the decision to go with the F-35 is set in stone.

As Bobster and others have pointed out, there are current aircraft that are muture and available now. I just wonder had the RAAF purchased the Super Hornet instead of Hugging the hornet fleet they could of joined the SDD phase of the JSF but had 20 years with a new airframe to sit off and watch. Hopefully all goes well with the F-35 and the government of the day of whichever pursuasion supports a full 100 aircraft buy for the RAAF!

[W800i]

This is an excerpt of an interview with Dr Stephen Gumley, CEO of the DMO. The full transcript is at
http://www.yaffa.com.au/defence/current/source.htm


ADM: Which projects keep you awake at night if any?
Gumley: The Joint Strike Fighter is keeping me awake at the moment, specifically the Quadrennial Defence Review in America and what the impacts of that might be to the program. You could talk to 20 different senior people in government in America and get 20 different conclusions at the moment where that might head. We have all got to, over the next few weeks, watch very carefully where the American program goes.
ADM: Are you particularly afraid of reduced JSF numbers for the US putting the price up for us?
Gumley: That could happen. In any of these airplane programs if you reduce the quantity the unit price goes up because you have to amortise the development and mobilisation costs over a smaller quantity. What could happen out of the QDR has a couple of impacts. It really could impact costs but it could also impact schedule and we are just watching again how the flow of funds from the US Congress to the project goes.

[W800i]

http://www.afa.org/magazine/jan2006/0106edit.asp

This link is to the US Air force association. The prediction at the end of the article is that the planned USAF buy of F-35's will be cut. The QDR is apparently due for release in February.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

I remember when I did a course on C3I systems the quote something along the lines of "95% of C3I systems are either not delivered [cancelled], or are delivered either over budget or not inline with what the user expected".

I think modern aircraft will begin to follow a similar path as more and more complex avionics / mission systems are included. Just take a look at the crusty old C-130 crews in the US who complain about the cost of the J model and how long it's perceived to have taken to get online. However I suspect I know what crew role these people occupied :E

If you want a quality, modern aircraft you have to expect it to cost well in excess of what you think, and late.

[W800i]

I dont disagree with your central premise that complex software integration tasks are prone to difficulties. The F-22's software problems are a case in point. The Americans have essentially the money to fix these issues regardless of cost.

I would state that many of the programme difficulties that the ADF has experienced particularly in the last 10 or so years have been with cutting edge integrations and systems. Most specifically when designing and integrating very specific Australian based requirements eg The Super Sea Sprite helicopter. Lack of political support and of course financial insecurity havent helped either. Australia doesnt have the limitless funding pool that the Americans appear to have. Although this may change in the near future.

The encouraging signs within defence are firstly Stephen Gumleys attitude of not wanting to be quite at the cutting edge of things. The other encouraging sign is project Wedgetail. So far so good. The political support for this project has shown hopefully to politicians that political and long term financial stability and support for projects is an absolute requirement.

My concern regarding the F-35 is that we are counting on it from a very early point in its design phase. Unlike Wedgetail the RAAF are a very small partner in a very big project. I only hope that the F-35 involvment is not being driven by a political requirement to be involved in a very large international project rather than selecting the absolute best system for the RAAF.

The F-35 may very well be that system, but thats the point it may. As some of the posters have pointed out, there are aircraft systems available now eg the Super Hornet, that are a known quantity, could be delivered on time and for an agreed price.

Sorry for the length of reply!!

[Funk]

F/A35 waste of money; F22 massive waste of money (i read they called it F and not F/A cause it cant heandle a2g ordnance).
Keep the F18's and F111's for fly pasts and dump and burns.
Why waste more money on expensive combat airframes that will never be used (yes the F18's were used ever so briefly in GW2 and Diego Garcia).
I hear our boys being transported on 3rd world airliners and freighters on regular basis cause the d..heads in Canberra in and out of blue suits blew $150 million of promise at a look at of a JSF.
Lets give our services something they really need not what looks good for a flypast or in the movies.

[griffinblack]

"Keep the F18's and F111's for fly pasts and dump and burns." - how much will this increasing antique "capability" cost in support and maintenance?

“Why waste more money on expensive combat airframes that will never be used” – I hope we never use them, that is what deterrence and diplomacy is all about. However, if we have to go to war at least make sure we are equipped and prepared. The F18 and F111 are not combat aircraft that can compete on a future battlefield, Furthermore, they will become unsupportable and unsustainable at some point in time.

What about one of the later Tranches of Typhoon?

[Gnadenburg]

You don't have to be Napolean, to realise the RAAF needs a big, heavy fighter-bomber, that can fly the length and breadth of Indonesia from northern bases, with refuelling, and with a capability to fend of developing nations' air threats and deliver a good load of munitions.
Such a capability will be relevant in a war on terror, aswell as conventional threats in the region that people seem to blissfully believe no longer exist- power and resource hungry Tiger economies, in an Asia with an inevitable, declining US influence.

The only plane available is the Strike Eagle.

So hop to it! Scrap F111's. Replace with a squadron of F15's and disband a Hornet squadron. That should see the RAAF through until a reduced JSF buy available. F15's replaced long term by emerging technologies. RAAF maintains regional superiority.

I note Beazley launching into this debate recently. Will become more of a hot political issue if the RAAF crashes an F111 in the next few years.

[ftrplt]

I was predicting in 1999 to all and sundry that would and would not listen that JSF would turn out to be a mistake.

The F18 upgrade and centre barrel replacement should have both been canned and an F15E order placed. Upon delivery replace the F111's first (which would probably have been completed by now).

Unfrotunately the Australian military's penchant for 'cutting edge' is going to bite it on the proverbial as far as fast jet capability is concerned from 2012 or so.

The F15E is the capability we really wanted when we got the F18, unfortunately it was developed a few years to late for us then. An F15E ordered in the late 1990's would have been an extrememly useful piece of kit - and the software and upgrade support achievable through the USAF system would have left the USN system for dead.

The F15E in the USAF (having done the exchange) is the workhorse. The true extent of its capabilities and its sheer effectiveness however are actually kept 'on the hush' because the powers that be do not want to risk funding for F22 and to a lesser extent F35.

[remofo]

F22 massive waste of money (i read they called it F and not F/A cause it cant heandle a2g ordance).

Actually it can carry 2 x 1,000 lb JDAMs giving it all-weather ground strike capability...but obviously it's primary role is Air-Superiority. Atleast the F/A-35 is a multi-role strike fighter...possibly giving the Navy a fixed-wing combat capability...a more useful option.

Pre-loved Super Hornets would be the best, most cost effective option if they would be made available. I don't think there's much chance of that any time soon. Even if they were available, there's a greater poolitical will to spend huge amounts of money on expensive and unproven US programs like JSF and Son of Star Wars instead of hospitals, schools and other vital infrastructure.

[Gnadenburg]

The only pre-loved fighters that will be going around, are going to be "A" model F16's & F18's.

Foolish politicians, a public love affair with the F111, and a delusional air force brass, that believed they were to be getting a 100 fighter fleet, have left us in this inevitable mess.

If you can fight an air campaign against Indonesia, you are in good preparation for a myriad of possible future scenarios in Asia and alongside the US. A small interim F15E capability, coupled with tankers and new AWACS, the most affordable way to maintain RAAF regional supremacy and alliance committments to the USA. ;)

[W800i]

An article posted in Flight international recently regarding software glitches with the new AESA APG-79 radars to be installed in the super hornets is interesting. As the article points out, “All earlier generation radar systems pass through similar processes including the effort to achieve system stability."

I just wonder how many glitches and system reliabilities will need to be sorted out in the all new F-35.
http://81.144.183.107/Articles/2006/01/31/Navigation/190/204360/%e2%80%98Dazzling%e2%80%99+Boeing+FA-18EF+radar+marred+by+software+faults+.html

[Gnadenburg]

Milt from the forum makes his point! But Milt, with all due respect, won't sending young men to war in F111's circa 2020, be the historical equivalent of sending Mustangs up against Migs in Korea?


F-111's retirement 'unwise'
Sean Parnell
February 13, 2006
THE Defence Department has come under fire over the planned early retirement of Australia's fleet of F-111 fighter jets as part of a multi-billion-dollar replacement program that even the department admits is risky.
Amid uncertainty over the timing and cost of replacement F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, a parliamentary committee has been told the gradual decommissioning of the 21 remaining F-111s is unwise.
Retired group captain Milton Cottee, a former RAAF squadron commander, warned the demise of the F-111s would increase the threat posed by Australia's neighbours.
"There is now little doubt that Australia will have a significant deterioration in our defensive/offensive posture with serious gaps during which some belligerent may well be tempted to become aggressive," Mr Cottee told the inquiry in a submission.
Having been a project manager for the acquisition of Australia's F-111Cs, Mr Cottee said he knew their capabilities and believed the fleet should be kept in service until 2020.
Defence wants to withdraw the F-111s by 2010 and upgrade its fleet of 55 F/A-18s as it brings on line up to 100 F-35s, which are likely to cost almost $15 billion. They will not be operational before 2012.
The department, in its submission to the committee's inquiry into Australia's regional air superiority, said the "early retirement" of the F-111s in 2010 was largely dependent upon the upgrades to the F/A-18 fleet.
While the department stood by its decision to buy F-35s that have not yet been built, let alone flown, it conceded that the jet replacement program was "complex" because Australia had to keep its air power at a comparable level to other countries in the region and manage the risks cost-effectively.
"While Defence has confidence that the JSF will mature to meet the air force's future air combat capability requirements, it is clear that cost, schedule and capability risks associated with introduction of the JSF decrease the later we acquire the aircraft," the department said.
"It is also clear that cost, schedule and capability risks associated with the F/A-18 and F-111 increase the longer we keep the aircraft in service."
The Howard Government is likely to amend the jet replacement program if any of Australia's neighbours significantly increase their air power, or if the F-35 continues to run behind schedule and over budget.
The US is forging ahead with the F-35 project and the Quadrennial Defence Review, released by the Pentagon last week, has eased fears the project would be scaled back.

[ANDRE25i]

ur right mate, cheers

[Lodown]

At US$300M apiece, the F22 is an expensive piece of kit.

[W800i]

Flight International reports that the USAF has proposed cutting 25% of its combat fleet to pay for the F-22 and F-35 fleets!

http://81.144.183.107/Articles/2006/02/14/Navigation/192/204699/US+defence+budget+USAF+legacy+fleet+pays+the+price+for.html

My limited understanding of all things American is that the USAF via the pentagon put their budget request forward to the president whom then passes it onto the congress and the senate. I believe either of these two bodies or the President can radically restructure or even reject budget proposals. If this is the case it will be very interesting to see if it passes. As the article hints at, 25% less aeroplanes will no doubt mean fewer bases. This of course will not be a popular thing to sell for a local congresman or senator considering the jobs and economic activity tied up in bases.
In the Australian context this is I guess good news, however their are alot of hurdles for the F-35 to cross yet.