$300 million on JSF... are they MAD ?!? [Archive]

Roller Merlin

29th Jun 2002, 01:39

Booger,
despite the detailed technical arguements, the decision is one of being in a partnership of protection in a globalised world. We have to choose which gang we will ally with, be supported by, trade with, leverage off and gain influence from.

The $300M is 'partner' money. Our masters have decided that furture protection and participation in conflict will require this partnership, since we are - economically- too small to afford to stand alone. Also, we are unlikely to apply this weapon system alone. By plugging into the deal at this stage it is showing that we will be founding partners with the project, that we will support the yanks in their protectionist principles, and they will (in principle) support us in many regional issues. Hence we can justify the weapon because it brings the yanks into our protectionist policies. The kiwi government on the other hand has dropped the ball by getting rid of its combat airforce, and in doing so signalled a resignation of it's influence - it cannot leverage economically with with an offer of combat air support. Economically, they have pulled out the plug to save their pennies, but in world terms they are powerless to kick butt, even in their backyard.

On the technical side, he who has the superior air toys, logistics, intel and economic horsepower now wins the airwar, despite huge armies. There is no doubt the JSF will be a good machine, and the logistic support base of the US industry will swing behind it, making contenders harder to support. If we cannot patch seamlessly with the yank battlespace operation, feed off their logistics and support their intents and goals in the future, they will not be genuinely interested (like the Kiwis now). And they clearly have the industry and the toys. All the signals and support from our govt re sept 11 / Afganistan / Howards trade speech to US leaders...etc -display this policy now.

It's all about power. We will be a bit like a potential USAF det-A.

ftrplt

29th Jun 2002, 04:30

Jeez Roller, everything I would like to say but no chance of putting it in words. Well said old chap!!

18-Wheeler

29th Jun 2002, 06:08

It's defintely one of the DUMBEST things I've seen the gevernment do .... um, ever.
The SU-37 Super Flanker is the beast we need. Nearly the speed of the F-111, more range, far more manouverable

Gibbo

29th Jun 2002, 06:12

Roller Merlin ,

If the rationale for the JFS decision is 'teaming' with our allies then why did the Air87 decision go to the French (Eurocopter Tiger)? There were TWO credible US contenders and plenty of crew room discussion that alignment with the US logistics (and politics) system would prevail.

Perhaps the Air 6000 team are doing some detailed technical research too?

BTW, a look back in time reveals some similar criticism of the F111 acquisition; maybe the JSF will be as successful?

Good username!
:D
Gibbo

hmm...

29th Jun 2002, 06:14

Yet to be built?

Then what the hell is that thing flying around on TV???

I thought the F-15 was on the cards at the last airshow. The US pulled out all stops to "show it off" and try to sell some.

I guess it didn't work.

Macchi

29th Jun 2002, 06:53

Sorry "Hmmm...", but Booger is right:

but what you see 'flying around' on TV is not the JSF. It is merely one of the Lockheed-Martin JSF prototypes that won the fly-off for the JSF program against the Boeing submission. It has a looong way to go before being a commercially viable production aircraft.

Some other aircraft 'flying around' that have yet to obtain Initial Operational Capability (IOC):

F22 Raptor IOC ~ 2005 (YF-22 first flew around 1996?)
Eurofighter [version 1] IOC ~ 2006 (prototype flew ~ 1998?)
Rafale IOC ~2003 (prototype flew ~ 1995?)

There's a big difference between an airframe that flies and an airframe that fights (or performs it's intended role in the case of non-fighter types).

Booger

29th Jun 2002, 07:20

Roller Merlin,

I agree entirely, you are preaching to the converted re: the RAAF's (and Australia's) best option being to "hitch it's wagon" to the US Defence juggernaut.

My bone of contention is our insistence on completing more & more complex "capability requirement studies". We are becoming too smart for our own good. I realise that bureacracy is an inevitible part of our capital acquisition processes, but do we really need to incorporate studies that ask: "an aircraft could do this job but would we be better served by purchasing some sort of gerbil powered UCAV utilising antigrav thruster technology integrated with particle beam stand-off weaponary?";)

Jokes aside, the point is modern defence capital acquisitions are probably the second most expensive item in our nations budget (behind welfare I'm guessing). Our recent history has us ordering platforms that were not mature in their development or employment e.g. Collins, J-models, Anzacs, SeaSprites, the list goes on & on... Obtaining a "state of the art" military platform is impossible to achieve; the law of computer development coupled with the time required to iron out any platform deficiencies means that when equipment is fielded it is already obsolete. The benefit of choosing unproven or immature platforms is far outweighed by the risks of delayed IOC, cost over-runs and associated stop-gap replacement costs to maintain combat effectiveness whilst we await the arrival of the 'magic bullet'.

The RAAF (& ADF) would be better served by purchasing/leasing current, proven, viable and available airframes that exist today.

The beauty of this is we can still be "USAF Det-A" and when/if JSF matures (at least 10 years from now) we could still avail ourselves of it...

Double Asymmetric

29th Jun 2002, 08:39

Do Kaman built fighters? My money's on them.:p

Pass-A-Frozo

29th Jun 2002, 08:47

I see the problem as that if you want to have "State of the art" equipment you need to get on at an early Stage. The J-model acquistion had it's teething problems (don't all new aircraft, have a look at the F111 acquisition). However it has come good. Also lets not forget , if you buy off the plans , just like houses, you get a good discount. Have a look at the current price for purchasing J models.

Scrap the $300 million and buy 6 A400's :)

Roller Merlin

29th Jun 2002, 11:02

’Why did the Air87 decision go to the French (Eurocopter Tiger)? ‘
Good question Gibbo! Perhaps someone better qualified than I could provide the facts regarding the Tiger buy, however my guestimate is: just a few aircraft required + just a few dollars available + need relatively soon = buy the cheapest one that can do the job. Besides, the ARA commanders will tell you that a helo is just another means of getting the men onto the ground! Conversely, the ADF wants 100 JSF airframes, and that is one hell of a huge buy. But it looks better being 10 years away (Just like my mortgage....hell what a lot of money...costs a lot to set up too, but it looks better over 20 years!).

’The RAAF (& ADF) would be better served by purchasing/leasing current, proven, viable and available airframes that exist today. ‘

Booger,
the ADF already owns the aircraft it wants for the next 7-10 years, and the Hornet upgrade (now in progress) will see it through this time. All defence costings now are done on a whole-of-life system management basis, so if you get rid of the asset early and lease something else you blow the depreciation a and usage budget in a big way with all associated projects (AAMRAM, HUG,...etc) becoming worthless! Even a leased combat machine needs an enormous ADF infrastructure to maintain the system. Besides, the swish airframes built today will be like Beta video recorders and aching for major systems upgrades by the time the open-system JSF comes on line. And if a UCAV can do the job instead of JSF then the yanks would not be committing to 2500 or so airframes. (But wait, perhaps the JSF system will be such that it could be used as a UCAV...just hold that thought!!!)

My well picked friend, you are obviously familiar with the rampant bureaucracy in the 'grey sponge' that justifies so many defense jobs with pithy studies and reviews that most worthy Ppruners could manage in a heatbeat. If these studies finally bubble to the surface in the form of an endorsed project, they often get hammered and modified by the political whims of the goverment - and the ADF doesn't get what it desired anyway. One of the best things about this JSF bit is, as you pointed out, it is likely to be an off-the-shelf buy to fit the US battlesystem (avoiding political footballs such as vote-buying industry support, locally-sourced systems....etc) and the public has 10 years to get used to the idea of spending the cash. With JSF the banker and bully on the block has laid down his cash already, the project will happen, and it's a matter of get on the train now or miss out. Also, in 5-8 years the political pundits will be afraid to pull out the plug because so much will have been invested by then.
;) RM

Gibbo

29th Jun 2002, 11:53

You are right Roller Merlin,

the scale is different, but the concept isn't really.

The Tiger is the newest of the Air87 contenders (assuming that you don't count the Whiskey Cobra from Bell as new, but an extension of the line). The Apache is well established, even old. I don't see the speed of acquisition as being relevant.

As for troop delivery; it would be a terribly slow assault ferrying the guys on at a time in the tandem seat of an Armed Recce Helicopter.

The Air 87 programme is listed in the order of 1.2 billion and I believe was aimed at acquiring between 24 and 30 airframes (although my info may be out of date on the numbers)

It will be very interesting to see where we end up in terms of fighter (and bomber/recce) capability. I have to say though that IMHO the ADF does OK at acquisition; it is a very complex game and we (Aust) are pretty well equipped. It could always be better, but what couldn't?

Gibbo

Knave

29th Jun 2002, 22:15

Im just wondering what will happen when the next election comes around. This is a big ticket item and Labor's still smarting over the submarine contract dramas, so why wouldnt they use this as an election issue out of sheer spite and promise a royal commision and a 'review' should they be voted in just to raise their profile in the defense debate? They could use NZ as a precedent to say the huge expense isnt necessary. How about cancelling the deal and cut our losses and buy UCAV's? I can hear the arguements now.

donpizmeov

30th Jun 2002, 03:06

Besides being available for pictures in the RAAF news, and providing some training for P3s, why does Australia have a fighter force? They haven't the range to get to any bad guys, and the bad guys don't have the range to get to anything important (if I remember correctly there is a big sea gap around Oz!).
Surely a nice cruise missle (Sub launched of course!) to go out and touch people, and a nice kick arse gunship helo would be a better investment.
Best the RAAF keeps to what it does well, Airline training
:D

Going Boeing

30th Jun 2002, 03:36

A contact of mine who is associated with a company that has been selected to support the JSF if it does enter service with the ADF said that this aircraft is going to be the best value for money platform available at the right time to replace the F111/F18. It is being built using the best components that provide significant operational capability at the best price over the life of the aircraft type ie the aircraft is being built to a price so there shouldn't be any nasty surprises for the government after contracts have been signed. :D

Booger

30th Jun 2002, 06:59

GB, that "friend" wouldn't happen to be you by any chance..?
;)

Booger

30th Jun 2002, 07:29

"Besides, the swish airframes built today will be like Beta video recorders and aching for major systems upgrades by the time the open-system JSF comes on line"

Roller Merlin, my supercharged V12 liquid-cooled friend, I'm guessing you must own a computer to be contributing to this forum, so my question to you is this:

Why did you decide to buy your computer when you did, rather than simply wait a month or so more when something far better & cheaper would've become available?

A rhetorical question, but it highlights the point that what you buy now will inevitably become obsolete. If we wait for "the next big development" before acquiring it, we will (by definition) never acquire anything. You refer to the JSF as an "open-system", this sounds a lot like the stereo salesman who tried to tell me the amplifier I was thinking of purchasing was "future-proof"... Such a beast simply does not exist.

I would love to flip forward 20 years to when the RAAF's first F35 takes to to the sky (a reasonable & realistic IOC blowout I'm sure you'd agree). At the same time, the 'Microsoft BG-1' quantum computer equipped prototype fighter has it's maiden flight. Of course, our F35 is now a 'closed system Beta video recorder' because it's primitive electrical architecture is based on printed circuit boards &, GASP , copper wiring!!!! Meanwhile, our arthritic F18s & F111s, having ingeniously been held together for the past 10 years by a combination of dried seaweed and snot (at an enormous cost to the Australian taxpayer) are finally put out to stud. Somewhere, a wizened old cynic will sit in a retirement home, reading an aviation editorial (hopefully not written by Defence Minister Kopp) rueing the decision not to buy an 'off the shelf' solution all those years ago, rather than trying to buy the goose that lays the golden egg... (Phew, time to lay off the caffeine...)

;)

P.S. Donpizmeov: sorry mate, no bites today!

Going Boeing

30th Jun 2002, 11:43

Wrong guess Booger - I'm just a QF line pilot with no business interests on the side. I was just passing on the info as told to me. Everything that I have heard indicates that the JSF is the front runner to replace the ADF's Fighter/Strike aircraft. GB :D

FishHead

1st Jul 2002, 00:24

don.... you do like stirring the pot, don't you :)

Aynayda Pizaqvick

1st Jul 2002, 10:16

Ahhh Don. The great moat theory of defence. Not a NZ Labour politician perchance:mad:
By the way, I thought it was the airlines that were training RAAF pilots for a change (BBJ)!?

donpizmeov

1st Jul 2002, 11:52

I am not quite the Kiwi polli yet, but I have heard they are amongst the best money can buy!
It is very easy to go all gooey about shiny new jets, but when the budget is a small one, don't you think it should be spent on something that is really needed?
As I said before, defending Willy or Tindal may be great fun, but does it really achieve anything? It is the moat that keeps the bad guys away. Why not put a bl##dy big boat with a new generation 3D radar and SM2er out there to chase them away (and no the ANZAC canoe does not count!). A whole lot more effective, and a whole lot longer endurance than a handful of pointy jets.
I am sure once officer Fish Head becomes the chief things will change!!!!

Fishy
Heard some very bad news last night. My number one son wants to become a college boy!!!!! I blame his mother!!!!!

ChristopherRobin

1st Jul 2002, 18:58

Roller Merlin touched on why the JSF could be a real winner, and the reason is logistics.

Or rather logistics is a part of the overarching reason why JSF is tipped to have low running costs. JSF will have information systems embedded that will allow it to achieve Prognostic Health Monitoring, or in other words, the damn aircraft will predict when a part is going to fail, info the IS, which will order the part and produce a job sheet for the maintainers. PHM being a part of the USA's Autonomic Logistics 2010 concept.

...thus, the theory goes, making Log a much tighter and cheaper proposition.

Another reason why it should actually be ok is that the F-35 is a relatively low-risk design, built by the people who practically invented stealth, with a reputation for coming in under budget.

Excepting the F-22, before everyone jumps down my throat, they handed back $19m on the SR-71 in the 1960s and boasted that they would give back $10-15m of their JSF developmental money!

So to be fair, I reckon anyone who gets in on the JSF is doing themselves a favour. At least it is the product of a competition rather than an international quango like other aircraft I could mention. It'll be the F-16 for the 21st century, cheap-ish, cheerful and a damn good piece of kit.

And don't forget the info systems - some day the platform manufacturer will be a sub-contractor and the Prime will be the people putting in the systems (just so long as its not microsoft)

...meaning of course that the geeks will inherit the earth!

anyway, I'm off now to watch the Star Trektacular on Sky.

ftrplt

1st Jul 2002, 22:50

Don,

all I will say is watch this space!

FishHead

2nd Jul 2002, 01:06

Don,

You're damn right things will change when I get to be chief.... why did we lose all those batmen anyway?

As far as #1 son goes, so long as he is taking after his mother, and not his father, I'm sure he'll be very 'popular' at the college ;)

To be fair though, you have got a point re the Navy's air defence boats.... a gaping hole in our capability right now, and not something that any knuck boy (or girl) would fill.

Nightingale

2nd Jul 2002, 17:38

Sounds like the RAAF intend to become part of the USAF ORBAT!!

Doesn't relying on US support (and some capability) mean that the RAAF has lost some of its autonomy?!? If Uncle Sam has to help out each time...... is that a good place to be?!? I don't recall that much help in East Timor...

Both the US and the Brits (biggest partners in cash terms) have something else to go with the F-35, either the F-22 or the Eurofighter, as do a lot of the other participants (although admittedly not all). If the F-35 is so blindingly good (even on paper!!) why are they bothering to do that?

:confused:

ChristopherRobin

2nd Jul 2002, 17:43

If the F-35 is so blindingly good (even on paper!!) why are they bothering to do that?

...possibly because Eurofighter is not a V/STOL aircraft?

Harrier can't go on forever can it?

Also the F-35 is slated as a replacement for the early-model F-18 for the US and to replace the USMC's fleet of AV-8Bs.

- that's why.

L J R

2nd Jul 2002, 19:33

Does BA Systems know Eurofighter is not a 'real' contender. They still appear to advertise it to be the ultimate replacement for All ADF fast jet needs.

ftrplt

2nd Jul 2002, 22:25

LJR,

they wont tell BAE that no one wants Eurofighter because they would stop providing box seats at Rugby and League games around the country! (Plus pens, models and stickers etc:) )

Booger

3rd Jul 2002, 00:38

Since I've already got my stainless steel BAe coffee mug & 'indigenous artwork Typhoon tie' then I'm happy to throw insults...

My personal favourite is their claim that the Bureafighter (when equipped with 3 jugs, 2 conformal tanks and a 200NM+ standoff weapon) could have the range of the F111. Of course, it would have to fly at 'theoritical long range cruise' speed (around M0.80?) at the tropopause to achieve this!!!

I also like their salesman's exclamation when showing pictures of the cockpit: "Look, there has never been a cockpit as modern and as ergonomic as this!!!" he said pointing out the 3MFDs and HOTAS (sorry, I mean VTAS) - Wow.

I guess the poms never looked into the cockpits of the circa 1980s Hornet/F16/Viggen/Mirage2000 etc... etc... Or perhaps the Brits regard any aircraft that doesn't have the oil pressure gauge in the centre of the panel while the main AI is located on the rear cockpit bulkhead as "super-modern ergonomics"!!!

:D

Jackonicko

3rd Jul 2002, 14:01

Booger.

OK, name a more modern cockpit, smart boy. With the same Wide angle modern HUD (not an old fashioned collimated job), big CRT displays, and with that degree of HOTAS and DVI. You can't 'see' DVI, but it's a core feature of the Typhoon MMI. And the way in which displays change format intuitively is also a stroke of genius. And it's a cockpit which fits pilots of all sizes, where everything falls beautifully to hand. It's even better than the updated Gripen. There are sticks to beat Typhoon with, but it's cockpit isn't one of them.

And nor is range if your alternative is to buy JSF. The Typhoon is cheaper than an F-15E or Rafale, and will be better than almost anything (excepting F-22) as an air-to-air aeroplane. It remains unproven in the air-to-mud role, however.

This thread was originally a question about JSF, "are they mad?"

If you'll bear with a very long answer, I'll say yes, and then explain why.

The Joint Strike Fighter has effectively been designed as an ‘F-16 for the 21st Century’. Technologically impressive, the JSF has been rigorously designed to cost, with a long-standing programme goal of achieving a lower unit price than the F-16. OK, lean manufacturing and smart assembly techniques (said to be BAE Systems biggest input into the programme) might reduce manufacturing costs significantly, but how cheap can a new aircraft (with all that R & D) and a Stealth aircraft be? Can you really build a JSF that's as well equipped as a Block 60 F-16 (or even better equipped) for so much less? Most people say that Lockheed can't and aren't trying to, and that JSF has useful work-arounds by relying on offboard kit.

The aircraft enjoys the cachet (and practical commonality advantages) of having been selected to serve in quantity with the USAF, USN and US Marine Corps, and looks set to enjoy widespread export success with a number of major air forces, including the British Royal Air Force and a number of core West European NATO nations. By contrast, Eurofighter and Rafale look like expensive and narrow national soultions (they aren't) which won't be widely exported (probably true enough). Saab’s Gripen, meanwhile, can be presented as being the aircraft of choice for minor neutral nations like Sweden, emerging democracies like South Africa and the cash-strapped East European former Warpac nations. Some believe that Austrian self-perception undermined Gripen’s chances in that country, because Austria wished to see itself as a more ‘mainstream’ West/Central European powerhouse and not as one of Gripen’s typically ‘peripheral’ customers.

But while the JSF variants delivered to the US forces will be formidable aircraft, with very low radar cross sections and an array of smart technologies, export versions of the aircraft are likely to be quite considerably sanitised and down-graded, and even the USA’s closest allies are unlikely to get the ‘full-spec’ aircraft. Anyone seriously think Australia would get the full-up, full-Stealth JSF?

Moreover JSF was designed within a very American context, as a low cost complement to the F-22, and optimised to operate in conjunction with the F-22, and with unlimited support aircraft, from JSTARS to AWACS, and including sophisticated real time reconnaissance and targeting platforms. Does the RAAF have all of this 'combat infrastructure' in any more than tokenistic amounts?

Since the earliest days of the JSF programme, whenever cost constraints have limited the JSF’s own autonomous on-board capabilities or equipment fit, it has been pointed out that the aircraft will have unparalleled access to ‘offboard sensors’, by being datalinked to F-22s, F/A-18E/Fs, F-15Es, E-3 Sentries, E-8 J-STARS and U-2Ss, and even to a rash of UAVs. The JSF does not need to be a great dogfighter, either, since the F-22 and F/A-18 will be available to US force commanders for the dedicated air-to-air role. It doesn’t really matter to the USAF that JSF is not easily able to carry AIM-9 class short range AAMs, (the seekers have no real field of view until after launch) because it can augment the F-22 by bringing extra AIM-120 AMRAAMs (albeit in their crop-finned, compressed carriage version) to the fight. Nor does it have to be the best long-range attack platform, since the US force commander can call upon a range of bombers and dedicated attack aircraft, from the B-2 Spirit to the F-15E. The fact that the JSF is a relatively short ranged bomb truck, toting only a pair of JDAM-class weapons over a range of about 700 miles is quite enough. For the US armed forces. But is it for the RAAF?

For the US forces, therefore, the JSF is a very useful force multiplier, which can augment and enhance other ‘clubs’ in the US ‘golf bag’. But for export customers, the JSF’s relative lack of autonomous capabilities may be less acceptable, while some believe that the aircraft’s key advantage of ‘Stealth’ is rapidly becoming less important, as counters are developed to radar low observability, and as Western air forces increasingly find themselves operating in conditions of total air supremacy, thanks to the effectiveness of SEAD.

If you can't afford Eurofighter, then I'd have thought that Gripen would be a better solution. Or the F/A-18E/F. Gripen may lack the low observability of the full-standard JSF (though that remains to be seen, even if it is significant) and may have a shorter unrefuelled radius of action, but it is likely to enjoy better autonomous capabilities, and can carry and use a wider range of weapons, and arguably represents a more flexible and more useful stand-alone asset. It is unlikely that Lockheed Martin will be able to shave much off the Gripen’s formidably low costs of operation and ownership, either, making it probable that the Gripen will be a more economically viable air power asset. In fact, the US approach to Stealth is likely to add a considerable cost burden to JSF operations, because of the requirement for intensive support and surface rectification.

Despite having been rigorously designed to cost, the unit price of the JSF has remorselessly crept up, so that it is already appreciably more expensive than the baseline Gripen. Moreover, the US aircraft incorporates a number of advanced technologies which do impose an element of risk, and some would argue that the Gripen (already in widespread frontline service) represents a proven solution by comparison. Others point to the fact that Gripen improvements which are now being actively studied (from improved defensive aids, helmet mounted sighting systems, conformal fuel tanks and even a new engine, perhaps with thrust vectoring) will further blur any capability differences between the Gripen and the JSF, but will be achievable without disturbing the Gripen’s cost advantages over JSF.

Arguably the biggest advantages enjoyed by the JSF lies in its ‘Made in the USA’ label, and in the claim that it will be the World’s largest fighter programme, with work totalling $400 bn and a production tally exceeding 8,000 aircraft, according to some estimates. The potential value of sub-contract work on the JSF is enormous – especially since the US government no longer requires a second, US-based source for all foreign-supplied components meaning that foreign suppliers, could, in theory, build major sections of every JSF built, including those for the US home market.

WE Branch Fanatic

3rd Jul 2002, 14:02

You forgot the RN Jacko!!

Jackonicko

3rd Jul 2002, 14:02

In theory.

Because while any customers for Gripen can negotiate a guaranteed piece of workshare, and can enjoy guaranteed offsets, workshare on the JSF requires investment in the System Design and Development (SDD) phase of the programme. And such investors (or ‘Level Two partners’) are not guaranteed workshare – they are allowed to bid for it, in open competition against US companies who may have powerful Senators and Congressmen backing their needs at the highest levels of US Government. With most major workshare already allocated under the EMD phase (which Britain joined as the only ‘Level One’ partner) further JSF customers are unlikely to gain any appreciable role in building the aircraft, but will be asked to ‘stump up’ enormous sums for the privilege of being allowed to bid. There is unlikely ever to be a second foreign production line for the aircraft (as there was for NATO F-16s) and some doubt whether foreign suppliers (with the probable exception of BAE Systems and Rolls Royce) will ever gain worthwhile workshare on the aircraft. Do you really believe that Aussie companies would get 1% of the total JSF programme?

Britain, by dint of its Level One status, will gain a small royalty on every JSF sold, and may gain workshare worth about 10% of the value of each aircraft. But to gain this, the UK government has paid $1.3 Bn for Level One status, a further £600 m for UK specific requirements, and $1 Bn further for the SDD phase. This enormous sum (about $3.2 Bn) does not pay for any of the aircraft to be purchased for the UK armed forces.

While being a JSF partner would appear to have little obvious economic benefeit, it will have political advantages. With the JSF, potential customers are not being sold an aircraft on the basis of unit price, capability, workshare and offsets, but instead are effectively being asked “Are you with us (are you a US ally) or against us?” The JSF does enjoy a low unit price (though this is rising, and already exceeds the original $28 m target price by at least 25%) and does offer some impressive and useful capabilities. But many analysts believe that effectively, those being asked to buy JSF are being asked to put national industrial and defence needs behind wider national political and foreign policy considerations. A senior Corporate Business Development executive at Lockheed summed it up at the 2002 Singapore air show by saying that: “every government has to assess where its strategic future lies.”

Our PM has been caricatured as George W's poodle for years now. It's nice that the Aussies are also jumping aboard the 'US Allies at any price' band-wagon....

Sorry about the inordinate length.....

ChristopherRobin

3rd Jul 2002, 17:45

Fair points all Jacko and very impressive. I was under the impression though that the Typhoon was going to cost in the region of $90m and therefore relatively expensive.

Is this true?

ORAC

3rd Jul 2002, 18:06

JSF:

The JSF gets better press than it deserves in the cost-containment category. It is described as a $29 million a copy aircraft, making it seem competitive even with existing F-16s.

Nothing could be further from the truth. That $29 million figure appears to be expressed in 1994 dollars, and to represent flyaway costs rather than unit procurement costs—a distinction that seems arcane, but that is important here. Correcting for these two distortions in how the Pentagon describes the price of the plane, the unit procurement price is better estimated at $43 million for the Air Force version of the JSF—and at slightly more than $50 million for Marine Corps and Navy variants.

Not only that, but these numbers ignore likely cost growth. One must salute the Department of Defense for trying to keep the price of the JSF within bounds, and commend its decision to view cost as an independent, important variable in the fighter's development program. But those facts will not ensure zero price growth. More likely, according to CBO, are unit procurement costs of $65 million for the Air Force's version and about $77 million for those of the other two services.

Eurofighter:

The overall production contract for the initial purchase of 620 aircraft plus an option for 90 aircraft was signed by NETMA and Eurofighter GmbH in January 1998. Included under this maximum price Umbrella Contract, were the Production Investment for 620 aircraft, and long lead items for the first batch of 148 aircraft

In September 1998 supplementary fixed price agreements were signed between the NATO Eurofighter Management Agency (NEMTA), Eurofighter GmbH and Eurojet GmbH. These agreements translated the maximum prices defined in the Production Umbrella contracts into firm orders at fixed prices for a first Tranche of weapon systems comprising 148 aircraft and 363 engines. The value of the order being in the region of 14 Billion DM.

For the UK, this translates into a system price per aircraft of £68.5 million. ($104.5 million).

On this basis, the Eurofighter is 50% more expensive than the JSF (but around 60% of the cost of the F-22 which is just passing an estimated $177 million a copy).

Jackonicko

3rd Jul 2002, 19:00

Including R&D. Unit production cost is only £42m according to NAO. Still more than a JSF, but you get much more of an aircraft.

L J R

3rd Jul 2002, 21:34

Thought there might be an educated reply from the UK. All logical points, and I too have a nice tie, coffee mug, golf shirt. - BUT as Booger alluded and ADF opinion I hear agrees [Ricko's public comments I recall 'No contender has yet proven the RANGE capability that ADF requires'.]

I understand that US companies understand this but apparently BAe think the Long Range Cruise option is the approved solution.

Jackonico - You might be surprised at how the ADF is seen by the USAF. Colonials they may be but the USAF SW Pacific Det is well regarded by US - and can develop tactics while retaining interoperability. Yes, cost is an issue, but my recollection of requirements is that capability is first.

.....as to being in bed with Dubya - well I'll saty out of that fight [for now]

Jackonicko

3rd Jul 2002, 23:02

Range alone is meaningless, of course. It's payload/range. With the limited size of JSF weapons (and the fact that only two can be carried) I'd have thought that Eurofighter with CFTs and tanks and four PIII class weapons would be more useful than JSF. There can't be much disparity in reach. And you do have tankers, after all!

Booger

4th Jul 2002, 01:16

Ahhh Jackonicko, I see the old Bureaufighter fan club has officially elected you as it's president and secretary!

Re: your question on what aircraft has a more advanced cockpit than Typhoon - you're right, I can think of none...
(However, if you buy a Fiat Uno, tint the windows, lower the suspension, put a kick-@rse stereo in and add a heap of driving lights then guess what? It's still a Fiat Uno.)

Before we get too far into the argument about how Typhoon will simultaneously solve world hunger, cold-fusion & provide us with a 'grand unified theory' to link relativity and quantum mechanics, let's agree to disagree. While we're at it, I'd like to state for the record that contrary to British belief, the TSR2 was not going to be the greatest strike aircraft that ever flew! :D

OK, enough $hit-stirring... Your JSF observations are astute and you are obviously well-informed. I agree that JSF is not the panacea to the strike/fighter aircraft problem that the US military would have us believe. However, as some people have previously pointed out, I believe the cost issue makes JSF an infinitely more attractive option that Typhoon. The figure of US$100+ million for Eurofighter will never allow it to be competitive with every current alternative (except for F22 - way out of our league). JSF will inevitably have cost blowouts these programs are (in)famous for, but no doubt so will Eurofighter. You mention that the RAAF won't have the supporting assets or infrastructure to employ the JSF indigenously, and you are spot on. Australia's defence policy has us returning to our cold-war doctrine of being the south-west Pacific's US "Det-A". Therefore, we will progressively aim for full interoperability with the US defence juggernaut, vice an individual (and unsustainable) self-defence policy.

Notwithstanding all of the above, I'm a firm believer in buying fielded, proven airframes. Australia can ill afford the risks of waiting patiently for the 'big boys' to fix our toys so we can play. We have neither the finances nor the voter patience to support a government that consistently accepts cost blowouts on such large capital acquistions.

I agree entirely with your comments on the expensive & labour intensive nature of supporting stealth airframes - I think economists refer to it as 'diminishing returns to scale'. (Very soon, I'm sure we'll be able to walk into Radio Shack and buy something for $10 that will detect LO aircraft.)

Australia's best option in my belief? F15E or F18E/F as an interim (12+ years) airframe until JSF matures.

One final dig before I sign off: Is it true that the motto of British engineers is "Don't raise the bridge, lower the river" ???

(I'm sorry, I think I suffer from Tourette's Syndrome);)

ftrplt

4th Jul 2002, 01:50

Jacko,

question??

What is the relative timeline between day 1 of original F18 development and Eurofighter development???

Booger,

spot on. F15E with thrust vectoring, internal targetting pod, phased array radar (that also TFR's), HMS, Link 16, lots of fuel and lots of things that go bang!

Proven product that will last forever! (also a USAF product vice USN, in itself a major plus).

Are you the same Booger that spent some time overseas with USMC??

Jackonicko

4th Jul 2002, 02:14

First, I'm by no means an unqualified admirer of EF, though I have more respect for the aircraft than the programme. I remain to be convinced of its capabilities in the air-to-mud roles.

Nor am I one of those nut cases who goes around saying that we should put TSR 2 into production right now, cos it would still be a world beater. But I do think that it would have been a great, but horrifyingly expensive strike attack aircraft in its day. And I do think that had the RAAF stuck with it they'd have got a fractionally better aircraft than the F-111, slightly cheaper and a few years earlier.

It sounds as though you have that unfortunate 'whingeing Aussie' shoulder chip about the Brits and British engineering. (I do hope you can take it as well as you dish it out - cos honour dictates that I try to respond in kind, albeit without your wit!) We've had our clunkers, for sure, but few of our poorest aircraft have been quite as poor as (say) the F-104, the F-111 (before serious money was spent on it) or the C-130J. And some of our successes have been pretty good. Canberra, Hawk, Harrier, etc.

The jury's still out on Eurofighter, but from the PoV of carefree handling, supersonic manoeuvrability, pointability (just watch the HAVV Roll), acceleration, combat persistance and a SUPERB MMI, and with sensible avionics it will be a world beating BVR air combat aircraft, and would be the best possible limited multi-role replacement for RAAF F/A-18As. It's not quite as cheap as an F/A-18E/F, but it is clearly superior, and it's much cheaper than the Rafale. It's certainly streets ahead of JSF.

It's NOT a Fiat Uno. Don't judge Eurofighter on the basis of your prejudices about Tornado.

$100 m? What dollars, what exchange rate. UK plc has been paying about £68 m each including R & D for those aircraft on order now. Any extra ones will cost EF partner nations £42 m apiece. A clever launch customer for the export version should be able to get them for round about that price.

Moreover, up-front ticket price is only one element in the equation. Buy a Typhoon and you have contractually guaranteed costs of ownership, and guaranteed MMH/FH figures which are mind-bendingly good. So much so that overall life cycle costs make the Eurofighter start to look like a bargain alongside the JSF, whose maintenance costs may turn out to be as high as those for the F-117 and B-2.

But EF is not really ever going to be an F-111 replacement. The F-15E would be, but costs more (£81 m).

The JSF will probably never be the strike attack aircraftv that the superb F-15E already is, so I'm astonished to hear you talk of the Mud Hen as being suitable as an interim type.

I'm inclined to think that the RAAF needs two FJ types to replace its present two type fleet, unless it's prepared to shed capabilities. It probably needs a high:low mix.

High end? EF or F-15E or F/A-18E/F depending on your role emphasis, budget and range requirements. In the Aussie context I'd stretch for the F-15E.

Low end? Gripen or F-16/50-60. Cheaper than JSF, more capable as an autonomous stand-alone platform, available sooner and relatively risk free. In the Aussie context I'd go for the Gripen.

I just don't think that the JSF will be man enough to do what the RAAF will need it to do, autonomously, nor do I think that it will be as cost effective as many other options, including those outlined here.

BEagle

4th Jul 2002, 04:46

Notwithstanding the on-paper capabilities of the various postulated air platforms, surely any future OzAF offensive ac would be used on long range over water operations? For that reason alone, you are more likely to find a twin-engined design more appropriate?

I would rule out F-35 and Gripen and consider either F-15E Strike Eagle, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or BWoS Bureaufighter as your candidate aeroplanes.

Or TSR2........

DoctorProctor

4th Jul 2002, 05:58

To all Pruners throwing around the idea of F-15E, Super Hornet and the like, these will never be considered as Air6000 contenders. AIR 6000 is looking for a replacement of multi role capability in 15 to 20 years from now. Don't confuse this with the RAAF's current problem of requiring an interim platform, which the Beagle and Super Hornet would probably both be suitable. Because of the AIR6000 timeframe, the RAAF will obviously be looking for a 5th generation airframe, which no-one will argue the E/F or F-15E are.
I, like many others, sincerely hope we go down the path of a US built airframe. Interoperability is a big issue now with simple systems like Link 16 and IFF interegators - imagine the technical problems when trying to patch a non US airframe with non US systems into the war machine 20 years from now.
The biggest problem with AIR6000 - it is being run by non-fighter pilot staff officers with absolutely no (that's right - none) idea or concept of what is required in a fight today, let alone in 15 years. I've never seen these guys ask fighter pilots what we think we need - they tell us what we need.
To answer the original question - We have to throw millions at the JSF. All it really does is give us a production slot inside the next 20 years. If we wait until AIR6000 make the 'D', the JSF line would be booked until 2040 and would not be a player anyway.
All we really want is a shiny new toy which is almost as good as the US's version, and gives us an edge over the threat

ORAC

4th Jul 2002, 06:37

Interesting DP,

The US are, of course, moving to a "network centric" system based on GCCS and a family of next generation Common Data Links (such as ABIT). This will require the complete replacement, across all three services, of old incompatible systems. Nice to see that Oz has the money to follow along.

The UK has, unfortunately, had to admit we can't afford it (to many old systems, new national systems and NATO systems. So we, alas, are will have to settle for having new equipment which is just 'network-enabled' and able to link in, but with the ability to work in a stand-alone mode.

Best of luck. :D

Macchi

4th Jul 2002, 07:48

DoctorProctor, never a truer word was spoken...

Why oh why do we have generals (who haven't seen the sharp end of a jet in 15 years) running these projects ???:mad:
Let them organise the funding, like the bureaucrats that they are, and let the operators select the platforms.

PS. Jackonickowacko, "whingeing Aussies?" - now that's ironic! Face it, Euro-lemon is a joke. English aircraft are as good as English sporting teams.:p

Nightingale

4th Jul 2002, 09:36

Isn't the point that ALL the contenders for AIR6000 are unproven (i.e. the 10-15 year requirement, not the interim)? Making a decision now just limits the RAAFs future options - I know SDD is 'only' $300m, but the statement actually says that it's effectively a done deal.

JSF might well turn out to be the best option, but where's the benefit in gambling now, at the expense of throwing away any fall back position? What if JSF is either unavailable or unsuitable when the RAAF want it?

Maybe all the competition will start to charge $300m for information!!

ChristopherRobin - good point about V/STOL. Having said that, if you look at the size of the 'New UK Carrier' (see posting on 26th June) - maybe the UK won't go for V/STOL!! They are BIG ships!!

:)

Jackonicko

4th Jul 2002, 09:41

Macchi, mate,
Just remind me of how far Australia got in the soccer world cup? Or name the last good Australian combat aircraft? Or indeed back up your infantile position on all British aircraft with more than childish banter? Oh yes, and stop whingeing, you're giving Aussies a bad name......

Dr P,
Apart from radar low observability, the F-15E is in most respects MORE advanced than JSF. As a Cold War 'designed for capability and damn the cost' aeroplane, that's inevitable. As for interoperability, well Link 16 and all the other goodies are relatively easy and cheap to integrate, and it's simplistic and wrong headed to assume that only the US can provide you with an inter-operable aircraft. Look at Gripen, for example.

It may be better to have your own AD network (compatible with NATO standards) and aircraft which can operate without massive US support and without REQUIRING US assets. Is it wise to have such reliance on a nation which has periodic bouts of isolationism?

Even if you need a US airframe, then unless you are also buying a huge fleet of E-3s and E-8s and a small force of F-22s and F-15Es, I'd suggest that JSF just won't have the capability, versatility or punch that you need. If it has to be single type then F-15E or EF are a better bet. And lest anyone accuse me of being a closet Eurofighter marketeer then let me say that in my view the best solution (if money is no object) is the F-15E.

And if you insist on JSF, I hope for your sake that they never come up against (say) Indonesian Typhoons, or Philippino Gripens, or Thai F-15Es, unless Uncle Sam's firmly along for the ride.

L J R

4th Jul 2002, 19:10

Wow... this thread is getting interesting..

ftrplt

4th Jul 2002, 23:38

Doctor Proctor, nice dramatic post but miles off the mark.

The current CO of one of the RAAF Hornet SQN's was on the original team when Air 6000 was formed (98 or 99, cant remember for sure). This was after his posting in the Force Development office.

The F18 and F111 reps at Force Development regularly participate in Air 6000 meetings / discussions / forums and regularly write papers on requirements. There is a SQNLDR and WGCDR fighter guy in this office (plus a million F111 navigators after they have forgotten how to fly). The Wing and Group staff also provide regular input into the project, and receive regular briefings and updates.

Is there an officially stated requirement for an interim replacement? My recollection is that the plan since Air 6000 was formed was for the F18 and the F111 to remain in service (in reeucing numbers as the oldest die out early) till the Air 6000 platform comes in. Interim replacement seems to be something other people are starting to throw around, I dont think its the official stance of the Air 6000 (at least it wasnt a year or two ago).

I think your timeframe of 15 - 20 years form now is a little long, more along the lines of 10 - 15 years from now.

An early Hornet replacement was looked at but canned, mainly due money. This was done before the HUG (hornet upgrade) program was approved.

(My personal opinion however is that the F18 and F111 will struggle to meet the desired timeline of availability).

Macchi,

Wrong by association!

If you see all generals (emphasise all) as beauracrats then I dont think you have much exposure to whats going on in the real world. A first tour know-it-all by any chance??? (not being personal, its quite a common outlook). The ground work on all these projects are done by SQNLDR / WGCDR equivalents.

The other problem that hasn't been mentioned yet is block obsolesence. Around 2010-15 there will be C130's, P3's, Caribou's (again and again), FFG's and god knows what else to be replaced. The money just isnt there. Maybe committing $300 million now puts Air 6000 on top of the queue in the future whilst everything else sits in the 'maybe' tray???

DoctorProctor

5th Jul 2002, 03:12

ftrplt,

I have seen project office/force development guys visit the wing. The guys were recently posted from operational squadrons, and were obviously on the right track. All the operators who attended were grateful of the chance to have their views heard. Questions from the presenters like "what do you guys think of this bit of kit?", and "do you think we need this?" went a long way in giving us a warm and fuzzy about the future of platform enhancements.

I've only seen AIR6000 visit once, and to quote Booger, they were still pondering "if an aircraft could do this job but would we be better served by purchasing some sort of gerbil powered UCAV utilising antigrav thruster technology integrated with particle beam stand-off weaponary?" Note: there were no fighter pilots amongst the presenters. Yes my post was simplistic, but how are bograts supposed to feel when a navigator tells them what they do or don't need to win in the air.

It's all very well to have a couple of individuals with fast jet experience involved in the project, but as you know, tactics and counter tactics evolve at a lightning rate. I just think it would be nice if squadrons were able to have more input, and were able to Q/A any flawed logic which was being put forward.

I also have not seen any official requirement for an interim capability before AIR6000, but like you think that 15 to 20 years is a long time to wait for the AIR6000 platform (or gerbil powered UCAV). But if you have a look at the timeline of suitable platforms (eg JSF - ~2017) I'd feel pretty good if we had ordered some E/F's a couple of years ago. (or better still - the F-15E - s*@t, for another $50,000 a year, I'd look at staying in the RAAF to fly the Strike Eagle)

My 2 cent's worth.

DoctorProctor

5th Jul 2002, 03:16

jackonicko,

Anyone can kick a round ball.

Try drop kicking a piece of oblong, bloated kangaroo skin through the uprights from 50m.

ftrplt

5th Jul 2002, 03:33

Sounds much fairer there Doc.

Sounds like the JSF timeline may have slipped since I last looked heavily at it, originally closer to 2010 from memory. I think this just shows how risky the whole scenario is.

One thing that may not be immediately obvious with Air 6000, is that the overall process was changed for it. In the past, projects have focussed on just going out to find the best fighter or bomber available at the time, with no real defined idea of the tasks it is expected to be able to perform. (Something the average line driver would excel at, i.e just get the best airframe with the best toys!!).

The first phase of Air 6000 was to actually define what the requirements are, and then go out and find the platform to best meet the requirement. For example, it may well have been that a precision long range strike requirment was needed (suprise suprise), but that this may be best accomplished by sub launch missile; which would then influence the future aeroplane type required (i.e long range strike not required). Another example being that recon best achieved by UCAV. (Note that RAAF trialled the Global Hawk during Tandem Thrust, and had good access to its product.) I suspect that GLobal Hawk may well appear in RAAF colours in the future.

I think you might find there is a lot more interaction between the Group / Wing and the project office than you would see in the SQN. (One of the WGCDR jobs in the Group works this stuff every day).

We agree on the F15E, I was trying to make noises along these lines in the late 90's, but unfortunately it was just not 'high tech' enough. The ADF's penchant for leading edge technology may well come back to bite it in the proverbial around 2010.

I dont think it would haven taken $50K to make me come back for the F15E.:)

Swingwing

5th Jul 2002, 10:05

I think half the problem is in the obsession with the procurement of a "next generation" platform. Anything that is even going to be considered has to have that title attached, or it won't even make it onto the table when Cabinet sits down to make what will be the largest defence purchase in Australian history. The debate, (if there was one) over whether we really NEED a "next generation" platform appears to have been settled in the affirmative. I'm not quite sure on what basis this was done. I've certainly heard little to no discussion of what exactly it is that we need the next aircraft to be able to do. The phrase "next generation" is bandied about as though it were a panacea -that is, merely by buying such a platform, it will by definition do whatever we want it to do!
The twisted logic at work here therefore reduces the list of possible options to a very short one - JSF v F-22. No matter what Jacko might say, the Typhoon is not a NG platform. I've flown the cockpit mock-up, and I agree that the HMI is truly fantastic - certainly a next generation platform in that regard. However, in terms of range / payload / LO characteristics, it does not display the quantam leap over other currently available and cheaper platforms that we appear to be expecting.
Now, I'm not saying that that should count it out of contention - not at all. In fact, the JSF suffers by comparison with the EFA in quite a few areas, as Jacko correctly points out. However, I reckon it's chances of getting up as the AIR6000 option are effectively nil, because firstly it's not American, and secondly, it's not seriously considered by many to be a true NG platform.
Now, if it were up to me, I'd vote for the F-15E every day of the week and twice on Sundays. I don't think it needs to be thought of as an interim platform at all. It's advantages in my view are so numerous that I can't believe it's not getting more serious consideration in Canberra as the AIR 6000 final solution. All right, it's not LO technology, and it doesn't have the HMI of something like EFA. But in terms of what we need - the ability to carry a good payload a long way, and to be able to hold it's own in a BVR environment, there really is no other serious contender that I can see. The fact that it has a backseater effectively nullifies the argument that it's older HMI, it has the ability to receive software upgrades to keep it workable as part of a future US coalition, and best of all, it's available and proven NOW!
You also have to look at who we might ever have to use it against. No one in this region is about to buy F-22, it is more than a match (BVR) for the Singo's and their Rafale, and even if the Malaysians go ahead and get something like SU-37, we won't be outgunned for the foreseeable future.
However, to come back to my original theme in closing, I despair of the Beagle ever getting the consideration it deserves, because, quite simply, it doesn't have the "next generation" buzzword in it's name.
OK Booger, you've convinced me - time for the revolution!

SW

And PS - Jacko old fella - surely you aren't going to try and pull the Pi#$ out of us Aussies using sport as a weapon are you? World cup or no World cup, you don't want to start THAT argument. Care for a small wager on the gold medal tally at the upcoming Com Games, just to start with....?

Jackonicko

5th Jul 2002, 12:16

Re sport:

Firstly, Macchi started it with his crack which inferred that all UK sporting teams were rubbish. I merely held up the top eight performance of the UK football team as an example (we lost to the eventual winners 2-1 and have beaten the other finalist 5-1 away within the last year).

Your confidence wrt non-round balls is refreshing, but I'd pint out we've started to play a pretty mean game of Rugby here in recent years, as the Barbarians will confirm.

Now with regard to cricket, I'll admit that we're useless, and frankly don't care. Since they started playing in dayglo pyjamas it's ceased to be a gentleman's game anyway.....

Re F-15E and EF

How is EF not a NG platform, unless only the F-22 and JSF qualify for that title? Unstable Delta Canard configuration, high proportion of advanced materials, built-in LO technology, etc. I'm NOT pushing EF as the solution to all Australia's problems by any means, but think that it is the obvious F/A-18 replacement, while the F-15E has to be the obvious F-111 replacement. If you can afford only one, then (for Australia) the F-15E has to be the one, I'd have thought.

Since we seem to be reverting to crude stereotypes about sport, and English engineering I'll try a last paragraph in full-on 'Blimp' mode in response: "You chaps really shouldn't have such an inferiority complex about being Aussies, you know. You're a super bunch of fellows (and really jolly good at sport), so be proud - but do leave out the envious whingeing and Brit-bashing. You'd be English too, if only your great grandfather hadn't stolen that sheep!"

sprucemoose

5th Jul 2002, 15:05

Jackonicko,

Sorry mate, but after all the sporting banter (accept it, we're going to be poor relations until our academy system has been running a few more years) I woke up when I saw the phrase "Lest anyone accuse me of being a closet Eurofighter marketeer." I really had no idea you were such a fan!

I can't help but wonder how you've come by the conclusion that the F-35 is going to be so hopelessly inadequate, even before the design has been frozen. Will it really offer less of a capability than the RAAF currently gets from its F-18s - even after they've gone through the HUG?

Can the USA and eight nations (10 once a role for Israel and Singapore is sorted) really be so wrong about a programme? You seem to buy the future Gripen sales pitch - maximum sales 400-500, so why not this one - maximum sales 4,000-5,000?

And seriously, when will Australia ever get into a shooting match with Indonesia or Thailand? Only one of them can make the World Cup finals. Now there's optimism!

Perhaps I'll see you at Farnborough, where we can chat more over a cold one!

Moose

"Not all Poms whinge!"

:D :p

Booger

5th Jul 2002, 16:09

Before I start to tidy up this thread & discuss serious matters I must banter just a little more:

"You'd be English too, if only your great grandfather hadn't stolen that sheep!"

Jacko, I'm sure what you mean to say is 'we'd be English today if our ancestors had been in-bred Germans..!' ;)

(Is it just me or do any other Aussies reckon that Jacko is in fact 'WEBF' re-incarnate??? Mind you, I love the MIL forum, it's where "non-Princess" aircrew can really get medievil on each other and have a chuckle! Jacko - please don't be offended, I admire your re-attack capability, no Aussie would have persisted in a Brit discussion for as long as you have in an Aussie one - After all, there's a reason Aussies have been so willing to sacrifice themselves for "Brittania"... we just love being England's poor cousin.:rolleyes:

O.K. down to work: My poll is indeed a misnomer - the distinction between AIR6000 and a 'supplementary' type was never correctly defined, but has since been covered in detail.
The choice of supplementary type (pre AIR6000) appears to be firmly in the favour of a twin-engined, twin-tailed, twin-seat superjet: the inimitable Beagle. But this is yet to be formally acknowledged as a pre AIR6000 solution. The RAAF's stance appears to be one of stubborn belief in the F18/F111 "lasting 'til 2015" truism - The "ignorant-boggy-first-tourers" know this is not going to happen, so when can we expect a supplementary solution requirement to be acknowledged by the powers-that-be?

Even though AIR6000 is really about F18/F111 replacement the RAAF refuses to state this because the term "capability upgrade" sounds far better than "platform replacement" to a committee. The RAAF needs to swallow its pride ASAP and buy (or flexi-rent!) the most suitable airframe for its current Defence needs: The way I see it there are only three realistic possibilities: F15E (#1 choice for boy's toys but 'ken costly), F18E/F (easy to integrate but range/payload lacking) and F16 Block 52/60 (cheap but nasty 'lawn dart'). Post 2020, JSF will probably be the best solution the RAAF has for AIR6000, but we MUST end the obsession we have for 'paper airplanes/A-models' now...

A final question for the RAAFies in this topic:
What is your best guess for a supplementary type & IOC date?
:confused:

ftrplt: Different Booger I'm afraid - the bloke you're thinking of is successful Booger. I'm the ****house Booger. By the way, you wouldn't happen to be a 'Charlie' by the name of 'Dog' would you?

Swingwing: Solidarity brother...

L J R: This thread is getting interesting!

DoctorProctor: I don't recall being asked for an opinion either by the AIR6000 team either!:)

Nightingale

5th Jul 2002, 17:03

Before the F-15 lobby signs on the dotted line, has anyone seen the AV Week article (May 27th, p47) 'Su-30MK Beats F-15C every time'?

Admittedly it's the C, but the same A-A arguments apply to the E.

Food for thought!!

:)

ORAC

5th Jul 2002, 17:49

Just a few words on the stand-alone capability of the JSF, since it appears to be in question.

The initial design assumption was that the JSF would be a consumer of sensor data, obtaining information from specialized intelligence-gathering aircraft, satellites, and other sources. This approach promised to keep costs of the JSF down.

Now the JSF is seen more as a producer of sensor data, with each aircraft interacting through high-speed data links with other aircraft. If the other aircraft are JSFs, they will be able to cooperate to a greater extent providing a capability greater than the sum of the parts.

The heart of the JSF's sensors will be the Raytheon MIRFS, based on the APG-77 AESA radar developed for the F-22. The MIRFS will provide a range of functions, acting as a multimode radar, active jamming system, and a passive detection system. MIRFS will generate signals over a wide range of frequencies and pulse patterns in an unpredictable fashion to ensure a low probability of intercept.

The JSF's MIRFS will use improved technology compared to the APG-77, but airframe constraints mean that it will have fewer T/R modules, limiting it's range to 90 nautical miles.

The F-35 will also be fitted with additional sensor systems, including an IRST system for defense and air-to-air combat, and a targeting system for precision attack on ground targets.

The IRST system is known as the distributed aperture infrared system (DAS). DAS has six IR sensors mounted on different points of the fuselage to provide full-sphere IR detection and tracking. It will be able to identify and pinpoint both incoming missiles and airborne targets.

Targeting functions will be provided by the "electro-optical targeting system (EOTS)", featuring a FLIR imager, a CCD TV camera, a targeting laser, and a laser spot tracker. EOTS is not turret-mounted. It has a wide aperture that is blended into the aircraft's nose contours, covered by a window that is opaque to radar, and remains operational through the entire mission.

Software will collect the inputs from all the sensors, as well as inputs relayed over a high-speed datalink, to provide sensor fusion and seamless data display (see below).

The JSF has both air-to-air and air-to-ground modes, and will be built in three different versions. The software is being designed in a modular fashion to permit modification and growth (and overseas sale!!).

The current plan is to have a comprehensive but minimal software suite for JSF operational introduction, and provide software updates to bring the JSF up to full operational capability. (So don't knock the Eurofighter for the same thing!)

The pilot will receive inputs using a full-panel-width display plus a secondary flight display array, along with HOTAS controls. It does not have a HUD, with this function taken over by a helmet-mounted display.

Baseline data-link capability will, probably, be provided by SADL with an enhanced level available via the integration of L16/MIDS. Next generation DDLs, such as TCDL and ABIT, are likely to be restricted to US forces only.

Jackonicko

5th Jul 2002, 21:23

Nightingale,

The F-15C has been in service for years (and is behind the E in capability terms - esp NCTR) whereas the Su-30MK is still a prototype. The five (count 'em) Russian Su-30s are two-seat Su-27s with a probe and long endurance systems. The Indian 'Su-30MKs' are still Su-27UBs with probes and canards. No multi-role Su-30 is yet in service. No Thrust Vectoring 'Flanker' has entered service. No radar more advanced than the basic 'Slot Back' has been deployed in any in-service 'Flanker' variant.

Sukhoi talk the talk, and their factory Su-30MK demonstrators fly a mean aerobatic routine, but comparing these aircraft with in service Western types is completely meaningless.

And even when the Indian MKIs finally get their thrust vectoring, hybrid Franco-Indo-Russian systems and all the rest, their MMI will still be behind that of the F-15E.

Like today's MiG-29, the Su-30 will haved some lethal close-in combat capabilities at low speeds and high Alpha, but apart from that......

Orac,

Do you believe that all this will a) happen? b) happen in time? c) happen within cost constraints? and d) be available to export customers?

Why does anyone have confidence that the development of JSF's avionics will run any more smoothly than F-22 has done, or that the aircraft won't suffer equal or greater delays and cost overruns?

ftrplt

5th Jul 2002, 21:29

Booger - thats the one. Do I know you?? Love your posts, get a good laugh every time.

By the way, I didnt say ignorant first tourers, I said 'know it all'; (which I expect fighter guys to be by the way :). I was one once, just ask me!!), and was purely aimed at the inaccuracies of the posts WRT project team compositions. (Not the result as I think you can see that I disagree with it as much as you do).

I think you have hit the nail on the head, I believe it mainly comes back to DOD (read civvies) and Cabinet (to a lesser extent) when you start talking about the desire for leading edge / unproven technology, but there is certainly a desire amongst the RAAF heavies for it also. As an aside, I have never been a real fan of the influence that DSTO seems to have, they always seem to leading us down the high tech path also.

The problem - money. RAAF hinged all its bets on the F18 and F111 making it to JSF (oops, that should be the eventual Air 6000 platform) introduction, that decision was made late 90's, and was set in concrete with the approval for HUG. Without a serious budget increase there is not and will not be the funds to acquire any interim capability. You can state the requirement as much as you like but this will not change. I have an idea on the impact of this and Im sure you guys are already seeing it but F18 will be made to last. The consequences however arent worth talking about in this forum. The combination of further emerging life pressures on the current platforms combined with the inevitable timeline slip of JSF are really going to bite us in the proverbial.

Nightingale - one on one in a simulator environment has no real connection to the real world. F15 C / E today flown in the USAF battle environment would still win out over the SU-30 flown by an enemy state. The SU 30 on its own may be a superior platform, but it is years behind when you look at how it fits into an integrated battle platform (Datalink, sensor fusion, HMS, AMRAAM etc etc).

ORAC - thats exactly what we are talking about. What are the odds of all that stuff working properly from day 1. Its OK to have some toothing problems when the aircraft is introduced in the US system because they will have other assets to cope with deficincies until problems are sorted and the money to throw at it. In the RAAFs case it will be our only asset available and will rely on the US to solve the problems and then field the solutions.

Didnt the glossy brochure say that the APG65 (Hornet radar) could simultaneously track 10 targets in an EW environment - Id still love to see that in the real world!

Swingwing - better said than I would ever be able to.

Jackonico - Question. What are the relative timelines between day 1 F18 development and day 1 Eurofighter ( or is it Typhoon
;) ) development?

Jackonicko

5th Jul 2002, 21:58

Juice Loose Moose,

It's not that I'm an EF fan - I wouldn't consider it for anything other than a primary BVR air-to-air/secondary air-to-ground F/A-18 type replacement role at the moment. It does have problems and weaknesses, and is unproven in some areas. But the current fad for the uninformed to pour scorn on it for largely imaginary shortcomings makes me cross!

Moreover, the EF partner companies have a good record on putting right early problems (with Tornado IDS, Tornado ADV, Jaguar, Harrier GR5 etc.) usually fairly quickly.

Nor is it that I'm particularly pro-Gripen, though the aircraft is in-service with advanced weapons and arguably the best net/data-link based avionics suite currently available in the real world. You don't have to trust that Gripen will turn out right, and that it will fulfill the marketeers' promises - you just have to go and look at it in service. And even before it was in service, the record of the Viggen was a good indication that the Swedes would get it right.

Gripen is a proven real world solution in its Swedish form, and export aircraft will only be an improvement on this 'low baseline'. Moreover it's cheap to buy, VERY cheap to operate (with guaranteed MMH/FH, operating costs etc.) and Saab will guarantee to place meaningful offset business which more than compensates for programme cost. It's hard to knock, though (with the exception of a re-engined aircraft with CFTs) it may not be the right aircraft for Australia.

I'm not saying that JSF will be hopeless, only that it strains credibility that it can be both as cheap and as great as is being claimed. Nor am I reassured that it will not run into massive problems and cost overruns - Lockheed's record with the F-22, C-130J, F-104, etc. does not necessarily inspire confidence, IMHO. It's a very high risk programme, after all. One can be pretty sure that the Gripen will not run into such problems at this stage in its career.

Moreover, it must be remembered that this is (as far as the USAF is concerned) is a politically imposed programme which the main operator would willingly have cancelled in order to safeguard the F-22. It is also a niche aeroplane, carrying a tiny PGM warload and with a very limited (two AMRAAM) air-to-air capability. It's a Cold War concept, placing what may now be an undue emphasis on Stealth, so in some respects, yes, it will offer reduced capability and relevance by comparison with a Hornet!!!

Finally you ask whether the USA and eight nations can really get it wrong? Well some would say that they did get it badly wrong with the F-104, and others would maintain that some nations were right in selecting the F/A-18, Deux Mille, or even the Tornado rather than the F-16. For others the F-16 was the right aircraft at the right time. Numbers and popularity alone don't make it universally applicable nor even (necessarily) any good for Australia, who are, after all, looking to replace the F-111 and F/A-18.

Australia is not Belgium, after all.

And finally, one cannot help but be suspicious of a programme that is being sold so heavily on a "You are either with us or against us" basis, with no real effort to provide offsets, industrial participation or even the capabilities which most users will have most use for.

ORAC

5th Jul 2002, 23:40

The big question is what will be available to overseas customers. As I undestand it, one of the main problems with selling the F-22 (if anyone else could afford it) is that the aircraft systems are totally integrated. So to degrade the performance would mean at least a total software write (2M+ lines of code) as well as major hardware changes.

The JSF code is, supposedly, being written on the back of the F-22, hence lowering the risk and cost. However, as stated, it is being split into layers to allow it to be tailored for each customer. Thus introducing a major new risk.

In answer to your quesions therefore:

Will it be on time? Probably, but in a very limited envelope - a la Typhoon.

Will it be on budget? No. I think they will be lucky to bring it in under $80M a copy - and only with austere avionics. An F-16A if you will.

Will all the customers get all the features? Don' make me laugh. The MIFRS will lose most, if not all of the ESM/NCI features. The claimed integration requires a high speed datalink like ABIT. Hence my comments about the baseline probably being SADL with the NATO nations having to go for L16, and pay through the nose to upgrade to L22.

On the up-side. The US forces will have to pay to fix the problems, hence I have confidence that, in the long term (6-8 years down line of introduction) the problems will be fixed.

As far as the Typhoon goes, the money for tranche 2 is already spoken for, and being earmarked for tranche 3. Where will the funds come from to fix problems? God knows - possibly out of the JSF budget!!

The solutions to the problems on the GR1 and F3 (like those nice single crystal blades) were largely funded by the RSAF. Now if we can only persuade them to sign up to about 80 Typhoons we could solve a lot of problems with one shot..................

And personally, since I haven't previously expressed an opinion, if the RAAF really intends to have one aircraft type replace both F-18 and F-111 it has to be the F-15E, with the AESA radar and L16/22. They must be on drugs to think of anything else - unless you're going to buy a lot of tankers.

Also, whilst the salesmen will demonstrate how, over the life of the airframe, a single engined aircraft is cheaper - even after losing 5 or 6 - I don't Oz and the surrounding waters are the places where I'd like to be one of them.

Jackonicko

6th Jul 2002, 00:06

Looks dangerously like agreement then - F-15E!

L J R

6th Jul 2002, 00:58

Interim jet?? - gimme a mud-hen any day. But the super Hornet will do.

Likelyhood?? - my opinion -50/50

Date: year 5 in a rolling 5 year plan that gets updated each month.

....but I don't care I'm out.

Booger

6th Jul 2002, 04:21

Excellent work gentlemen - we're all in agreement, Mud Hens for the RAAF.

Excusing ranks, I'd like to delegate some mission prep tasks:

Firstly, I'm "lead" so I'll call Uncle Angus first thing Monday morning and start the ball rolling to clear up the red tape.

Other jobs:

Swingwing: Finances
Contact all the squadron social club reps and tell them to put an additional charge of US$80 million on every boggies bill for the month of June: Please issue receipts so they can claim them on tax ("compulsory AIR6000 fees" or something like that should suffice). You made need to apply for a chaplain's loan (about US$750 million should do) so we can buy the necessary GSE and techo training paraphenalia.

L J R: Pom distraction.
Call BAe, tell them we're "really keen" on their jet. Oh, and some more pens, mugs etc... would be nice. (ftrplt will need all the coffee & pens he can get for his job).

ftrplt: Publications
You can whip-up the necessary SIs, FOB, TACPROCS, OPs briefs etc... etc... By Thursday thanks. (DoctorProctor can be your scribe if you need one).

Meet back here Friday morning for final co-ord. Thanks gents!:)

P.S. ftrplt, I was scrubbed at the 'domain of pain' when you were there... In fact, if I remember correctly you were a wiley bandit on my scrub ride - a little too wiley you %^@$%& bastard! (But that's OK, I flew ACM like old people f^%k.)

ftrplt

6th Jul 2002, 10:10

Booger, luv ya plan. Will borrow a few reams of paper from the new employer (they use it like its going out of fashion!)

Give me a date for the ride in question. Was the XO's nickname an advertisement for Mc Donalds??

Booger

6th Jul 2002, 12:00

ftrplt: Sep '98 (AA21 or something similar), and affirm on the Big Mac. Good times, eh?;)

"What does your Mum call you, Booger?"

"Pumpkin, Sir..."

"Well Pumpkin, YOU'RE SCRUBBED!"

IwantmyHUDback

18th Jul 2002, 23:46

Right Booger, its been almost two weeks and I am yet to see a Mud Hen on the flight line (There are, however, lots of twin tail tupperware fag jets out there, but I don't think they are for us to play with ;) ) Better shape up or your OER is looking pretty shoddy my friend!

Booger

23rd Jul 2002, 06:16

Sorry about the delay, just a few teething problems with final payment - apparently the Yanks aren't too keen on our part payment in Bundy Rum. Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery.;)

DuckDodgers

14th Sep 2004, 19:20

It's great you can finally get Bundy Rum in our mess here in the UK!!! Heaven!

TC27

15th Sep 2004, 11:05

USAF to buy 'hundreds' of STOVL JSFs, Gen. Jumper says
By Marc Selinger
09/14/2004 11:19:25 AM

The U.S. Air Force plans to buy "hundreds" of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters in the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) configuration, a key general said Sept. 13, adding further clarity to the service's plans for the JSF variant.

The specific figure remains under review, said Gen. John Jumper, Air Force chief of staff.

"I can't give you an exact number, but it's going to be more than a handful," Jumper said at a press briefing at the Air Force Association's Air & Space Conference in Washington.

Current budget plans call for the Air Force to buy all 1,763 of its JSFs in the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) configuration, but Jumper and Air Force Secretary James Roche announced in February that the service would like to buy the STOVL variant as well to provide close air support, particularly for Army ground troops (DAILY, Feb. 13, Feb. 17). The Air Force has said since then that the number of STOVL JSFs it buys could result in a corresponding reduction in the number of CTOL F-35s it acquires.

Roche said in May that the Air Force's revised acquisition strategy for the Lockheed Martin JSF could be finalized by the end of the year (DAILY, May 17).

Also during the press briefing, Jumper and Roche said they are becoming increasingly convinced of the need to acquire an interim long-range strike system to serve as a bridge between the current bomber force and a next-generation platform, which may not enter service for more than two decades.

The Air Force asked industry for ideas on interim capabilities earlier this year and is evaluating the responses to that request for information (RFI). A bomber version of the Lockheed Martin F/A-22 Raptor has been mentioned as one option the Air Force might pursue (DAILY, May 20, May 24).

- Ends -

Runaway Gun

17th Sep 2004, 19:08

Bundy Rum in the UK? Are you serious? Where?

antipodean alligator

22nd Sep 2004, 12:08

I used to buy it at Gordon & McPhail's in Elgin when I was at Lossie - I'd assume they'd still have it. They also stock Peter Lehmann Stonewell Shiraz...Well worth a sip!;)

fuzzmaster

28th Sep 2004, 13:53

The Problem for the Australians could also be based around which missile systems they want to use. If they were to buy the SUs or MIGs the underwing launch rail wont work with leading edge missiles. The US use LM7 hangar/launch rail (i think) and because of their wealth most missile manufacturers try to design around this. Using the US style hangar would allow for the use of ASRAAM, AMRAAM, METEOR etc.

ORAC

26th Nov 2004, 06:55

AWST: (Story relating to Chinook Mk 3 saga)

"The Chinook problem is primarily one of certification, .......Boeing and British officials note that they failed to specify in the contract that the Chinook avionics software met independent validation requirements....

There is also concern that the problem encountered with the Chinook could be repeated on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, because the U.K. probably won´t get access to source code for the aircraft. Chief of Defence Procurement Peter Spencer says that ways to meet the safety certification without access to the source code are being investigated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

:sad: :sad:
1. What does the JSF contract say about validation? (I presume it is SIL4?)
2. If there are ways around the problem, why are they not being used on the Chinook instead of spending up to $230 million to bring them up to standard?

:(

DuckDodgers

27th Nov 2004, 15:33

I have an easier solution, discard with the ludicrous RTS imposed by QinetiQ and come into line with everyone else in the western world, it would be cheaper and we would have aircraft in service just a little bit quicker.

Oh yeah the Bundy, also saw it at Benson the other day whilst out and about.......

lightningmate

2nd Dec 2004, 20:09

With regard to RTS - QinetiQ does not impose, advice is provided to the Platform IPT. Moreover, it has never been different, when Boscombe was A&AEE they recommended to ACAS - he did not have to accept what was said!

lm

Boogeyboard

27th Jul 2005, 15:50

The problem with siging up as a partner years ahead of production is things like this happen (see below) production moves to the right...costs skyrocket and capabilties suffer in the meantime.

US media yesterday... paraphrased ..

US to scale back on future fighters

A Pentagon decision ......change in strategic priorities. Rumsfeld trying to transform the military to deal with unconventional threats....

"What does Al Qaeda's air force look like?" said one defense official working on the Pentagon's assessment, known as the Quadrennial Defense Review.

......some inside the Defense Department say that the deepest cuts could come in the Joint Strike Fighter program.....the Pentagon could cut the Air Force's allotment of the planes by half.
Officials involved in the review process say that the option of canceling one or both of the programs is on the table.....

...... Pentagon officials hoped to make some decisions about weapons programs by September or October, as the Defense Department prepared its fiscal year 2007 budget.

The Joint Strike Fighter and the F/A-22 have been plagued by cost overruns and production delays. ..... the Government Accountability Office called the JSF's original business case, laid out by the Pentagon in 1996, "unexecutable."

"When you have difficult budget choices to make, several of the Pentagon's expensive modernization programs become likely targets," said Andrew Krepinevich of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington.

"The JSF sits at the top of that list."

Food for thought on A6000

bb