RAAF and the Raptor
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
RAAF and the Raptor
The Age: Rapped in the Raptor: why Australia must have the best
A former Top Gun is right to set his cross-hairs on key defence spending, writes Gerry Carmen.
THE Peter Criss known to many Australians is the "catman" drummer of iconic band Kiss, whose theatrics include poking out tongues. But there's an Australian namesake who has just stepped out of the shadows and deserves even closer attention because he, too, is poking a mighty important metaphorical tongue — at the government.
Retired RAAF air vice-marshal Peter Criss has put aside usual conventions to openly question the wisdom of Canberra spending about $16 billion for the F-35 Lightning, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter (Age 29/9). The Government committed an initial $300 million to become an early partner in the JSF program, with a final decision to be made by 2008. But Mr Criss says the RAAF should, in fact, consider buying the F-22 Raptor, an even more advanced — and expensive — combat aircraft than the F-35. Both aircraft are manufactured by Lockheed Martin.
Criss is well-credentialled to put elements of the defence establishment in his cross-hairs and enter the public debate now that he is out of uniform. As a recent air vice-marshal, he would have been privy to much classified information; earlier, he served at the pointy end of the RAAF as one of its most experienced combat pilots whose impressive CV includes leading the formidable F-111 squadrons, a prime instrument of defence and foreign policy.
Criss' disquiet is the first significant breaking of ranks by top military brass (albeit retired) in this crucial matter that will have implications for Australia for the next 30 to 40 years. Not before time. This writer, in another specialist forum, has urged an identical rethink.
The crux of the debate hinges on the technologies and capabilities inherent, and to be developed, in the respective aircraft, and cost. On the first issue there is simply no comparison; even the F-35's manufacturer acknowledges that the F-22 is in a league of its own — and will remain there for decades.
The dilemma for the RAAF is to retain the edge it has enjoyed for decades in the neighbourhood and beyond, given the looming retirement of its magnificent but aged F-111s, and upgraded F/A-18s, at a cost that the country can afford. The selection of the F-35 was seen as the best option to cover the roles of both current aircraft, at steep but affordable cost. But in reality, the F-35, which has been experiencing problems in its development — the norm for combat aircraft — is not likely to adequately fill both roles.
New fighter 'won't work'
A former Top Gun is right to set his cross-hairs on key defence spending, writes Gerry Carmen.
THE Peter Criss known to many Australians is the "catman" drummer of iconic band Kiss, whose theatrics include poking out tongues. But there's an Australian namesake who has just stepped out of the shadows and deserves even closer attention because he, too, is poking a mighty important metaphorical tongue — at the government.
Retired RAAF air vice-marshal Peter Criss has put aside usual conventions to openly question the wisdom of Canberra spending about $16 billion for the F-35 Lightning, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter (Age 29/9). The Government committed an initial $300 million to become an early partner in the JSF program, with a final decision to be made by 2008. But Mr Criss says the RAAF should, in fact, consider buying the F-22 Raptor, an even more advanced — and expensive — combat aircraft than the F-35. Both aircraft are manufactured by Lockheed Martin.
Criss is well-credentialled to put elements of the defence establishment in his cross-hairs and enter the public debate now that he is out of uniform. As a recent air vice-marshal, he would have been privy to much classified information; earlier, he served at the pointy end of the RAAF as one of its most experienced combat pilots whose impressive CV includes leading the formidable F-111 squadrons, a prime instrument of defence and foreign policy.
Criss' disquiet is the first significant breaking of ranks by top military brass (albeit retired) in this crucial matter that will have implications for Australia for the next 30 to 40 years. Not before time. This writer, in another specialist forum, has urged an identical rethink.
The crux of the debate hinges on the technologies and capabilities inherent, and to be developed, in the respective aircraft, and cost. On the first issue there is simply no comparison; even the F-35's manufacturer acknowledges that the F-22 is in a league of its own — and will remain there for decades.
The dilemma for the RAAF is to retain the edge it has enjoyed for decades in the neighbourhood and beyond, given the looming retirement of its magnificent but aged F-111s, and upgraded F/A-18s, at a cost that the country can afford. The selection of the F-35 was seen as the best option to cover the roles of both current aircraft, at steep but affordable cost. But in reality, the F-35, which has been experiencing problems in its development — the norm for combat aircraft — is not likely to adequately fill both roles.
New fighter 'won't work'
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Englandshire, mostly.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They could always buy Typhoon. It's clearly going to be an excellent air defence a/c & by the time the RAAF would be looking at receiving it, Typhoon would developed its A-G capability.
IMHO, the F22 will never be exported, far too expensive & would no doubt have severe tech transfer issues.
IMHO, the F22 will never be exported, far too expensive & would no doubt have severe tech transfer issues.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAAF does not have its hands tied to BWOS - nor does the Oz voter!
Anything BAE systems produces (Except Hawk) is CRA.P (FACT!!!!!)
Typhoon (or Eurofighter 2000) is soooooo last century.
It is little more capable than Hornet F/A 18A - with or without HUG.
A simple example: It is a nightmare to switch A/A to A/G and back again(should be simple in 2006 - surely).
Unfortunately, it suffers from a design bureau that utilsed navigators from the '70s in software design and cockpit ergonomics and not single seat pilots from the '90s and beyond.
I'm not a supporter of an alternative for the RAAF, just a critic of EF2000, and all of its hoo haa!.
Mr Criss has a point, JSF is the wrong a/c for Aus, as it will not live up to the some of the current capabilities of the EXISTING F-18 / F-111 combo. Admittedly, they need replacing as they are ageing and are probably becomming difficult to support and manage logistically. F-35 is a fantastic concept, but it is too tied down to the STOVL / VSTOL / etc characteristics rather than its pure combat capability.....and lastly, who in Oz will support its stealth capability???? However, no-one can really afford F-22 either.
Anything BAE systems produces (Except Hawk) is CRA.P (FACT!!!!!)
Typhoon (or Eurofighter 2000) is soooooo last century.
It is little more capable than Hornet F/A 18A - with or without HUG.
A simple example: It is a nightmare to switch A/A to A/G and back again(should be simple in 2006 - surely).
Unfortunately, it suffers from a design bureau that utilsed navigators from the '70s in software design and cockpit ergonomics and not single seat pilots from the '90s and beyond.
I'm not a supporter of an alternative for the RAAF, just a critic of EF2000, and all of its hoo haa!.
Mr Criss has a point, JSF is the wrong a/c for Aus, as it will not live up to the some of the current capabilities of the EXISTING F-18 / F-111 combo. Admittedly, they need replacing as they are ageing and are probably becomming difficult to support and manage logistically. F-35 is a fantastic concept, but it is too tied down to the STOVL / VSTOL / etc characteristics rather than its pure combat capability.....and lastly, who in Oz will support its stealth capability???? However, no-one can really afford F-22 either.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: London
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAAF does not have its hands tied to BWOS - nor does the Oz voter!
Anything BAE systems produces (Except Hawk) is CRA.P (FACT!!!!!)
Typhoon (or Eurofighter 2000) is soooooo last century.
It is little more capable than Hornet F/A 18A - with or without HUG.
A simple example: It is a nightmare to switch A/A to A/G and back again(should be simple in 2006 - surely).
Unfortunately, it suffers from a design bureau that utilsed navigators from the '70s in software design and cockpit ergonomics and not single seat pilots from the '90s and beyond.
I'm not a supporter of an alternative for the RAAF, just a critic of EF2000, and all of its hoo haa!.
Mr Criss has a point, JSF is the wrong a/c for Aus, as it will not live up to the some of the current capabilities of the EXISTING F-18 / F-111 combo. Admittedly, they need replacing as they are ageing and are probably becomming difficult to support and manage logistically. F-35 is a fantastic concept, but it is too tied down to the STOVL / VSTOL / etc characteristics rather than its pure combat capability.....and lastly, who in Oz will support its stealth capability???? However, no-one can really afford F-22 either.
Anything BAE systems produces (Except Hawk) is CRA.P (FACT!!!!!)
Typhoon (or Eurofighter 2000) is soooooo last century.
It is little more capable than Hornet F/A 18A - with or without HUG.
A simple example: It is a nightmare to switch A/A to A/G and back again(should be simple in 2006 - surely).
Unfortunately, it suffers from a design bureau that utilsed navigators from the '70s in software design and cockpit ergonomics and not single seat pilots from the '90s and beyond.
I'm not a supporter of an alternative for the RAAF, just a critic of EF2000, and all of its hoo haa!.
Mr Criss has a point, JSF is the wrong a/c for Aus, as it will not live up to the some of the current capabilities of the EXISTING F-18 / F-111 combo. Admittedly, they need replacing as they are ageing and are probably becomming difficult to support and manage logistically. F-35 is a fantastic concept, but it is too tied down to the STOVL / VSTOL / etc characteristics rather than its pure combat capability.....and lastly, who in Oz will support its stealth capability???? However, no-one can really afford F-22 either.
I would have thought the F18s could be adequately replaced by F35s (+ a few F35B for the new amphibs) and the F111 capability by TLAM on the Collins and the new AWD's?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middle East
Posts: 1,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJR, agree 100%
This procurement/partnership is a stuff up! It will not fill gaps or serve our need, in fact we will need to come up with alternatives to fill the gaps JSF will create!
More thought needed and we certainly still have a year or two to do it, the window will close quickly though so hope the Boof heads (sorry meant Boffins!) will sort it soon.
This procurement/partnership is a stuff up! It will not fill gaps or serve our need, in fact we will need to come up with alternatives to fill the gaps JSF will create!
More thought needed and we certainly still have a year or two to do it, the window will close quickly though so hope the Boof heads (sorry meant Boffins!) will sort it soon.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Panama City, Panama
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Unlike past tactical fighters, the opportunity for export is currently non-existent because the export sale of the F-22 is barred by federal law. Very few allies would even be considered for export sale because it is such a sensitive and expensive system. Most current customers for US fighters are either acquiring earlier designs like the F-15 or F-16 or are waiting to acquire the JSF, which contains much of the F-22's technology but is designed to be cheaper and more flexible." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor
It's not for sale and rightfully so. If the F-22 is exported, even to a trustworthy ally like Austrailia; It becomes the standard. This means a more advanced replacement for the expensive F-22 will have to come sooner than later, therefore; the US taxpayers will get the shaft.
It's not for sale and rightfully so. If the F-22 is exported, even to a trustworthy ally like Austrailia; It becomes the standard. This means a more advanced replacement for the expensive F-22 will have to come sooner than later, therefore; the US taxpayers will get the shaft.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'm not a supporter of an alternative for the RAAF, just a critic of EF2000, and all of its hoo haa!.
JSF is the wrong a/c for Aus
However, no-one can really afford F-22 either
Unfortunately, it suffers from a design bureau that utilsed navigators from the '70s in software design and cockpit ergonomics and not single seat pilots from the '90s and beyond
LJR - I'll take the bait.
My first three quotes from your post say it all really - if you add them all up, just what do you advocate!? Glad you're a critic of EF2000 - I'm a fan of Typhoon. Your assertion in my fourth quote is utter *ollock* - I could enlighten you over those who actually had a hand in cockpit design, but I value my oxygen. And your comment wrt switching between A/A and A/G is simply untrue (or even more *ollock*).
As for Typhoon being able to fulfil the F/A-18 and F111 roles of the RAAF - the DoD and Aus Government has in its possession a lengthy document explaining in detail how this would be absolutely viable over the next three decades in both operational and cost/effective terms. Stealth is the main reason rolled out by the Typhoon opponents, and there is sufficient debate on other threads to set this safely aside - other arguments are also offered, but these are easily and logically countered, especially as most are uninformed (like yours), emotive or US-centric.
(Waits for usual anti-BWOS incoming)
Still not too late Pete (Criss) - the offer still stands, and it's still a good deal!!
Last edited by jindabyne; 3rd Oct 2006 at 10:45. Reason: note to PC
I understand it is fo sale, however, any buyer will have to come up with an additional 1 Billion US to 'downgrade' the aircraft into an export version.
A militarising Japan being the only likely customer.
A militarising Japan being the only likely customer.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 3rd Oct 2006 at 12:38.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Defense Industry Daily: Retired RAAF Vice-Marshal: Abandon F-35, Buy F-22s
.....Criss' disquiet is the first significant breaking of ranks by top military brass over this issue, and DID hopes to cover the controversy in more depth at a future date. In the meantime, however, we have a detailed analysis that argues for Criss' preference within a larger strategic framework [PDF format, 6.7 MB]. It connects Australia's strategic imperatives to regional developments and threats, before looking at aircraft capabilities and costs; all to make the case that RAAF F-35As are a mistake, and the F-22 a better option given Australia's needs......
.....Criss' disquiet is the first significant breaking of ranks by top military brass over this issue, and DID hopes to cover the controversy in more depth at a future date. In the meantime, however, we have a detailed analysis that argues for Criss' preference within a larger strategic framework [PDF format, 6.7 MB]. It connects Australia's strategic imperatives to regional developments and threats, before looking at aircraft capabilities and costs; all to make the case that RAAF F-35As are a mistake, and the F-22 a better option given Australia's needs......
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah Carlo Kopp !!
Take a look at the top ten reasons page 124...
pick your favourite ;-)
or page 106,133.. there good for a laugh.
Now he may be right in saying the JSF costing is highly dubious, but yet he doesn't say anything regarding the access Australia would have to maintain the F-22 as far as carlo is concerned its all roses when the F-22 is mentioned.
Cheers
Take a look at the top ten reasons page 124...
pick your favourite ;-)
or page 106,133.. there good for a laugh.
Now he may be right in saying the JSF costing is highly dubious, but yet he doesn't say anything regarding the access Australia would have to maintain the F-22 as far as carlo is concerned its all roses when the F-22 is mentioned.
Cheers
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Now he may be right in saying the JSF costing is highly dubious
AWST, Oct 2, 2006: Article on expected USAF and USN cuts to fund Army rebuilding after Iraq..
....One of the primary targets for the cutting is expected top be the F-35 Lightning II JSF, which aerospace officials outside Lockheed Martin predict could rise in unit cost in five years to $85-100 million each from the current $45-56 million (depending on the variant)........
[USAF Brig. Gen Charles Davis, the F-35´s program executive officer] contends that if, for some reason, "we do not do any production for one year, the cost of those airplanes within the [FY 08-13] budget could go $12-16 million average higher"....
Anything BAE systems produces (Except Hawk) is CRA.P (FACT!!!!!)
No, that's opinion, not fact.
Typhoon (or Eurofighter 2000) is soooooo last century.
More, equally meaningless opinion.
It is little more capable than Hornet F/A 18A - with or without HUG.
WRONG. Wrong for BVR, WVR, A-G, and swing. Wrong on radar range, wrong on sensor fusion, wrong on weapons, wrong on DASS, wrong. Wrong.
A simple example: It is a nightmare to switch A/A to A/G and back again(should be simple in 2006 - surely).
WRONG! This is an exact inversion of the truth. Typhoon role modings change automatically and in a completely intuitive manner, and swinging from A/A to A/G is easy and straightforward - except in the initial austere A-G fit.
Unfortunately, it suffers from a design bureau that utilsed navigators from the '70s in software design and cockpit ergonomics and not single seat pilots from the '90s and beyond.
WRONG AGAIN! Read what blokes like John Turner, Keith Hartley and Craig Penrice have written about the EAP cockpit design process, and the Typhoon cockpit design committee, which quite explicitely included huge input from single seat pilots from the widest possible variety of cockpits.
If you want to see a badly designed MMI, there are other new generation fighters whose cockpits really do not allow the pilot to achieve tasks simply and intuitively.
Typhoon does have problems and weaknesses, like any aircraft, but you've signally failed to put your finger on any of them.
No, that's opinion, not fact.
Typhoon (or Eurofighter 2000) is soooooo last century.
More, equally meaningless opinion.
It is little more capable than Hornet F/A 18A - with or without HUG.
WRONG. Wrong for BVR, WVR, A-G, and swing. Wrong on radar range, wrong on sensor fusion, wrong on weapons, wrong on DASS, wrong. Wrong.
A simple example: It is a nightmare to switch A/A to A/G and back again(should be simple in 2006 - surely).
WRONG! This is an exact inversion of the truth. Typhoon role modings change automatically and in a completely intuitive manner, and swinging from A/A to A/G is easy and straightforward - except in the initial austere A-G fit.
Unfortunately, it suffers from a design bureau that utilsed navigators from the '70s in software design and cockpit ergonomics and not single seat pilots from the '90s and beyond.
WRONG AGAIN! Read what blokes like John Turner, Keith Hartley and Craig Penrice have written about the EAP cockpit design process, and the Typhoon cockpit design committee, which quite explicitely included huge input from single seat pilots from the widest possible variety of cockpits.
If you want to see a badly designed MMI, there are other new generation fighters whose cockpits really do not allow the pilot to achieve tasks simply and intuitively.
Typhoon does have problems and weaknesses, like any aircraft, but you've signally failed to put your finger on any of them.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: hell or a very good likeness of it
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Unlike past tactical fighters, the opportunity for export is currently non-existent because the export sale of the F-22 is barred by federal law. Very few allies would even be considered for export sale because it is such a sensitive and expensive system. Most current customers for US fighters are either acquiring earlier designs like the F-15 or F-16 or are waiting to acquire the JSF, which contains much of the F-22's technology but is designed to be cheaper and more flexible." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor
It's not for sale and rightfully so. If the F-22 is exported, even to a trustworthy ally like Austrailia; It becomes the standard. This means a more advanced replacement for the expensive F-22 will have to come sooner than later, therefore; the US taxpayers will get the shaft.
It's not for sale and rightfully so. If the F-22 is exported, even to a trustworthy ally like Austrailia; It becomes the standard. This means a more advanced replacement for the expensive F-22 will have to come sooner than later, therefore; the US taxpayers will get the shaft.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bris Vegas Australia
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quoting PJC from his article:
"We got an excellent bomber but a worthless fighter — the two roles are too incompatible for a common platform, and I don't care how far technology has moved."
What a load of dribble.....The Strike Eagle seems to be a smidge above average in both areas!
Let's not fall into the all too common tribal trap of 'My favourite new toy is better than your one'
The facts remain that the RAAF has a credible FJ force today that is getting long in the tooth. Nobody should dispute that (in the fullness of time) the Frightening II will be an awesome platform - as will the Tiffie II, Rafale and the A-380!.........The important question is HOW LONG IS A PIECE OF FULLNESS STRING?
Even back 30 years ago, there were jets that took an excessive amount of time from first flight to becoming operationally capable, the F-111 being a classic example. Typhoon has shown us a similar problem, and the F-35 will no doubt be the same.
The question facing the RAAF is one of how long can we wait to find out a realsitic IOC date for our first 2 F-35 SQNs and whether the current platforms can wait that long?
The F-22 is not an option because it has a limited STK capability - Yes it is awesome at killing other jets and it can carry JDAM, but that's about it.
When will JSF be useful and do we need a gap filler capability of F-15E or F/A-18F to avoid an unacceptable capability gap should the JSF USEFULNESS DATE (NOT delivery date) be in the latter half of this decade?
"We got an excellent bomber but a worthless fighter — the two roles are too incompatible for a common platform, and I don't care how far technology has moved."
What a load of dribble.....The Strike Eagle seems to be a smidge above average in both areas!
Let's not fall into the all too common tribal trap of 'My favourite new toy is better than your one'
The facts remain that the RAAF has a credible FJ force today that is getting long in the tooth. Nobody should dispute that (in the fullness of time) the Frightening II will be an awesome platform - as will the Tiffie II, Rafale and the A-380!.........The important question is HOW LONG IS A PIECE OF FULLNESS STRING?
Even back 30 years ago, there were jets that took an excessive amount of time from first flight to becoming operationally capable, the F-111 being a classic example. Typhoon has shown us a similar problem, and the F-35 will no doubt be the same.
The question facing the RAAF is one of how long can we wait to find out a realsitic IOC date for our first 2 F-35 SQNs and whether the current platforms can wait that long?
The F-22 is not an option because it has a limited STK capability - Yes it is awesome at killing other jets and it can carry JDAM, but that's about it.
When will JSF be useful and do we need a gap filler capability of F-15E or F/A-18F to avoid an unacceptable capability gap should the JSF USEFULNESS DATE (NOT delivery date) be in the latter half of this decade?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, the Carlo and friends circus rolls back into town.
Roll up, roll up. Ladies and Gentlemen, in smallest ring, the clown show will keep trying to advocate keeping the F-111 around for another 50 years. Laugh aloud as they suggest Australia can easily upgrade to future proof the "High Capability" F-111. Be dazzled by Carlo's scale diagrams showing possible colour schemes, but not much else of relevance. Gasp in wonderment, as you try to understand why they're still pushing the 1960's barrow that has lost its wheel.
Roll up, roll up. Ladies and Gentlemen, in smallest ring, the clown show will keep trying to advocate keeping the F-111 around for another 50 years. Laugh aloud as they suggest Australia can easily upgrade to future proof the "High Capability" F-111. Be dazzled by Carlo's scale diagrams showing possible colour schemes, but not much else of relevance. Gasp in wonderment, as you try to understand why they're still pushing the 1960's barrow that has lost its wheel.