EA/18G Growler

[Occum]

Bah! Bah!

That is a non sequitor.

Presume you mean non sequitur. If so, then it's not.

See -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

In fact, the statements that you believe to be 'non sequitor' are the exact opposite of a non sequitur. Both follow the Boeing St Louis export strategy (Project Archangel) quite nicely, thank you. In Australia's case, Archangel is all about getting the SH's in as the interim then making them the final and there can be no doubt that the USN is happy about the additional cash into their program to lower both their production costs and the costs of their maintenance and modification/upgrade lines.

As for AD's comments on 'personnel costs', am just wondering how he knows these form a 'large part' of the 'in excess of $30Bn' figure. How about some hard data, AD?

How much is this so-called 'large part' you are claiming?

Also, while you are at it, how much of these costs are for paying overseas contractors (aka. money that goes off shore) under the total logistic support (TLS) myopia being used for the so-called 'de-risking of programs' aka. the further de-skilling of Australia.

 

[Grand Danois]

Presume you mean non sequitur. If so, then it's not.

See -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

In fact, the statements that you believe to be 'non sequitor' are the exact opposite of a non sequitur. Both follow the Boeing St Louis export strategy (Project Archangel) quite nicely, thank you. In Australia's case, Archangel is all about getting the SH's in as the interim then making them the final and there can be no doubt that the USN is happy about the additional cash into their program to lower both their production costs and the costs of their maintenance and modification/upgrade lines.

You're absolutely right regard to spelling though not in the sense I intended to use it.

Non sequitur is an informal fallacy in that as the premise is wrong the conclusion does not follow. As per the Wiki link.

Premise 1: "If JSF fails..."

and

premise 2: "...there isn't any money available to pick up that mistake."

Both have to be true.

As to 1) the JSF, particularily the A version, has close to zero chance of cancellation, and if it does get cancelled, then 2) Australia will only have sunk a fraction of the allocated budget. If so, then there will be other contenders than the SH. Perhaps even the F-22A.

 

[Aussie Digger]

As for AD's comments on 'personnel costs', am just wondering how he knows these form a 'large part' of the 'in excess of $30Bn' figure. How about some hard data, AD?

Also, while you are at it, how much of these costs are for paying overseas contractors (aka. money that goes off shore) under the total logistic support (TLS) myopia being used for the so-called 'de-risking of programs' aka. the further de-skilling of Australia.

The $1.5b figure contained within the SH acquisition was mentioned by Defmin Nelson himself. I've no doubt that a similarly large amount has been factored into the NACC budget as well.

There's no such thing as a free lunch and personnel costs are going to figure highly no matter which aircraft is chosen for RAAF in coming years.

As to the "overseas contractors" bit. I wonder if the Hornet industry Coalition would agree with you there?

Also does not Boeing currently operate the F-111 support unit at Amberley? Will they not continue to support the SH, once it replaces F-111, given that it is due to be based also at Amberley?

If you'd said, "Australian Flight Test Services" won't receive any money from this than I'd no doubt agree with you. Afterall, isn't this the basis for APA's objections to Government and RAAF's BACC and NACC plans?

 

[Magoo]

The $1.5b figure contained within the SH acquisition was mentioned by Defmin Nelson himself. I've no doubt that a similarly large amount has been factored into the NACC budget as well.

To put some of this into perspective, DEFMIN has opened a potentially large can of worms by quoting a total projected life of type cost of $6bn for the Super buy, as this has never been done previously. My understanding is the aircraft make up about $2.9bn of this total, with the rest being allocated to the normal extras like manuals, training, basing infrastructure, weapons, as well as through life support costs, all RAAF and contractor manning, and even fuel and other expendable and consumables. Seems DEFMIN wanted to brag about the budget surplus (apparently against Defence's advice!) without giving too much thought as to the ramifications for future projects. None of the manning, consumables and expendables costs are included in NACC - this will likely add several billion to the through life cost of the aircraft (regardless of type).

As to the "overseas contractors" bit. I wonder if the Hornet industry Coalition would agree with you there?

HIC is a still born dead duck from all reports - probably not a great example to cite!

Also does not Boeing currently operate the F-111 support unit at Amberley? Will they not continue to support the SH, once it replaces F-111, given that it is due to be based also at Amberley?

Yes and no. Yes Boeing will continue to support it, but with about a quarter of the workforce required to support the F-111. Plus, there will be little fabrication work or in-house innovation required, as Boeing's 'global distribution' chain will send parts overnight via FedEx, only to be installed at Amberley.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Aussie Digger]

To put some of this into perspective, DEFMIN has opened a potentially large can of worms by quoting a total projected life of type cost of $6bn for the Super buy, as this has never been done previously. My understanding is the aircraft make up about $2.9bn of this total, with the rest being allocated to the normal extras like manuals, training, basing infrastructure, weapons, as well as through life support costs, all RAAF and contractor manning, and even fuel and other expendable and consumables. Seems DEFMIN wanted to brag about the budget surplus (apparently against Defence's advice!) without giving too much thought as to the ramifications for future projects. None of the manning, consumables and expendables costs are included in NACC - this will likely add several billion to the through life cost of the aircraft (regardless of type).

Yes, but the point was, APA are referring to the purchase price of SH's as AUD $6b in their matrix. They do not seem to want to mention the fact that aircraft, regardless of type, need to be fueled, armed, supported, pilots need to be paid, housed, provided with medical benefits etc, etc.

This distorts the arguments in favour of their "pet projects" and makes them appear vastly cheaper.

HIC is a still born dead duck from all reports - probably not a great example to cite!

Is it not still undertaking the HUG program and TLS for the Hornet fleet though in Australia with a predominantly Australian workforce?

Yes and no. Yes Boeing will continue to support it, but with about a quarter of the workforce required to support the F-111. Plus, there will be little fabrication work or in-house innovation required, as Boeing's 'global distribution' chain will send parts overnight via FedEx, only to be installed at Amberley.

Cheers

Magoo

Fair enough. I can't see the need then for the "numerous" overseas contractors then to perform such relatively minor support tasks?

 

[Occum]

The Matrix

Yes, but the point was, APA are referring to the purchase price of SH's as AUD $6b in their matrix. They do not seem to want to mention the fact that aircraft, regardless of type, need to be fueled, armed, supported, pilots need to be paid, housed, provided with medical benefits etc, etc.

No cuppie doll for you, AD. You might want to read the 'matrix', as you call it, before blurting out such clearly wrong assertions.

The table, as I read it, is a comparison of 'total project costs', at least that is what the heading says. As for the entry against the SH, it reads something like 'Procure 24 x SHs, including 10 years Support and Operational Costs'.

Is this not the case or are you looking at some other 'matrix'?

 

[Aussie Digger]

No cuppie doll for you, AD. You might want to read the 'matrix', as you call it, before blurting out such clearly wrong assertions.

The table, as I read it, is a comparison of 'total project costs', at least that is what the heading says. As for the entry against the SH, it reads something like 'Procure 24 x SHs, including 10 years Support and Operational Costs'.

Is this not the case or are you looking at some other 'matrix'?

Nope I was referring to that one at the APA website. I clearly fail to see then how costs for the F-111S or whatever you wish to call could be so much cheaper for 50 aircraft...

 

[rjmaz1]

Yep its laughable that APA think 50 Evolved F-111's will be cheaper than 24 Super Hornets

If JSF fails and there isn't any money available to pick up that mistake, then the SH will be your universal fighter. I am sure the USN appreciates helping lower production cost for them, but that shouldn't be the prime goal of the taxpayer funding the RAAF.

The JSF will not fail unless there is a econimic crisis.

If the JSF did get cancelled, then the F-22 production would remain open and probably 1000 F-22's would get purchased and the price would drop to F-35 levels. The F-22 would be cleared for export to select customers possibly with block 1 software as this will cost the US nothing and it effectively downspecs the fighter.

If Australia had 3 squadrons of Super Hornets and one squadron of F-22's i'd be happy with that. Just as happy as 1 squadron of Super Hornet and 3 squadrons of JSF IMO.

 

[ELP]

I'm sure the USN and Boeing ARE happy that Australia has decided to purchase the SH. Just as RAAF is as well.

Why do you keep mentioning the costs of these acquisitions? Everyone's aware of them, most importantly our current Government who has agreed to pay for it. These contracts are signed. No doubt we'll suffer heavily if a change of Government cancels the deal, both operationally and financially, so I doubt very much that will happen.

Once again with top speed. You seem rather obsessed by it. At the transonic speeds EVERY fighter operates at bar F-22 for the majority of missions, it is every bit as quick as the SU or any other fighter.

In addition, do you think the additional 8000lbs of thrust the SH is about to get thanks to the F-414 engine upgrade will make any difference to it's performance?

I have a feeling it may just improve things somewhat...

High AD. Yeah about the engine: Certainly that would be a great thing. The current engine is outstanding, just that when stuck into the Super Hornet the real thrust ends up being about 20k each (source GAO) instead of 22k. As the aircraft is already a tad heavy and draggy, this is one of the reasons why it is kinda slow. Any uprating in thrust would just get it over the hump from it's current power deficit. I'm not a GE guy so someone correct me. It was my understanding, and I may be wrong, that upgrading the 414 was an either/or thing; either you could get more reliability out of it or you could get more thrust. Also in the USN's current funding situation, I don't see any current funding press releases for paying for an uprated 414 upgrade at this time. There was talk about it, and the idea was offered, but USN would have to kick in the funds. Again on this point, I could be wrong. While additional power would be nice, given the airframe design, this might not help fuel economy. One thing I would desperately wish if RAAF was to get the Super Hornet would be to get the E model instead. It has more fuel than the family model. But thats just my opinion. In NCW ops and given the trick avionics of the SH, I don't see a need for a second crew-person and would prefer the extra fuel. Again less of an issue for the U.S. with it's legions of tankers.

 

[rjmaz1]

As far as i know the improved thrust engine will be putting out 25,000lb of thrust.

I doubt reliability will be effects the US Navy sets reliability as the most important aspect of an engine. The F119 seems to be as reliable as any previous engine yet it puts out 20% more thrust than the latest F100 in nearly the same sized engine.

Using technology for their F120 engine General Electric could easily reach the 25,000lb goal for the super Hornet. The F120 engine puts out another 10,000lb of thrust and its not much bigger at all.

 

[Aussie Digger]

High AD. Yeah about the engine: Certainly that would be a great thing. The current engine is outstanding, just that when stuck into the Super Hornet the real thrust ends up being about 20k each (source GAO) instead of 22k. As the aircraft is already a tad heavy and draggy, this is one of the reasons why it is kinda slow. Any uprating in thrust would just get it over the hump from it's current power deficit. I'm not a GE guy so someone correct me. It was my understanding, and I may be wrong, that upgrading the 414 was an either/or thing; either you could get more reliability out of it or you could get more thrust. Also in the USN's current funding situation, I don't see any current funding press releases for paying for an uprated 414 upgrade at this time. There was talk about it, and the idea was offered, but USN would have to kick in the funds. Again on this point, I could be wrong. While additional power would be nice, given the airframe design, this might not help fuel economy. One thing I would desperately wish if RAAF was to get the Super Hornet would be to get the E model instead. It has more fuel than the family model. But thats just my opinion. In NCW ops and given the trick avionics of the SH, I don't see a need for a second crew-person and would prefer the extra fuel. Again less of an issue for the U.S. with it's legions of tankers.

Yes the F-414 upgrade is only developmental at present and I too recall that either greater thrust or current levels of thrust could be had, but at much greater mean times between failure.

Certainly if the engine upgraded is funded AND the aircraft IS as underpowered as some suggest than the additional 25% thrust would be very welcome. Whilst it might not improve the top speed, surely acceleration, climb rates etc would have to be considerably improved which can only enhance it's A2A performance?

I have read the recent Australian Defence Business reporter, (ABDR-E) 2 part series on the F/A-18E/F (freely available here: http://adbr.com.au/data/ADBR-E_Prev.htm)

Which explains IIRC, that in actuality the "F" model has less than 10% less fuel than the "E" model, but that the 2nd seater is the actual highly prized part of the SH as far as RAAF is concerned...

It is being acquired primarily for it's strike capabiltiy afterall, as a replacement for the F-111, and RAAF sees value in a 2nd operator in such missions.

Operating from land bases rather than carriers, means that taking off with additional drop tanks is not such an issue for RAAF operated Hornets, at least as far as takeoff weight is concerned...

 

[rossfrb_1]

{snip}
It was my understanding, and I may be wrong, that upgrading the 414 was an either/or thing; either you could get more reliability out of it or you could get more thrust. Also in the USN's current funding situation, I don't see any current funding press releases for paying for an uprated 414 upgrade at this time. There was talk about it, and the idea was offered, but USN would have to kick in the funds. Again on this point, I could be wrong.
{snip}

I'm guessing someone like occum could probably shed a little more light on this
http://www.geaviation.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/military/military_20060717b.html
".......GE has continued testing growth versions of the F414, including an Enhanced Durability Engine (EDE) that includes an advanced core that can provide either a 15% increase in thrust or extended component life at current thrust levels. This configuration uses a six-stage, 3D aero high-pressure compressor and an advanced high-pressure turbine. The new compressor increases airflow and efficiency while the advanced turbine has higher temperature capability and improved efficiency..........."

Does this mean a 15% increase in thrust whilst retaining current reliability levels? The engine is supposed to be pretty reliable as is, so a 15% increase in thrust assuming no other penalty (apart from fuel consumption?) should be useful.
The more I read/hear about the RAAF SHornet purchase, the more it seems like a good idea, all things considered. The RAAF appear to be buying in at a very opportune time, ie block II/II+(?) with all that that entails.

cheers
rb

 

[ELP]

Yep its laughable that APA think 50 Evolved F-111's will be cheaper than 24 Super Hornets

The JSF will not fail unless there is a econimic crisis.

If the JSF did get cancelled, then the F-22 production would remain open and probably 1000 F-22's would get purchased and the price would drop to F-35 levels. The F-22 would be cleared for export to select customers possibly with block 1 software as this will cost the US nothing and it effectively downspecs the fighter.

If Australia had 3 squadrons of Super Hornets and one squadron of F-22's i'd be happy with that. Just as happy as 1 squadron of Super Hornet and 3 squadrons of JSF IMO.

Hi rjmaz,

I agree on some points. A Super Hornet would be a little more acceptable if it was backed up by F-22. Of course that doesn't help with Doc Nelson saying the F-22 is the wrong jet for Australia. What is interesting is the same people that back up the Doc and claim F-22 isn't available ( real political effort and money could get the F-22 for Australia as the reasons like the U.S. funding law etc. is not that big of an obstacle and Australias security status which makes it a top friend in weapons purchases. Last U.S. admin reduced weapons restrictions significantly to the ABC's. I don't believe Nelson made much of an effort to ask for it. It doesn't offer the potential $9 billion in home workshare that JSF does. THAT is the real reason F-22 isn't being asked for. ...
To go on further, The last U.S. budget should be a huge warning sign. Fact is JSF production was cut by congress mostly to pay for the war we are in. Our Defence budget may say $700 plus billion but the war is taking up a lot of that effort in several colours of money, combined with Congressmen buying more C-17s USAF didn't ask for, V-22, JSF, F-22, Stryker, paying for a large amount of ground equipment ruined in the war that has to be replaced, the latest authorized increase to Army troop numbers...etc etc. Lots of money to sustain all of this. Not to mention the huge contracts for battlefield logistics support contracts: KBR, Blackwater etc etc. And consider that most of the war is funded on borrowed money, we my friend, are already in a budget crisis over here.
If JSF production gets underfunded next year and the year after ( even though the program is well run ).... there will be a huge problem. This last budget just forced USAF to plan to use it's F-15s and F-16s to the year 2025, there is a big back up plan for this being worked on life extensions and upgrades. Not to mention all the non-sexy things that make the USAF run on a day to day basis that are being put into fallow shifting funds to the war. This JSF slowdown means we would have to build JSF till 2040 just for USAF to get all the number USAF currently requests. That by itself is looney tunes.
Our USN still has to build ships and manpower for production is getting more expensive. USN has asked for and gotten, delivery dates of the CV JSF delayed so it can pay for other things. That is why Super Hornet here is such a star, it is an accountants dream in these dire times. And foreign sales like the RAAF will help to keep production costs of Super Hornet down. A big "thank you" from the U.S. Navy. We have, through the effort of an ill advised expeditionary war and deficit spending, put this whole program at risk.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I'm guessing someone like occum could probably shed a little more light on this
http://www.geaviation.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/military/military_20060717b.html
".......GE has continued testing growth versions of the F414, including an Enhanced Durability Engine (EDE) that includes an advanced core that can provide either a 15% increase in thrust or extended component life at current thrust levels. This configuration uses a six-stage, 3D aero high-pressure compressor and an advanced high-pressure turbine. The new compressor increases airflow and efficiency while the advanced turbine has higher temperature capability and improved efficiency..........."

Does this mean a 15% increase in thrust whilst retaining current reliability levels? The engine is supposed to be pretty reliable as is, so a 15% increase in thrust assuming no other penalty (apart from fuel consumption?) should be useful.
The more I read/hear about the RAAF SHornet purchase, the more it seems like a good idea, all things considered. The RAAF appear to be buying in at a very opportune time, ie block II/II+(?) with all that that entails.

cheers
rb

Ah, thanks for the link mate.

This quote: GE has also completed extensive rig testing of the new high-pressure compressor and a new two- stage advanced fan. This year, GE will test this new fan with the EDE core to provide up to 20% more thrust than the current F414." is what I was recalling (slightly) incorrectly...

So, how would an SH fare with a 40% increase in available thrust? ( Based on 2x engines each providing 20% greater thrust than now).

Seems to me it'd be quite a "rocket ship"...

 

[ELP]

20,000(1 engine (using GAO fig)) x 1.2(adding 20%) = 24,000 x 2 = 48,000

40,000(2 engines) x 1.2(adding 20%) = 48,000


Either way it is just a 20% increase across the board.

Using the hush house figure 22,000 x 1.2 = 26,400 for 52,800



I would leave it to an engineer to say what flying improvements it would give but upgrading like that might lower the hours the engine stays in the jet before a change. One of the things with the current engines is that doing sustained turns, it spends more time in burner, so either a thrust increase will help fuel economy by less time in burner or not. Again I'm not an engineer, I only play one on the internet.

 

[Tasman]

I have read the recent Australian Defence Business reporter, (ABDR-E) 2 part series on the F/A-18E/F (freely available here: http://adbr.com.au/data/ADBR-E_Prev.htm)

Hey AD

Thanks for the link to ADBR.

It was interesting that the article re the F-22 availability strongly supports the RAAF's and government's claims that it is not available for purchase by Australia.

Equally eye opening was the article on bridging options that clearly supports the selection of the Super Hornet over the three other options considered, namely the F-15E, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Dassault Rafale.

These were both highly detailed articles which cover practically all of the claims and counter claims that have been made in this thread. As a result both articles are, IMO, well worth reading by anyone with an interest in this discussion.

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hey AD

Thanks for the link to ADBR.

It was interesting that the article re the F-22 availability strongly supports the RAAF's and government's claims that it is not available for purchase by Australia.

Equally eye opening was the article on bridging options that clearly supports the selection of the Super Hornet over the three other options considered, namely the F-15E, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Dassault Rafale.

These were both highly detailed articles which cover practically all of the claims and counter claims that have been made in this thread. As a result both articles are, IMO, well worth reading by anyone with an interest in this discussion.

Cheers

I thought they were a rather decent read myself.

One final thought for the day here though is this "interesting" comment taken straight from APA's website today:

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]"Given that there is an enormous volume of open source material now available which details these issues it is now an irrefutable fact that Defence have lost the capability to objectively analyse and understand capabilities in contemporary and future air power in the region. The Minister's statements are proof of this.”"

Anyone who likes to think that APA are capable of making a rational contribution to this "debate" any longer, would do well to read this...

Irrebutable fact is HARDLY a basis for APA's "argument"...
[/FONT]

 

[Todjaeger]

No cuppie doll for you, AD. You might want to read the 'matrix', as you call it, before blurting out such clearly wrong assertions.

The table, as I read it, is a comparison of 'total project costs', at least that is what the heading says. As for the entry against the SH, it reads something like 'Procure 24 x SHs, including 10 years Support and Operational Costs'.

Is this not the case or are you looking at some other 'matrix'?

Looking at the matrix, the numbers appear to be inaccurate. I admit, I'm no expert, but the cost for modifying & and updating the F-111C appears to be rather low. Also, some of the comparisons are inaccurate at best.

Having said that, the estimates for 10 years of support for the F-111 doesn't tally for a 22 aircraft fleet. Either things which are included in the A$6 bil. are not part of the support costing estimate, or the estimate is for fewer than 22 operational strike aircraft, or the numbers are just wrong. I'm not including the new weapons that are included with the SH purchase that would be also used with the follow-on, presumably JSF purchase.

The quoted price for the RAAF purchase of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets is US$3.1 bil. or ~ A$3.8 bil given the current exchange rate. That works out to roughly US$129 mil. per aircraft with parts/logistics support included.
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2007/Australia_07-13.pdf
Given that the US purchase price has been listed as US$60 mil. not including parts, support, etc. then it would seem the 10 yr support costs per aircraft is expected to equal or exceed the initial purchase cost of the actual aircraft.

Assuming the figures on the APA media page are accurate
http://ausairpower.net/media.html
the cost of the upgrades on the F-111 works out to around A$75 mil per aircraft (assumption of 22 aircraft upgraded) and the total upgrade & support (not including new weapons purchase like the SH) costs for ten years works out to A$4.3 bil, or US$3.4 bil, using the same exchange rate (US$1 ~ A1.25)

Another issue is that the A$6 bil. for the SH is expected to cover virtually all costs for a ten year period. The listed cost estimate for F-111 support & operation over a ten year period works out to approximately A$12 mil. per aircraft annually.
http://ausairpower.net/DT_F-111_Costs.pdf
Looking at page #2, the listed annual cost for the F-111 is A$22.5 mil. per aircraft, even with an upgrade, I cannot see how the operating costs for the F-111 could drop A$10 mil. per aircraft per year. One of the reasons why the F-14 Tomcat was retired by the USN was that maintenance/operating costs were significantly higher than for the F/A-18 Hornet & Super Hornets. And as has been mentioned before, the F-14 program grew out of the program that created the F-111. If anything, as the aircraft ages, maintenance/operating costs should go up, particularly due to the V-G design.

Lastly, is the inclusion of the HUG upgrade on one side of the matrix, but not the other. That appears to be a rather glaring oversight. Given that the RAAF needs to maintain a viable air combat force until whatever NACC aircraft enters service, the HUG program was needed regardless of the NACC choice.

In my view, a more accurate representation of the matrix would have listed the cost for the F/A-18F Super Hornet, plus support, etc. vs. the cost for upgrading the F-111 and the exact same level of support, munitions etc, for the exact same period of time, ten years. Then, for the NACC component comparison would be between 75 F-35A Lightning II (JSF) vs. the 50 listed F-22A Raptor. Ignoring for the moment what would need to be done before the Raptor could be exported, of course. By removing the strike component from the matrix for the years following ~ 2020, that reduces the estimates to just the Tactical Fighter element for those years. Otherwise there would potentially need to be estimates on needed upgrades, viability, support etc. for the F-111 and the JSF for those years, and those numbers aren't currently available.

I'm interested to hear what people think on this.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Looking at the matrix, the numbers appear to be inaccurate. I admit, I'm no expert, but the cost for modifying & and updating the F-111C appears to be rather low. Also, some of the comparisons are inaccurate at best.

Having said that, the estimates for 10 years of support for the F-111 doesn't tally for a 22 aircraft fleet. Either things which are included in the A$6 bil. are not part of the support costing estimate, or the estimate is for fewer than 22 operational strike aircraft, or the numbers are just wrong. I'm not including the new weapons that are included with the SH purchase that would be also used with the follow-on, presumably JSF purchase.

The quoted price for the RAAF purchase of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets is US$3.1 bil. or ~ A$3.8 bil given the current exchange rate. That works out to roughly US$129 mil. per aircraft with parts/logistics support included.
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2007/Australia_07-13.pdf
Given that the US purchase price has been listed as US$60 mil. not including parts, support, etc. then it would seem the 10 yr support costs per aircraft is expected to equal or exceed the initial purchase cost of the actual aircraft.

Assuming the figures on the APA media page are accurate
http://ausairpower.net/media.html
the cost of the upgrades on the F-111 works out to around A$75 mil per aircraft (assumption of 22 aircraft upgraded) and the total upgrade & support (not including new weapons purchase like the SH) costs for ten years works out to A$4.3 bil, or US$3.4 bil, using the same exchange rate (US$1 ~ A1.25)

Another issue is that the A$6 bil. for the SH is expected to cover virtually all costs for a ten year period. The listed cost estimate for F-111 support & operation over a ten year period works out to approximately A$12 mil. per aircraft annually.
http://ausairpower.net/DT_F-111_Costs.pdf
Looking at page #2, the listed annual cost for the F-111 is A$22.5 mil. per aircraft, even with an upgrade, I cannot see how the operating costs for the F-111 could drop A$10 mil. per aircraft per year. One of the reasons why the F-14 Tomcat was retired by the USN was that maintenance/operating costs were significantly higher than for the F/A-18 Hornet & Super Hornets. And as has been mentioned before, the F-14 program grew out of the program that created the F-111. If anything, as the aircraft ages, maintenance/operating costs should go up, particularly due to the V-G design.

Lastly, is the inclusion of the HUG upgrade on one side of the matrix, but not the other. That appears to be a rather glaring oversight. Given that the RAAF needs to maintain a viable air combat force until whatever NACC aircraft enters service, the HUG program was needed regardless of the NACC choice.

In my view, a more accurate representation of the matrix would have listed the cost for the F/A-18F Super Hornet, plus support, etc. vs. the cost for upgrading the F-111 and the exact same level of support, munitions etc, for the exact same period of time, ten years. Then, for the NACC component comparison would be between 75 F-35A Lightning II (JSF) vs. the 50 listed F-22A Raptor. Ignoring for the moment what would need to be done before the Raptor could be exported, of course. By removing the strike component from the matrix for the years following ~ 2020, that reduces the estimates to just the Tactical Fighter element for those years. Otherwise there would potentially need to be estimates on needed upgrades, viability, support etc. for the F-111 and the JSF for those years, and those numbers aren't currently available.

I'm interested to hear what people think on this.

-Cheers

I think you've made very valid points. I wonder if Occum will though.

I believe the F-22/F-111 combo is based on their idea of 50x of each aircraft.

However it's rather pointless discussing the "what if's" any further. Government has signed for the SH and that just about rules out any other option.

If the Liberal party retain power this year, ANY chance of an F-22/F-111 combo is gone. This is because NACC second pass approval is due in 2008 at which point contracts will be signed for JSF and with at least 2 years prior to the following election NO chance of anything but the current plan will have a hope of getting up.

I suspect APA are only too well aware of this, hence their current "push"...

 

[Magoo]

I believe the F-22/F-111 combo is based on their idea of 50x of each aircraft.

I think it's 55 F-22s and 36 F-111Ss. To get to 36 F-111s, another 20 or so of the best remaining F-111A/G airframes would need to be pulled out of the Boneyard and baselined to the current F-111C-7 standard before any upgrade work to the proposed F-111S could commence.

Interestingly (and slightly O/T - sorry Mods), according to the Auditor General's report the RAAF's five remaining F-111Gs are slated for retirement in June of this year, leaving just the 21 F/RF-111Cs.

Cheers

Magoo