F-111s beyond 2012

[rjmaz1]

As I mention yesterday 20 so F22, its is a better balance as its primary role
is Air-Air, Iraq showed F15C's were next to useless after the initial stages which required fighters of more a multi-role type (eg.F14's,F18's,F15E's etc).

The F-22 should be compared to the F-15E not the F-15C. The F-22 is capable of searching and tracking ground targets and within 12months they'll be able to take them out with bombs, that sounds like a Strike Eagle to me The strike eagle in a nut shell is a F-15 with advanced avionics to allow ground attack, the F-22 already has these in place.

Someways its still a numbers game and more of the Superbugs whould be more useful than a larger number of F22's. It been reported that the '22's have droped gps SDB's which is more than the F15C is reported it can do. I prefer the F18's as it can carry the full range of weapons than the F22 (& F35??).

The SuperHornet is expensive for what it is, however its a half way point between the capability of our current hornets and that of the F-22. I still believe that our current hornets would provide better close air support than the superbug.

 

[Sea Toby]

The answer is so simple I am amazed no one has thought of it before. Why not build 20 brand new F-111s with the F-22A or F-23A avionics? A new aircraft built with off the shelf avionics system. No old engines to maintain, no old aircraft frames to life extend.

Although it will not be a stealth aircraft, it will more than likely have a large radar thumbprint. But you'll get the range you required with the newest avionics. Without the stealth it will also probably be cheaper.

Didn't General Dynamics offer a B-1 engine enlarge F-111 at one time as an alternative to the B-1B?

 

[abramsteve]

In previous threads, the difficulty with the 40-40 mix has been the cost/logistics associated with operating two different types of frontline aircraft. Thats not to say Im against it though!

We definatley need to maintain a medium ranged strike capability. Sea Toby, is rebuilding the 111's a serious option? If so I really would like to hear more bout that!

What about a 60 F-35, 20 (preferably 30) F-15E mix? Just a thought....

 

[Aussie Digger]

The answer is so simple I am amazed no one has thought of it before. Why not build 20 brand new F-111s with the F-22A or F-23A avionics? A new aircraft built with off the shelf avionics system. No old engines to maintain, no old aircraft frames to life extend.

Although it will not be a stealth aircraft, it will more than likely have a large radar thumbprint. But you'll get the range you required with the newest avionics. Without the stealth it will also probably be cheaper.

Didn't General Dynamics offer a B-1 engine enlarge F-111 at one time as an alternative to the B-1B?

Because of the cost. It would simply be enormous and RAAF thinks the (limited) money we have is better spent on a new generation aircraft. You can find 82 Wing (RAAF's F-111 Wing) and Boeing Australia's (the Company responsible for maintenance and upgrades on the F-111) thoughts on re-designing the F-111 for a new engine here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/joint/commttee/J9433.pdf

Suffice it to say, they do not agree with Dr Carlo KOPP or Peter GOON's suggestion that it would be "easy" and cost effective to do so. Given their respective experience as operators and maintainers of the capability, I tend to agree with their positions, compared to others...

Repeated ADF experience on programs such as the Super Seasprite, M113-UP, FFG-UP and AGM-142E integration onto the F-111 (which is still yet to provide an operational capability, some 8 years after the project commenced) show that integrating modern avionics and weapons onto ancient platforms is not nearly as easy or effective as "theorists" would have us believe.

An awful lot of money and effort goes into these projects ($1 Billion for the Seasprites, $500m for M113's, $1.5b for FFG's, $600m for AGM-142E) and not one of them is operational despite in some cases up to 10 years work being conducted on them.

As to the apparent ease of integrating the JASSM onto F-111, but not F/A-18, well one of your sources Occum, seems to think that the F-111 is equipped with the same "digital stores management system (SMS) common to the F/A-18" (Quote obtained from here: http://www.f-111.net/CarloKopp/F-111_Upgrade_Options_Pt_1.htm) which seems to be crucial to allowing the operation of modern "smart weapons"...

Given the more advanced avionics and radar system fitted to the Hornet (thanks to the successful HUG program which has NOT encountered any significant delays), I can't imagine HOW it would be more difficult to integrate the JASSM onto the Hornet than the F-111.

The Hornet also has a better targetting capability for the weapon thanks to it's modern APG-73 radar, Litening AT targetting pod and Project Echidna EWSP upgrades. The F-111 has not benefitted from such an upgrade to it's targetting sensors and is never likely to. An ability to carry such a weapon is important, but much moreso is the ability to target it and even Carlo KOPP admits that the F-111 is not "up to the job" in it's current form for this role.

In addition to which, according to Lockheed Martin the USA WILL be integrating the JASSM onto the F/A-18 platform, which will significantly reduce the effort involved for US. I seriously doubt the USA will integrate it onto the F-111 for us... (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-158.html).

A better option might be to integrate the AGM-142E onto the Hornet. At least we'd get some use out of it...

As to a self-escort capability, it is debateable I agree, but I can't imagine anyone arguing that the F-111 IS better at it than the F/A-18 is... At least the F/A-18 will carry BVR missiles, JHMCS and ASRAAM and a radar designed for A2A missions. Even the ASRAAM integration onto F-111 has been quietly dropped and it was only listed under DMO's "minor projects" (ie: those estimated at costing less than $20 million). Anyone who seriously thinks the kind of money necessary even to integrate JASSM onto the F-111 is going to be forthcoming, is "kidding" themselves.

Also I recogise the poor range of the F/A-18 particularly compared to the F-111, which is why I doubt we'll ever see the F/A-18 carry 4x JASSM missiles on strike missions. There may be a publicity shot or 2, just like the 10x Mk 84 bomb shot on the front of Defence Today last month or the 4x Harpoon shot floating around, but I doubt it would be used operationally that way.

However neither will the F-111. Everyone is conveniently overlooking the fact that the F-111 HAS to carry an external jammer pod (The Elta model I believe is currently used) and if RAAF wants to use it's vaunted "self-protection" capability (ie: a sidewinder missile or 2) than there goes any possibility of carrying 4 missiles. (F-111 only has a maximum of 4 external hardpoints remember? The internal bay is filled with Pavetack...)

Even only a maximum of 3 AGM-142E's could ever be carrried because of the podded data-link it needs for the weapon to work (if it ever does that is) and then it wouldn't have a jammer or WVR missile AT ALL. Just the platform I'd like to fly into the face of a hostile IADS...

When people start admitting to these basic truths, perhaps then we can start debating these issues "intelligently"...

 

[111Lover]

You can find 82 Wing (RAAF's F-111 Wing) and Boeing Australia's (the Company responsible for maintenance and upgrades on the F-111) thoughts on re-designing the F-111 for a new engine here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/joint/commttee/J9433.pdf

Thanks AD! I must have missed that one.

Given their respective experience as operators and maintainers of the capability, I tend to agree with their positions, compared to others...

For me, the opinons of the people who actually operate the aircraft are the ones that matter the most. Analysts and journalists can theorise all they want, but at the end of the day, if an 82nd Wing pilot or maintainer says that the F-111 can or can't go beyond 2012 (provided they're not just towing the party line), then that's all the evidence I need.

 

[rjmaz1]

In previous threads, the difficulty with the 40-40 mix has been the cost/logistics associated with operating two different types of frontline aircraft. Thats not to say Im against it though!

We definatley need to maintain a medium ranged strike capability. Sea Toby, is rebuilding the 111's a serious option? If so I really would like to hear more bout that!

What about a 60 F-35, 20 (preferably 30) F-15E mix? Just a thought....

The logistics of operating 40 of the current hornets and 40 F-22 will cost far less than operating 60 JSF's and F-15 eagles. The hornets are flying so everything is up and running.

The F-15E is a good aircraft however it is not that superior than our current hornets which have alot of avionic upgrades. The F-15E can fly much further but other aspects its not much of an improvement over the hornet, probably even worse than a super hornet. An all JSF fleet would be better than using F-15E's in my opinion.

F-22's however is a big improvement compared to what we have now that combined with the current hornets would cover every mission better than any other combination of aircraft. F-22 for air defence and strike and the current hornets as close air support and anti ship role.

This is by far the cheapest option. To save money even more we could purchase just a single squadron of F-22 and only use them for high risk missions then operate the Hornets for the majority of peace keeping roles. The current hornets are still very advanced and would defeat the majority of enemy aircraft with ease, thats perfect for a secondary strike fighter.

 

[Sea Toby]

No, building new F-111s was on my part be satirical. Some keep requesting F-111 range, therefore I suggested building new F-111s with the latest avionics to get F-111 range. The only route of getting a new aircraft with F-111 range is to either wait for someone else to build them or build them yourself.

I have said before there is no need to rush into buying Lightning IIs. I would rather rebarrel the Hornets, keep them 10-15 years, and then 10-15 years from now buy the Lightning IIs, when their price is lowest. Its silly to buy in a hurry Lightning IIs with their price approaching $100 million when you can wait ten years and buy them at $50 million.

How can buying 80 Lightning IIs cost more than buying 40 Raptors, with the Raptors costing more than twice as much? If you are willing to wait for the best price, you might get 100 Lightning IIs for the price of 40 Raptors.

After rebarreling the Hornets there is no need to acquire an interim aircraft. Surely rebarreling will cost less than buying 40 interim Strike Eagles. And if you wish to replace the F-111 numbers quickly, buying 30 used Hornets from America that may not need to be rebarreled would be a cheaper route to bring the numbers back up to 100 for the short term.

As I have noted before, Australia has improved its infrastructure since the F-111 buy 35 years ago. There are now tankers and new empty airfields up on the northern coast, eliminating the need to have F-111 range.

I would rather buy a few more Airbus tankers to get more range. Having already bought the service package, you should be able to get at least 4-6 more for a Billion dollars. 40 Strike Eagles will run easily $3.5 Billion. You'll get more aircraft with more range by buying more tankers even with the old Hornets.

If you wish to buy a second aircraft, I suggest 10 or so F-35Bs, for use on the new LHDs.

 

[Aussie Digger]

No, building new F-111s was on my part be satirical. Some keep requesting F-111 range, therefore I suggested building new F-111s with the latest avionics to get F-111 range. The only route of getting a new aircraft with F-111 range is to either wait for someone else to build them or build them yourself.

I have said before there is no need to rush into buying Lightning IIs. I would rather rebarrel the Hornets, keep them 10-15 years, and then 10-15 years from now buy the Lightning IIs, when their price is lowest. Its silly to buy in a hurry Lightning IIs with their price approaching $100 million when you can wait ten years and buy them at $50 million.

How can buying 80 Lightning IIs cost more than buying 40 Raptors, with the Raptors costing more than twice as much? If you are willing to wait for the best price, you might get 100 Lightning IIs for the price of 40 Raptors.

After rebarreling the Hornets there is no need to acquire an interim aircraft. Surely rebarreling will cost less than buying 40 interim Strike Eagles. And if you wish to replace the F-111 numbers quickly, buying 30 used Hornets from America that may not need to be rebarreled would be a cheaper route to bring the numbers back up to 100 for the short term.

As I have noted before, Australia has improved its infrastructure since the F-111 buy 35 years ago. There are now tankers and new empty airfields up on the northern coast, eliminating the need to have F-111 range.

I would rather buy a few more Airbus tankers to get more range. Having already bought the service package, you should be able to get at least 4-6 more for a Billion dollars. 40 Strike Eagles will run easily $3.5 Billion. You'll get more aircraft with more range by buying more tankers even with the old Hornets.

If you wish to buy a second aircraft, I suggest 10 or so F-35Bs, for use on the new LHDs.

]

Fair enough, some suggestions floating around would basically entail what you have proposed, fortunately (for them) the people suggesting the ideas don't have to fund it themselves, rather they intend to be the recipient of said funding...

I too am in favour of a second hand F/A-18 purchase to bolster our force until we can get the JSF. Some ex USMC "Night Attack" Bugs would be just dandy and would virtually match the capability our HUG Bugs will have "off the shelf". I think RAAF should be aiming to keep a fighter force of at least 100 aircraft, of whatever type it may acquire.

Anything less is ridiculous and 40 Raptors would NOT cover the roles we require. That number would allow for only 2 short Squadrons at best. Add in the capabilities they are missing (anti-ship missile capability, SOW capability, LGB, EO/IR pod capability, etc) they do not appear to be a "bargain" to me...

 

[alexsa]

SuperBug & F22 is available NOW & in service, not a proposed timeframe in 5-10 years time.

Well the super bug is available but the F-22 as far as I know:

1. has not been approved for sale outside the US
2. has a limtied production run whihc is still provding USAF air frames; and
3. there has been no approval to extend production beyong the current maximum of 183 (or 187 whcih ever it is) airframes.

does not seem to qualify as available.

 

[rjmaz1]

How can buying 80 Lightning IIs cost more than buying 40 Raptors, with the Raptors costing more than twice as much? If you are willing to wait for the best price, you might get 100 Lightning IIs for the price of 40 Raptors.

We plan on buying the JSF's early when they are most expensive. The price of the JSF in the early stages definitely wont be less than half the cost of an F-22 now, it will be lucky to be two thirds the price of an F-22.

I think it would be a good idea to wait, however with delays we might have to wait until 2020 until they become dirty cheap towards the end of the production run.

Anything less is ridiculous and 40 Raptors would NOT cover the roles we require. That number would allow for only 2 short Squadrons at best. Add in the capabilities they are missing (anti-ship missile capability, SOW capability, LGB, EO/IR pod capability, etc) they do not appear to be a "bargain" to me...

The 40 F-22 option would mean that some of the current hornets would keep flying to make up numbers and provide the low of a High-Low fighter mix. The hornet can provide all the capabilities that the F-22 doesn't have as most of those missions dont require an advanced airframe. The F-22 would provide air defence, strike using SDB's and possibly recon, the hornets would do everything else.

Just like the USAF B-2 bombers, they are only used at the early stages of a war and then do nothing the rest of the time. The cheaper aircraft then take over so our current hornets are ideal to sit side by side with some F-22's. The F-22 for australia would act as a deterant, we did the same with the F-111 for decades without seeing combat and it worked well. If war did break out the F-22 would dominate.

Also in coalition campaigns we would send over a squadron of our F-22 to play part in the war and our air force may actually make a useful contribution for once. Atleast now our F-22 would be compatible with the USAF inflight refueling system and not be a burden like usual.

I do think your idea of the night attack hornet is the most cost effective solution for us. 70 of the current Hornets and 30 Night attack hornets would be excellent.

If that idea went ahead upper body conformal tanks similar to the F-16's or lower body conformal tanks like the Strike eagle could be developed then range of the hornets would be adequate.

Nearly every image of a hornet i've seen the hornet has atleast one fuel tank usually two external tanks. Thats a good sign that conformal tanks are the way to go. Even with the tanks it would still be more agile than the F-111's for strike missions.

 

[Sea Toby]

History seem to repeat itself. This Reminds me of the F-111 order back during the 1960s. Australia ordered early, there were program problems, stored them a few years, problems worked out, and finally a delivery. During the stored period, Australia bought or leased F-4s to make ends meet.

I still say there is no hurry to acquire F-35As. The consensus is the price of the F-35As will be much cheaper if we wait. Their range and payload will be better than the F/A-18s. No, they won't have the range of the F-111, but neither does the F-22A or the F-15C or F-15E. If you wish to have better interdiction range, why not lease used F-15Cs for a short time? If you wish to have better strike range, why not lease used F-15Es for a short time?

But since I am cheap, I'll choose the cheapest method. Rebarrel the F/A-18s, live with them another 10 years, then purchase the F-35As. Acquire a few more tankers to improve their range, or buddy pack them. If you are concerned about the fleet numbers, lease used F/A-18s.

The F/A-18s have a history of over 90 percent availablity. The F-15s have a history of only 80 percent availability. The F/A-18s have a history of being cheaper to operate. That is why the F-14s are gone from the US Navy.

I wish everyone here would download Google Earth, if their computer is strong enough. Otherwise Google Map will have to do. Zoom in on USAF fighter bases. You'll notice usually two old tankers at each fighter base. Australia needs to think in the same terms, but since Australia doesn't have but 4 old tankers, I suggest placing them at an air bases closest to the theater of operations.

While I am not that familiar with fighters, I'm Coast Guard oriented, I have attempted to read between the lines of fighter range. It seems most fighters besides the F-15 in the US inventory have a combat radius range of around 500 miles, more like 400 miles fully loaded. The F-15 is considerably more, 200+ miles more. The F-111, more of a strike aircraft than a interdictor, have a range of over 1300 miles. Its going to be impossible to replace the range of an F-111 until either another nation or Australia decides to build a new longer range aircraft.

 

[Magoo]

Here we go again...

:cop :cop

Guys

We appear to be drifting off track again here. If you want to contribute to F/A-18 upgrades/modifications or replacement options, can we please run this in another thread.

I started this thread to try to get info on F-111 upgrades and options to keep them in service beyond 2012.

Cheers

Magoo:lam

:cop:cop

 

[Occum]

Back on Track

:cop :cop

We appear to be drifting off track again here. If you want to contribute to F/A-18 upgrades/modifications or replacement options, can we please run this in another thread.

I started this thread to try to get info on F-111 upgrades and options to keep them in service beyond 2012.

Cheers

Magoo:lam

:cop:cop

Well done, Magoo. Browsing through the posts on this thread, I agree with you.

Your questions that started this thread went to Capability, Costs and, I presume by inference, Risks associated with taking the F-111 beyond 2012. I will try to provide some answers to your questions as succinctly as I can using these three metrics, starting with Costs.

To set the scene on Costs, one should start with the overall budget (ie. the money that is available). To do this, I would like to draw upon previous posts from two threads that were pre-emptively shut down by someone (methinks this may have been gf0012-aust) before the data/information in these posts were adequately debated by the Forum Members. So here goes.

BUDGET and COSTS:


1. NACC/Air 6000 Project Budget (refer Defence Capability Plans published in 2001, 2004, 2006 and Defence Annual Reports 1999 to 2005) = A$11,500 million to A$15,500 million (2004 dollars),

minus

2. Cost of 55 x F-22A systems @ US$116 million average unit procurement cost (Then Year 2008 UPC expressed in 2004 dollars) = US$6,380 million. At a risk hedged exchange rate of 0.7000, this equates to A$9,115 million,

plus

3. Saving from not doing remaining F/A-18 HUG Phases, R3+ Deeper Level Maintenance, Repaint, Kapton Wiring Replacement, Fuel Tank Bladder Replacements, etc = A$2,700 million (in 2004 dollars). Note: This figure does not include the increases made or flagged in DCP 2006-2016 nor the further cost increases in HUG Phases 2.3, 2.4 and 3.2,

plus

4. Saving in total operating and maintenance expenditure (not including 3. above) from not operating F/A-18s out to 2015+ by retiring them by 2010 = A$4,500 million (2004 Dollars) - refer Defence Annual Reports 1999 to 2005,

minus

5. Total operating expenditure of F-111s out to 2020 (by taking the highest of the RAAF's figures provided in the Air Combat Capability Paper dated 03 June 2004 tabled to the Australian Parliament by AM Angus Houston) = $3,500 million (2004 dollars),


Net Result = better than A$6 Bn to A$10 Bn worth of savings in 2004 dollars.

The ‘better than’ arises from the time value of money (TVM) baseline used to keep this presentation simple.

These savings would be more than enough to procure additional tanker, AEW&C, other ISR and Evolved F-111 capabilities, if managed correctly.

Apart from the AUPC used for the procurement of 55 Raptors, the figures are derived from Defence statutory financial statements and reports as well as statements made to the Parliament by the current CDF.

Even if one were to use the US$153 million unit procurement cost stated in the Angus Houston ASPI Strategic Insight on the NACC Program, the spread of savings would still be significant (A$3,100 million to A$7,100 million).

Hopefully, this will encourage some healthy, rational and, as you have asked, "mutually respectful debate" on the Budget and Cost elements of your questions and this thread as a whole.




ps - This is my posting No '111' on this forum. How scary is that?

 

[rjmaz1]

Occum what would the cost be if they bought 40 F-22's and rebarreled 40 Hornets for a High Low mix of 80 aircraft?

Would it still be less than the JSF option which requires rebarreling twice as many hornets and 80 JSF's versus 40 F-22's?

 

[Magoo]

Well done, Magoo. Browsing through the posts on this thread, I agree with you.

Your questions that started this thread went to Capability, Costs and, I presume by inference, Risks associated with taking the F-111 beyond 2012. I will try to provide some answers to your questions as succinctly as I can using these three metrics, starting with Costs.

To set the scene on Costs, one should start with the overall budget (ie. the money that is available). To do this, I would like to draw upon previous posts from two threads that were pre-emptively shut down by someone (methinks this may have been gf0012-aust) before the data/information in these posts were adequately debated by the Forum Members. So here goes.

BUDGET and COSTS:


1. NACC/Air 6000 Project Budget (refer Defence Capability Plans published in 2001, 2004, 2006 and Defence Annual Reports 1999 to 2005) = A$11,500 million to A$15,500 million (2004 dollars),

minus

2. Cost of 55 x F-22A systems @ US$116 million average unit procurement cost (Then Year 2008 UPC expressed in 2004 dollars) = US$6,380 million. At a risk hedged exchange rate of 0.7000, this equates to A$9,115 million,

plus

3. Saving from not doing remaining F/A-18 HUG Phases, R3+ Deeper Level Maintenance, Repaint, Kapton Wiring Replacement, Fuel Tank Bladder Replacements, etc = A$2,700 million (in 2004 dollars). Note: This figure does not include the increases made or flagged in DCP 2006-2016 nor the further cost increases in HUG Phases 2.3, 2.4 and 3.2,

plus

4. Saving in total operating and maintenance expenditure (not including 3. above) from not operating F/A-18s out to 2015+ by retiring them by 2010 = A$4,500 million (2004 Dollars) - refer Defence Annual Reports 1999 to 2005,

minus

5. Total operating expenditure of F-111s out to 2020 (by taking the highest of the RAAF's figures provided in the Air Combat Capability Paper dated 03 June 2004 tabled to the Australian Parliament by AM Angus Houston) = $3,500 million (2004 dollars),


Net Result = better than A$6 Bn to A$10 Bn worth of savings in 2004 dollars.

The ‘better than’ arises from the time value of money (TVM) baseline used to keep this presentation simple.

These savings would be more than enough to procure additional tanker, AEW&C, other ISR and Evolved F-111 capabilities, if managed correctly.

Apart from the AUPC used for the procurement of 55 Raptors, the figures are derived from Defence statutory financial statements and reports as well as statements made to the Parliament by the current CDF.

Even if one were to use the US$153 million unit procurement cost stated in the Angus Houston ASPI Strategic Insight on the NACC Program, the spread of savings would still be significant (A$3,100 million to A$7,100 million).

Hopefully, this will encourage some healthy, rational and, as you have asked, "mutually respectful debate" on the Budget and Cost elements of your questions and this thread as a whole.

Thanks Occum - interesting stuff.

A couple of queries...

By including the Hornet fleet's repaint, R3 DM and other life-cycle related costs in the Hornet re-barrel option, shouldn't you also include establishment and life-of-type support costs for the 5-6 years (to 2016) of the F-22's RAAF service when comparing the relative costs?

I would imagine the setting up of in-country support infrastructure for the F119s, APG-77 and the various low observable treatments (as well as rescue chainsaws at each base to get the pilots out when the canopies jam!), as well as simulators and new basing infrastructure would add quite significantly to the best-case NRFAC of US$116 per aircraft. I would have thought a more realistic number would be in the order of US$180m per aircraft when all this is taken into account.

Aside from finding the money to do so through an F-22 acquisition and Hornet HUG 3.2 cancellation, this still doesn't answer my questions about the specific F-111 upgrade proposals and the various risks associated with them. I'd be interested in your thoughts on these.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Occum]

Magoo,

Am waiting to board a flight so not a lot of time.

But before I answer this, maybe you could help me out. What do you mean by "the best-case NRFAC"? This is not a term with which I am familiar.

Also, from where did you get the "USD$180m per aircraft"?

The figure I used in this precis is the average unit procurement cost over a buy of 55 Raptors in 2010, deflated back to 2004 dollars for comparison purposes. The definition of average unit procurement cost and other terms relating to the costing of military materiel may be found in US DoD AFR 5001 and includes amortisation of training, initial spares, GSE/ATE, data/documentation, etc.

These definitions, with citations, may also be found in APA Submission No 20 and were confirmed in Attachment 1 to Defence Submission No 27.

Thanks.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Magoo,

Am waiting to board a flight so not a lot of time.

But before I answer this, maybe you could help me out. What do you mean by "the best-case NRFAC"? This is not a term with which I am familiar.

Also, from where did you get the "USD$180m per aircraft"?

The figure I used in this precis is the average unit procurement cost over a buy of 55 Raptors in 2010, deflated back to 2004 dollars for comparison purposes. The definition of average unit procurement cost and other terms relating to the costing of military materiel may be found in US DoD AFR 5001 and includes amortisation of training, initial spares, GSE/ATE, data/documentation, etc.

These definitions, with citations, may also be found in APA Submission No 20 and were confirmed in Attachment 1 to Defence Submission No 27.

Thanks.

NRFAC = Non-recurring fly away cost I'd imagine. As to the cost of the F-111 upgrade, RAAF estimated at LEAST $8 billion for the upgrade proposals suggested by APA in front of the estimates committee.

Add this figure to the $2.5b we've already spent on the HUG to date which would virtually be lost unless we were able to find a buyer willing to buy our shagged "legacy Hornet" airframes (something I am not sanguine about) and your costings aren't looking so great Occum...

Not to mention the ever present cloud hanging over the F-22 and the most recent proposals to drop the remaining 60 odd F-22 airframes leaving USAF with a 120 strong fleet, ending the production line and making the cost of any future airframes go through the roof even if it were possible to start up production again. A REAL winner...

 

[Sea Toby]

Two new interesting news items today at this sites Defence news:

USAF expects a new bomber to be delivered in 2018, and the last 60 F-22s to be acquired have met Congress' requirements. Could Australia afford long new range bombers? Why extend the lives of the F-111 if a new bomber is in the works for the USAF, and time is running out on the F-22s. Instead of ordering more F-22 aircraft, the USAF is slowing down the procurement process, increasing their costs. America's defence plans change from year to year, depending on a outdated study by Dr. Boon and Gloom comes home to roost.

Lots 7, 8 and 9 of the F-22 will each produce about 20 aircraft, for a total of 60 over the course of six years. The last jet would be delivered around 2011.
Due to Department of Defense budget constraints, the Air Force was directed to purchase fewer aircraft in these lots than what the manufacturer is actually capable of producing. That slowdown of production would mean a cost increase for each individual jet, one that would be mitigated, in part, by the savings realized with multi-year procurement.
Under multi-year procurement, some funding for all three lots of aircraft would be given to the manufacturer in advance under economic order quantity purchase, allowing it to buy materials and parts in bulk to reap a savings. The Air Force could save as much as $3.7 million per aircraft under the plan.
The Air Force asked Congress to approve multi-year funding for the remaining 60 Raptors it plans to purchase over the next three fiscal years. Both houses of Congress have already approved the request.

A new bomber scheduled for operation as early as 2018 will enhance America's long-range strike capabilities, according to Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley in a recent Armed Services Committee speech.
In a step to develop future long-range strike capabilities, Air Combat Command is conducting a study that is looking at aircraft platforms and weapon improvements. Air Force leaders will use the study to decide the best pathway for providing long-range strike capabilities for the future Air Force. This process normally takes about two years, but the 2018 target requires accelerated efforts.
The new bomber is necessary to recapitalize the Air Force's fleet of B-52 Stratofortress and B-1 Lancer "legacy bombers," and to counter advanced anti-access systems of America's enemies, said Lt. Col. Kevin Shorb, chief of Air Combat Command's Next Generation Long Range Strike Division. Modern enemy anti-access systems, such as surface-to-air missiles and enemy aircraft, are emerging and becoming common, he added.
In the speech, General Moseley said the current bomber fleet is adequate to meet America's needs today, despite its age - but that's likely to change in the future without a new platform.
The B-52 and B-1 are not expected to engage a target in guarded enemy territory without the help of advanced airframes like the stealthy F-22 Raptor, according to Lt. Col. Tony Siler, ACC chief of the Ground Dominance Capability Team.
"We refer to it as, ‘Kick down the door,'" said Colonel Siler. "Taking down a portion of the enemy's air defense is the initial part of air warfare."
A B-1 or B-52 can't penetrate guarded territory on its own - but the new bomber could be expected to penetrate, engage, and return without any help.
During Operation Iraqi Freedom, bombers delivered two thirds of the total Air Force tonnage while flying roughly five percent of all Air Force strike sorties, said Colonel Shorb. These bombs were dropped against an enemy without anti-access systems; so essentially, the door didn't need to be kicked down. The same accomplishments would've been thorny had Iraq's anti-access system been developed.

 

[Magoo]

Magoo,

Am waiting to board a flight so not a lot of time.

But before I answer this, maybe you could help me out. What do you mean by "the best-case NRFAC"? This is not a term with which I am familiar.

Also, from where did you get the "USD$180m per aircraft"?

The figure I used in this precis is the average unit procurement cost over a buy of 55 Raptors in 2010, deflated back to 2004 dollars for comparison purposes. The definition of average unit procurement cost and other terms relating to the costing of military materiel may be found in US DoD AFR 5001 and includes amortisation of training, initial spares, GSE/ATE, data/documentation, etc.

These definitions, with citations, may also be found in APA Submission No 20 and were confirmed in Attachment 1 to Defence Submission No 27.

Thanks.

Sorry, NRFAC = Non Recurring Fly Away Cost

From my talks with LockMart officials, the US$116m buys you a clean airplane you can 'fly' home and an initial small cache of commonly required spares, but not much else. No training, support infrastructure, long term spares support, simulators, basing infrastructure, weapons, in-country support etc.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Magoo]

Not to mention the ever present cloud hanging over the F-22 and the most recent proposals to drop the remaining 60 odd F-22 airframes leaving USAF with a 120 strong fleet, ending the production line and making the cost of any future airframes go through the roof even if it were possible to start up production again. A REAL winner...

Hey AD

The current F-22 argument isn't so much whether or not to cut the final 60 airframes, but on how to fund them - they'll happen one way or the other.

The Pentagon wants a multi-year procurement for the final 60 aircraft rather than having to fund 15 or so each year for the next four years, whereas POGO and others claim this will actually cost the USAF more in the long run.

Cheers

Magoo