F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped

[rjmaz1]

Another way to look at it is that to maintain a CAP you need approximately 8 aircraft cycling through (with some on standby to reinforce the CAP) . So immediately the RAAF will loose 25% of its deployable force, two continuous CAPs around two Wedgetails and 50% are being utilised for defensive patrols. With the vast distances around Australia this problem is further exasperated,.

So what would you have left to conduct offensive sorties?

Good point, however reliablility of the hornet has been excellent and the JSF should be exceptional. The F-22 in alaska was 97% operational extremely high. The JSF should be even better so atleast 95%. So out of 12 aircraft per squadron 11 can deploy and 10 can be used for day to day missions, two more aircraft per squadron.

Also regarding the Wedgetail CAP issue you assume that we will use aircraft in pairs. Once we have a large advantage over our enemy and early warning provided by the Wedgetail we are escorting, it allows us to drop down to single aircraft CAP's. This provides us a dozen other aircraft that can be in the air at the same time either bombing the enemy, sinking ships. Those aircraft of course will have one or two AMRAAMs each, so the CAP would have alot of support.

 

[Todjaeger]

Before everyone :hitwall discussing different aircraft, and how much they might cost, I think it might be good to take a good look at what types of missions RAAF combat aircraft would be called upon to do. Once it is agreed upon (more or less) what needs to be covered, then it could be debated which aircraft could fill the different roles best, as well as which aircraft is most suitable over all. Or for that matter, which selection of aircraft.

Using the current RAAF F/A-18 & F-111 force as a yardstick, I anticipate the RAAF of the future to be able to support approximately 90-100 combat aircraft. By support, I mean provide sufficient trained pilots, navigators, aircraft techs, etc. Lower numbers could be met fairly easily, but higher numbers (120 aircraft for example) I think would stretch RAAF personnel.

The roles I see the RAAF needing to cover are as follows:
Air Superiority/interception
Ground Attack/Close-air Support
long range or maritime strike
reconnaissance
escort duty

The other consideration I have for the RAAF is it's main mission: Defence of Australia. The ability to support allies or overseas deployments is nice, but I would give priority first to how useful an aircraft is to Australia itself.

-cheers

 

[Whiskyjack]

Good point, however reliablility of the hornet has been excellent and the JSF should be exceptional. The F-22 in alaska was 97% operational extremely high. The JSF should be even better so atleast 95%. So out of 12 aircraft per squadron 11 can deploy and 10 can be used for day to day missions, two more aircraft per squadron.

Also regarding the Wedgetail CAP issue you assume that we will use aircraft in pairs. Once we have a large advantage over our enemy and early warning provided by the Wedgetail we are escorting, it allows us to drop down to single aircraft CAP's. This provides us a dozen other aircraft that can be in the air at the same time either bombing the enemy, sinking ships. Those aircraft of course will have one or two AMRAAMs each, so the CAP would have alot of support.

Yes, but you also have to consider airframe hours, the faster you use them the faster you have to replace them.

I don't think a single aircraft CAP is a realistic solution, as it violates tactical doctrine, and assumes much.

Assumption is the mother....

 

[Occum]

Good point, however reliablility of the hornet has been excellent and the JSF should be exceptional. The F-22 in alaska was 97% operational extremely high. The JSF should be even better so atleast 95%. So out of 12 aircraft per squadron 11 can deploy and 10 can be used for day to day missions, two more aircraft per squadron.

The F-22 part of this would appear to be true, according to a number of reports in the US media which state -

"Raptors from Langley deployed to Alaska in June for joint exercise Northern Edge. The F-22's performance was declared exceptional by Air Force officials who touted the ability of pilots and maintainers to fly a 97-percent sortie rate; successfully drop and hit 26 of 26 ground targets; and amass an air-to-air kill ratio of 140-0 during the first week of the exercise."

However, the JSF design target (KPP) for reliability is 93%. The excellent reliability claimed for the Australian F/A-18 fleet is, in fact, somewhat less than the 91% target and heading South (refer the figures reported in the Defence Annual Reports, though one needs to realise that the measure used to derive these particular figures does not account for aborted sorties and non-availability).

Remember, the JSF Program is being run under CAIV - Cost as an Independent Variable (aka Compromise As Investment Vilification).

Experience and common sense tells us that even if the target 93% is achieved, it will be eroded over the first 10 or so years by the need to incorporate the upgrades that the CAIV process has and will continue to generate by pushing risk out beyond the SDD Phase. Just take a look at what has happened to the Baseline Threshold Weapons Plan since 2002, if you want to see a simple example of CAIV in action.

This is not managing risk, it is forestalling it till when it will cost a hell of a lot more to address.

 

[Cootamundra]

Remember, the JSF Program is being run under CAIV - Cost as an Independent Variable (aka Compromise As Investment Vilification).

Experience and common sense tells us that even if the target 93% is achieved, it will be eroded over the first 10 or so years by the need to incorporate the upgrades that the CAIV process has and will continue to generate by pushing risk out beyond the SDD Phase. Just take a look at what has happened to the Baseline Threshold Weapons Plan since 2002, if you want to see a simple example of CAIV in action.

This is not managing risk, it is forestalling it till when it will cost a hell of a lot more to address.

And what would be the design target (KPP) for reliability for a reworked F-111?:shudder

 

[Occum]

And what would be the design target (KPP) for reliability for a reworked F-111?:shudder

Why for you shudder?

The target mission reliability (for the aircraft and its systems) is 95%.

This should not be confused with the 'simplistic' measure of aircraft availability used by the RAAF in their upper level reporting (eg. DAR) which is currently running at around 93% (up from the woeful low-80s percentage figures of the late 1990s). Just goes to show what a properly managed risk reduction maintenance program with the appropriate competencies and skills applied can do.

Talking with the designers/proponents, the system upgrades that make up the Evolved F-111S address the remaining legacy systems (ie. cockpit, PaveTack and radars). By design, these are reliability/maintainability modifications that are based on a technology insertion approach. The improvements in capability are a consequential though direct result of this approach.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Maybe we're just 'over it'!?! I know I am!



You couldn't have read it too closely - I also read Mr McLaughlin's article - overall found it overall pretty well balanced but I agree, it does ask more questions than it answers.

I read that article pretty closely too. Didn't think much of it either. I think Mr McLaughlin's kidding himself... :

Super Hornets for Australia? Bah... :nutkick

 

[Occum]

I read that article pretty closely too. Didn't think much of it either. I think Mr McLaughlin's kidding himself... :

Super Hornets for Australia? Bah... :nutkick

AD,

On this, I strongly agree with you. However, Project Archangel is all about looking at F/A-18Fs and Gs with Boeing St Louis believing they are in there with a good chance, given Rick McCrary's well developed relations with Angus.

Ya gotta wonder what they are toking . . . . . .


:unknown

 

[Occum]

Which Government is being told the truth?

At Senate Estimates last week, both ACM Angus Houston and AM Geoff Shepherd told the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade that the F-22 was only a single role aircraft.

Meanwhile, the US Congress has been told by the likes of General John Jumper when he was the USAF Chief of Staff, General Michael Mosley who is the current USAF CAS, Maj Gen Rick Lewis and Secretary of the Air Force, Mr Michael Wynne, such things as 'the F-22 is a truly multi role aircraft .... the best bomber aircraft we have ever had'.

Whose Government is being told the truth?

Given Australia's requirement is for a stealthy, fifth generation air combat capability and the Minister has directed the RAAF to look at alternative solutions given the risks materialising in the JSF Program, then why aren't we looking at the only true fifth generation air combat capabilty that also happens to be extremely agile, able to supercruise and has four weapons bays, namely the F-22.

The following should be of interest - makes sense to me.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/11/avm-criss-does-groupthink-power-australias-jsf/index.php

 

[Todjaeger]

At Senate Estimates last week, both ACM Angus Houston and AM Geoff Shepherd told the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade that the F-22 was only a single role aircraft.

Meanwhile, the US Congress has been told by the likes of General John Jumper when he was the USAF Chief of Staff, General Michael Mosley who is the current USAF CAS, Maj Gen Rick Lewis and Secretary of the Air Force, Mr Michael Wynne, such things as 'the F-22 is a truly multi role aircraft .... the best bomber aircraft we have ever had'.

Whose Government is being told the truth?

Given Australia's requirement is for a stealthy, fifth generation air combat capability and the Minister has directed the RAAF to look at alternative solutions given the risks materialising in the JSF Program, then why aren't we looking at the only true fifth generation air combat capabilty that also happens to be extremely agile, able to supercruise and has four weapons bays, namely the F-22.

The following should be of interest - makes sense to me.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/11/avm-criss-does-groupthink-power-australias-jsf/index.php

At present, the F-22 Raptor is NOT an option for the RAAF. The US has stated that at present, there are NO plans to allow any foreign purchase of the F-22. Discussion can be made on whether F-22 is a better option than F-35 (not that this has been done to death...) but until the US changes it's mind on allowing foreign purchase, it will only be a debate.

-Cheers

 

[Occum]

Whose Government is being told the truth?

At present, the F-22 Raptor is NOT an option for the RAAF. The US has stated that at present, there are NO plans to allow any foreign purchase of the F-22. Discussion can be made on whether F-22 is a better option than F-35 (not that this has been done to death...) but until the US changes it's mind on allowing foreign purchase, it will only be a debate.

G'day,

Look at the title of last thread.

Who in the US is saying they will not allow any foreign purchase?

I suggest you should read the language of the Obey Amendment, itself.

As Edmund Burke reportedly said back in the 18th century -

“All that is needed for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Methinks this whole Angus Houston/Geoff Shepherd/John Harvey spin around the F-22 is a contemporaneous example of such circumstances.

 

[Todjaeger]

G'day,

Look at the title of last thread.

Who in the US is saying they will not allow any foreign purchase?

I suggest you should read the language of the Obey Amendment, itself.

As Edmund Burke reportedly said back in the 18th century -

“All that is needed for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Methinks this whole Angus Houston/Geoff Shepherd/John Harvey spin around the F-22 is a contemporaneous example of such circumstances.

Click the link below to see the full article.
http://aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_defense_story.jsp?id=news/F2209176.xml

Basically, what the article (Sept. 27th, 2006) says is that the US Congress has voted to allow a multi-year contract to purchase F-22s, but not to allow foreign purchases. I haven't come across anything from after this lifting the ban on foreign sales. As for the the Obey amendment, which one are you referring to? I have a list of 25 amendments linked to Rep. Obey, and without reading the full text of all of them, not sure which one you refer to.
Is the amendment this one?
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HZ00295:

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

G'day,

Look at the title of last thread.

Who in the US is saying they will not allow any foreign purchase?

I suggest you should read the language of the Obey Amendment, itself.

As Edmund Burke reportedly said back in the 18th century -

“All that is needed for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Methinks this whole Angus Houston/Geoff Shepherd/John Harvey spin around the F-22 is a contemporaneous example of such circumstances.

The US Congress I'm afraid. As Tod indicated...

 

[RubiconNZ]

Not to weigh in on either side but if Australia asked could the US say no? It would be rather contradictory in policy and just a little insulting...

 

[Todjaeger]

Not to weigh in on either side but if Australia asked could the US say no? It would be rather contradictory in policy and just a little insulting...

I'm not sure what the whole process is to allow such a sale, but there are several steps that I am aware of. State Dept. approval is needed, and I would imagine DoD approval as well Congress. At present it is also against US law to export the F-22.

While it isn't impossible that such a sale could be arranged, there are a number of steps (all political) that would need to be done before such a sale could go through.

Given US tech transfer concerns, I'm not sure the US is overly concerned about offending other nations. Remember the tech transfer troubles the UK has been having with their participation with JSF.

-Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

Representative Obey normally votes against defence spending, and every new defence acquisition program. Obviously his efforts were to stop the program at the start, limiting the number of aircraft being bought, and keeping the price too high. Unfortunately, when the liberals and conservatives agree to join hands, there's two agendas working to acheive such wonderful cooperation. And if the conservatives agreed, a person doesn't have to think very long to figure out why....

Therefore, if Congress has outlawed selling F-22s abroad, with both liberal and conservative support, Australia can forget about acquiring them forever.

Another example of American politics at work is pork barrel spending. I honestly believe the F-35 program will continue because its being built in Texas, not Georgia. Nevermind which is the better aircraft. Texas has the second largest congressional delegation, having passed New York by.

There is a reason why the Supercondutor was going to be built in Texas over Illinois. Its called pork barrel politics.

 

[swerve]

Not to weigh in on either side but if Australia asked could the US say no? It would be rather contradictory in policy and just a little insulting...

Of course it could, & it wouldn't be contradictory in policy. It's currently illegal to export F-22s, which is as clear a policy as is possible, & the USA has always imposed some limits on what it exports, even to its closest allies.

I would expect any request to be preceded by a private discussion to feel out the ground, in which it would regretfully be made clear that a public request would, unfortunately, result in unavoidable public embarrassment, so it would, perhaps, be best not to make such a public request.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Of course it could, & it wouldn't be contradictory in policy. It's currently illegal to export F-22s, which is as clear a policy as is possible, & the USA has always imposed some limits on what it exports, even to its closest allies.

I would expect any request to be preceded by a private discussion to feel out the ground, in which it would regretfully be made clear that a public request would, unfortunately, result in unavoidable public embarrassment, so it would, perhaps, be best not to make such a public request.

Sorry to clarify I was talking about (sound bytes) Australia being one of the US' closest ally, America has no greater friend etc etc, legislative policy well yeah your'e right.
Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

I'm not sure what the whole process is to allow such a sale, but there are several steps that I am aware of. State Dept. approval is needed, and I would imagine DoD approval as well Congress. At present it is also against US law to export the F-22.

While it isn't impossible that such a sale could be arranged, there are a number of steps (all political) that would need to be done before such a sale could go through.

Given US tech transfer concerns, I'm not sure the US is overly concerned about offending other nations. Remember the tech transfer troubles the UK has been having with their participation with JSF.

-Cheers

As are we. Though the F-22 "fan club" convienently overlooks this fact. Given the difficulties we are having with tech transfer issues with JSF, it is much more than likely that such controls will be even greater on the more sophisticated and stealthy F-22A. They also conveniently ignore the fact that the USA requires legislative change to even SELL this aircraft...


On top of this, a foreign Country will ALSO have to be able to afford US$175m per aircraft in platform cost alone...

 

[Occum]

Ignorance is Bliss

As are we. Though the F-22 "fan club" convienently overlooks this fact. Given the difficulties we are having with tech transfer issues with JSF, it is much more than likely that such controls will be even greater on the more sophisticated and stealthy F-22A. They also conveniently ignore the fact that the USA requires legislative change to even SELL this aircraft...


On top of this, a foreign Country will ALSO have to be able to afford US$175m per aircraft in platform cost alone...

Some recent writings I have seen include the following -

"During times when ignorance is bliss, history shows it is often folly to be wise".

But .....

"All that is needed for the triumph of evil (or ignorance or stupidity), is for good men to do nothing".

As for the Obey Amendment, it was an oral amendment placed on the DoD Budget Bill. Despite what the title of the Amendment says, all is not as it may seem. As with all US legislation, it is important to read the congressional language used in the amendment.

According to one who has a pretty good handle on all of this, the Obey Amendment basically states that the US Government shall not spend any money for the licensing or sale of the F-22 to a foreign government. Remember, it is a budget bill, after all. Obey is a Congressman in the House of Representatives. He attached the amendment to the budget bill at around 1997. His stated rationale was that the US had sold F-15s, F-16s and F-18s to the rest of the world, thus requiring the US to build and buy expensive weapons systems like the F-22 (a rationale man might ask how many times have the US had to fight one of their Allies flying one of these aircraft).

During the floor debate, Randy “Duke” Cunningham (now serving jail time) said “ I don’t care who is flying the jet that shoots a MIG off my butt, as long as he does it”. Obey’s answer was “I don’t mean we shouldn’t sell it to our closest Allies, but we need a plan to control sales to other nations”.

Such a plan was developed that identified Australia as the only customer for the F-22 all up round.

As history shows, before this plan could be formally briefed to Australia and to Obey, the powers that be in Russell Offices and vested interests overseas decided that Australia would only get the JSF.

In this year's budget (FY 2007), the House of Representatives (Obey is still there) dropped the Obey Amendment but when it went to the Senate, a certain Senator from Virginia put it back in, thus requiring it to go to the House / Senate Conference where the Senator from Virginia pushed it through and it still remains on the books.

The State of Virginia has strong industrial and economic ties with the US Navy. It should come as no surprise that the US Navy don’t want the F-22 available for export, just yet, as this would spoil their chances for generating export sales of the Super Hornet for which Japan and Australia are two of the prime targets. Export sales of the Super Hornet means reduced costs in purchase and support of this aircraft for the US Navy.

On the issue of costs - see

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA_606-05-11_Pt2-41_10Jun06.pdf

The figure in the CRS Report of US$94.8 million for the JSF average unit procurement cost is a far cry from what Angus and John Harvey are claiming will be the cost of the JSF. Maybe this is because they are only talking about the average unit recurring flyaway cost which, according to the diagram at the back of the Defence submission tabled before the JSCFADT inquiry back on the 31st of March last is only a fraction (about a third, according to the diagram) of the real overall cost.

By the way, all the cost figures being bantered around by people, including yourself, for the F-22 appear to be based upon the current production run which are all for the USAF.

F-22s after the current 185 units (post Raptor AFA 4185) are, according to the outgoing F-22 Program Director, going to have a unit flyaway cost of US$116 million in 'then year' dollars. That will be around FY2012 dollars.

How much do you estimate a CTOL JSF will cost in FY2012 (if they are selling then)?

Would appreciate seeing your estimates of the unit flyaway and unit procurement costs that you think Australia would be paying for the JSF and your basis for such estimates.

Finally, in your view, what is so wrong with wanting the best for our fighting men and women? What is your aversion to Australia continuing to have the meanest dog on the block when it comes to air power?