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

[gf0012-aust]

Would B1Bs be available for an Australian purchase?

No. The costings for B1B's are frightening. I can't recall where I've seen it, but I do remember discussions about it.

The other issue why B1B's won't be considered is due to a regional political statement. No govt is going to upset the neighbours by going to a manned intercontinental capability.

If you want trans/intercontinental strike then you do it without visible delivery assets (ie subs) or reach out via weapons.

 

[old faithful]

gary, heard of any news regarding India and Chinas interest in the SU22M,s?

 

[gf0012-aust]

gary, heard of any news regarding India and Chinas interest in the SU22M,s?

Nothing firm. But are you referring to the Tu-22m? Different beast completely.

AFAIK both India and China were not serious about the aircraft (Tu-22m)as it was seen as more approp to reach out with long range weapons instead.

I would imagine that chinas interest would only be along the lines of technology learning and development rather than an exercise in capability enhancement.

In the scheme of things, I think Indias far more pre-occupied in dealing with block obsolesence issues and buying the Tu-22m would be just furthering the existing procurement headaches.

Tu-22m really IMV would be a gucci statement (a bit like having an aircraft carrier when you can't afford it).

 

[old faithful]

cant believe i typed SU! Yes i meant TU22M. Just a thought why we could justify B1,s that we,ll never get anyway! Cheers mate.

 

[rjmaz1]

Would B1Bs be available for an Australian purchase?

Definitely! The US have B-1b aircraft that will never fly again in the boneyard yet these aircraft still have thousands of flying hours left.

10 aircraft seems a very small number, given that some would always be unavailable. If Australia went this way I believe at least 16 and preferably 20 would be needed.

An F-111 can carry four 2000lb LGB's and hit a target 1000 miles away. A B-1b can carry TWENTY four 2000lb LGB and hit a target 2000 miles away. A single B-1b can carry the same bombload as six F-111 aircraft So 10 B-1b aircraft can easily do the job of 30 F-111 aircraft, it could do the job of 60 F-111 aircraft. The USAF B-1b fleet will most likely be upgraded to carry SDB very shortly. A B-1b will be able carry over 100 small diameter bombs internally, or say 20 SDB and four 2,000lb pounds LGB's and four cruise missiles.

Australia would only ever need a couple B1-b aircraft available at any moment. An operational rate of 25% is more than good enough for peace time and this also saves money. Operational status is directly proportional to the amount of time and money spent on maintenance. If tension in the region rises the operational status of our B-1b could rise up above 75% with only a few weeks notice.

Also we cannot have 20 aircraft as the USAF only has 24 mothballed B-1b aircraft. At the very most we could probably take half of those. So 12 aircraft, 10 operation and 2 for spare parts.

You have quoted $20.3 million to bring the aircraft up to date. What sort of price would Australia have to pay for their purchase? I presume the USAF wouldn't just give them away!

The F-111 cost 75 million dollars in 1998. The B-1b cost 280 million dollars in 1998.

The USAF would probably sell 10 B1-b aircraft for not much more than 40 F-111 aircraft. Its within budget of the RAAF. Remember that atleast 2 billion is needed to develop the evolved F-111, the B-1b's will easily fit in that budget.

Also what sort of manpower requirements would there be to operate and support a squadron of B1Bs and how would this compare with the requirements for a squadron of FA18Fs or F35As?

The B-1b would require significantly more resources to support and operate compared to the F-111. However as we would have a quarter the number of aircraft it would definitely be affordable by the RAAF.

We would most likely buy a couple extra B1-b aircraft and dismantle them for spare parts. Like what we did with F-111's from the boneyard.

What would be involved in terms of training and infrastructure to bring an aircraft of this type into service?

The B-1b can actually sit 4 people in the cockpit. So the USAF can train a few aussie pilots and then they can train the rest.

The B-1b is a similar airframe to the F-111 in the metals and manufacturing techniques used. Our current support base could easily maintain a small fleet of B-1b aircraft. Remember there will be less aircraft to maintain which offsets the extra effort required per aircraft.

The stealth on the B-1b aircraft is also fairly basic. If we go with the F-22 or JSF we would already have the skills requires to maintain the stealth of the B-1b.

The B-1b has so much room for growth.

We can add a third person in the cockpit as an electrionic warfare systems operator. There is plenty of room on the aircraft to stick the transmitters and receivers.

We can add a fourth person as UCAV controller.. in 20 years Australia might have a UCAV that would be perfect to escort the B-1b.

Its expensive to integrate these features into an existing cockpit but its much cheaper to just add them as additional consoles with extra personel to operate them. Most of the standard systems remain untouched.

The B-1b has also been tested to carry Harpoon missiles. This would be very good as we would be able to sink ships 2000 miles away from the coast. Not even the USAF can do that!

The B-1b would effectively halve the number of inflight refuelers required. As the fighter aircraft no longer have to do the bombing the number of fighter aircraft required is reduced. Less short ranged fighters means less refueling tankers. Or if we keep the same number of inflight refueling tankers the operational capability and range of our fighter force would be dramatically increased, all because of the B-1b.

I rest my case.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Definitely! The US have B-1b aircraft that will never fly again in the boneyard yet these aircraft still have thousands of flying hours left.
........................................

The B-1b has also been tested to carry Harpoon missiles. This would be very good as we would be able to sink ships 2000 miles away from the coast. Not even the USAF can do that!

I would bet my house and the homes of all my relatives that the RAAF will never get B1's as F-111 replacements.

Govt policy on both sides of the House is not to have an trans/intercontinental manned bomber ever again.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Definitely! The US have B-1b aircraft that will never fly again in the boneyard yet these aircraft still have thousands of flying hours left.


An F-111 can carry four 2000lb LGB's and hit a target 1000 miles away. A B-1b can carry twelve 2000lb LGB and hit a target 2000 miles away. So 10 B-1b aircraft can easily do the job of 30 F-111 aircraft. The USAF B-1b fleet will most likely be upgraded to carry SDB very shortly. A B-1b will be able carry over 100 small diameter bombs internally, or say 20 SDB and four 2,000lb pounds LGB's and four cruise missiles.

Australia would only ever need a couple B1-b aircraft available at any moment. An operational rate of 25% is more than good enough for peace time and this also saves money. Operational status is directly proportional to the amount of time and money spent on maintenance. If tension in the region rises the operational status of our B-1b could rise up above 75% with only a few weeks notice.


The USAF would probably sell 10 B1-b aircraft for not much more than 40 F-111 aircraft. Its within budget of the RAAF. Remember that atleast 2 billion is needed to develop the evolved F-111, the B-1b's will easily fit in that budget.


The B-1b would require significantly more resources to support and operate compared to the F-111. However as we would have a quarter the number of aircraft it would definitely be affordable by the RAAF.

We would most likely buy a couple extra B1-b aircraft and dismantle them for spare parts. Like what we did with F-111's from the boneyard.


The B-1b can actually sit 4 people in the cockpit. So the USAF can train a few aussie pilots and then they can train the rest.

The B-1b is a similar airframe to the F-111 in the metals and manufacturing techniques used. Our current support base could easily maintain a small fleet of B-1b aircraft. Remember there will be less aircraft to maintain which offsets the extra effort required per aircraft.

The stealth on the B-1b aircraft is also fairly basic. If we go with the F-22 or JSF we would already have the skills requires to maintain the stealth of the B-1b.

The B-1b has so much room for growth.

We can add a third person in the cockpit as an electrionic warfare systems operator. There is plenty of room on the aircraft to stick the transmitters and receivers.

We can add a fourth person as UCAV controller.. in 20 years Australia might have a UCAV that would be perfect to escort the B-1b.

The B-1B has also been tested to carry Harpoon missiles. This would be very good as we would be able to sink ships 2000 miles away from the coast. Not even the USAF can do that!

The problem with operating B-1B is apparently it's cost. It apparently costs far more than the B-52h or the B-2 in operational service, AFAIK.

The other major problem is the same as if we introduced Tomahawk into RAN service. Yes, it would massively increase our offensive strike capability, however it is NOT Government policy of EITHER party to obtain high level strike capabilities. Such a move would be seen as VERY provocative and would most likely be counter productive.

Look at the arguments WE have over the merits of F-22 etc because of the "threat" which is extant or might become so in SE Asia. The reverse would happen if WE were to obtain such a high level of capability and one that is considered unnecessary by larger world powers than us (UK, France, Germany etc).

I don't think that we should necessarily restrict our force structure, because of what our neighbours might think of us, but we should bear it in mind. It's a definite possibility that if we heavily invest in strike capability that our neighbours will do so as well, and then it becomes an arms race. Can we sustain such a race with our rapidly ageing population and the expected costs of supporting such an "ancient" population???

Maybe, maybe not, but neither major Political Party (and definitely none of the minor ones) are interested in finding out. Maintaining a SLIGHT technological advantage and "over match" on our regional neighbours is the best we'll do.

A B-1B purchase, no matter the price or affordability would alter this balance significantly and thus is unlikely to ever happen.

 

[rjmaz1]

I would bet my house and the homes of all my relatives that the RAAF will never get B1's as F-111 replacements.

I can bet the same things that the RAAF we will not be getting an evolved F-111 as well.

Yet people still think its possible :


Aussie Digger, the B-1b can deliver such a big punch that we could even have as few as 6 operation aircraft and have more firepower than our current F-111 fleet.

Yes the B-1b will cost alot to keep them at a 75% operational status but a 25% operational status would cost significantly less.

Even if the B-1b cost 10 times as much to maintain as an F-111 it would still be well within budget as we would operate a quarter the number of aircraft so it would cost 2.5 times as much. That would be money well spend.

The B-1b option is so good that it is too good! Its such a good option and provides a bigger deterrent than the F-111's ever had. Being within budget is just icing on the cake.

Australia buying 50+ F-22 aircraft would "over match" our neighbours just as much a a handfull of B-1b aircraft. Yet alot of people have no problem that the F-22 could escalate weapon procurement in our region.

 

[old faithful]

yes, but were not getting evolved F111,s.F22,s or B1,s, were getting F18f,s and JSF,s when they are available....the question is, how many and how much?$$

 

[Aussie Digger]

I can bet the same things that the RAAF we will not be getting an evolved F-111 as well.

Yet people still think its possible :


Aussie Digger, the B-1b can deliver such a big punch that we could even have as few as 6 operation aircraft and have more firepower than our current F-111 fleet.

Yes the B-1b will cost alot to keep them at a 75% operational status but a 25% operational status would cost significantly less.

Even if the B-1b cost 10 times as much to maintain as an F-111 it would still be well within budget as we would operate a quarter the number of aircraft so it would cost 2.5 times as much. That would be money well spend.

The B-1b option is so good that it is too good! Its such a good option and provides a bigger deterrent than the F-111's ever had. Being within budget is just icing on the cake.

Australia buying 50+ F-22 aircraft would "over match" our neighbours just as much a a handfull of B-1b aircraft. Yet alot of people have no problem that the F-22 could escalate weapon procurement in our region.

I'm sure but the F-22 is still a tactical fighter, no matter how capable. It cannot carry the warload of a B-1B and cannot carry such a warload as far.

To introduce such a capability into service would dwarf any existing capabilities within our region. That is the reason I likened it on a strategic level to a Tomahawk cruise missile purchase. The possession of an operational capability with either system would give us a strike capability un-paralleled within our region, besides the US itself.

THIS more than any other reason is why the politicians to date have shied away from adopting such capabilities. Tomahawk would round out the AWD's beautifully and give RAN the ability to strike targets up to 1600k's away from it's ships. B-1B's would give RAAF the ability to strike anywhere within Asia FROM Australia. Such a capability is not going to go without challenge and attempting to keep up with that challenge is probably too expensive NOW, let alone in future.

A long ranged strategic bomber would cause ADF and Government more problems than it would solve, IMHO.

 

[dioditto]

Personally, I think we don't really need JSF, in the near term. The cost issue alone, is worth noting. Also, I think the JSF is more of a peripherial fighter, you really do need the F-22 air superiority fighter to really make the best use of it. Basically, a mix of high and "low". Without the high, you get the low. haha. (okay, maybe not so low) And due to the cost, I would say, we should just purchase more F-18 with new airframes. Having large quantities of F-18 of latest model compare to far fewer, more expensive, and untested JSF, I would say F-18 is much wiser choice. (we can always purchase JSF when it is more mature/tested) If F-22 is not in the table, perhaps, we could consider B1B to add the long range strike capability. But really, in the current security enviroment, I do not think we need the JSF or the F-22. Who's going to make a move on us? Indonesia? Malaysia? China?


So, my second question is, how good is the latest F-18 (F/G model?) compare to Su-30MKM ??

 

[Sea Toby]

I am for more of a 75-25 mix of Super Hornets-Lightnings. Its my opinion you only need stealth during the first waves, knocking out radar installations.

 

[McZosch]

As for Australia, i don't think F-35 is the right aircraft for JASDF.

As Japan is an island, any interception will take place over open water. A single-engined type like the F-35 is simply not suited for this environment.

So, the competition is: F-22, a F-15 derivate or Typhoon.

Assembly in Japan would be no problem, if the Typhoon is selected. It's better to earn the licence-fees instead of earning nothing. Politically, all four participating nations of the Eurofighter-project would be happy to see Japan operating Typhoons. It would make the fitment of AESA-radar more likely and less expensive. Also, sale of Meteor or Storm Shadow should be no problem. I'm sure, the brits would even build'em a CVF, if they want to have one.

I would bet on a F-15 derivate like the planes Korea purchased. The japs are capable of building them, they would probably need not much retooling. It would further reduce cost by operating less platforms. Also, the existing F-15s could be upgraded to the new standard. A solution, that would easily be affordable with the current budget.

What is to be avoided - from the US point of view is a deep strike capability into China proper: We don't want them tearing those nice new dams down - as that would give the Chinese legitimate grieviences - thus making it difficult to reach an understanding with China in other areas.

What does "other areas" mean? Can you tell me a single example of "other area" except economy?

Militarily speaking: Japan not having an own strike capability would make PRC not supplying Iran or Sudan more probable? It's sorta wish-thinking.

The only (speculative) purpose i can see is the fact, that Japan needs the US to go to war. This would make any taiwanese-japanese treaty teethless, looking much like what's the US government wants to accopmplish.

 

[Systems Adict]

I'm gonna take a stab in the dark on this one...

The US, like it or not, relies HEAVILY on Japanese & Asian influence & money.
While Japan is still in some ways held to ransom following WWII (WRT arming itself), I believe that the US will NOT offer the Raptor to Japan.

The Technology is the biggest issue (for the various reasons as stated previously, elsewhere in the thread).

While Lightning II could be an option, I feel it would require them putting ink on paper by the end of 2007.

Typhoon would be a more likely candidate, especially if other countries like Singapore opt to take some. Especially now seeing as Saudi is prepared to put it's neck on the block to get some now. (This thought is also based on the way the these nations talk & interact with each other, following the creeds of Respect & Honour)

The JAS Gripen would fall below the F15 / F18 E/F line of thinking, mainly due to the fact that although they can offer the best offsets, these mainly revolve around technology transfer & infrastructure, which I don't believe that the Japanese need.

That said, I think it's a moot point, as feel Japan will continue on it's current path of gradual improvement of equipment & forces, continuing to rely on the US Fleet & bases that are within their area of operation.

Systems Adict

 

[Scorpion82]

Japan has expressed to delay its decision to 2009 for financial reasons. Meaning deliveries probably about 2013. The JASDF needs the aircraft fast to replace their ageing F-4E, so no serious delays could be allowed, if they don't want to lack airdefence capabilities for a while.
Types considered are F-15FX, F-22A, Eurofighter and Rafale!!! The F-35 is currently NOT evaluated, though the delay of the decision could be advantagous for the Lightning II. Some sources also suggests the F/A-18E/F being considered.

As the JASDF is seeking for an airdefence fighter and not for a strike or multirole platform I think the F-22 or one of the 2 european fighters would be the best solution. The F-15 is simply to old and the F-35 and F/A-18E/F are somewhat limited for the airdefence role as they were more designed for AG and carrier operations.

What I see as a problem is the fact that, if the JASDF really wants a new type fast than its unlikely that this type will be license produced or incooperating indingous technologies at the beginning or at all.

 

[swerve]

... I'm sure, the brits would even build'em a CVF, if they want to have one.....

We'd sell 'em the design. They'd build it themselves, cheaper & much quicker.

 

[rjmaz1]

yes, but were not getting evolved F111,s.F22,s or B1,s, were getting F18f,s and JSF,s when they are available....the question is, how many and how much?$$

I know we will never get F-22's, B-1b's or evolved F-111's. Some people still believe the evolved F-111 is a possibility so i just had to show how illogical it is and how even the B-1b is a cheaper, better and less riskier option. There is alot of support for the F-22 these days, u cant rule it out if the government changes, they could offer the US a price they cant refuse.

The USAF was desperate for C-17 orders to keep the production open, if the same thing happened to the F-22 i could see it available for export in a few years time.

The chance of both of those things happening is very slim.

I am for more of a 75-25 mix of Super Hornets-Lightnings. Its my opinion you only need stealth during the first waves, knocking out radar installations.

The USAF has had stealth for decades yet the wild weasal role has always been performed by conventional aircraft. F-4 and now F-16 aircraft.

What weapon will the JSF use to attack these radar installations? The JSF cannot carry a AGM-88 HARM internally, so it will have to be hung from the wings increasing the radar cross section of the aircraft. Four anti radar missiles on the wings would make the radar cross section many times bigger.

The Super Hornets can take out the SAM sites with ease.

Its good to see more people realising the Super Hornet is a very good option for the RAAF. Its the only aircraft that we can afford to replace the current fleet one for one. Initial crossover, startup costs of the Super Hornets would be a fraction of the JSF as we have the knowledge and infrastructure already in place for our Hornets.

 

[rjmaz1]

While Lightning II could be an option, I feel it would require them putting ink on paper by the end of 2007.

Doubt it!

Japan could sign one of the left over pieces of paper from one of the potential customers that pulled out

The USAF will give all its delivery slots away if it means more F-22's can be purchased.

 

[Distiller]

In the air-to-air realm there is no way past the F-22. Eurofighter would be option number two. Both planes are available now, although I agree the EF2k much easier, but also quite less capable. Rafale is a very nice plane, but more a fighterbomber than a fighter, plus not really mature. But I simply don't believe that Japan goes for Euro-equipment. And the F-35 is not a fighter.

 

[chrisrobsoar]

What weapon will the JSF use to attack these radar installations? The JSF cannot carry a AGM-88 HARM internally, so it will have to be hung from the wings increasing the radar cross section of the aircraft. Four anti radar missiles on the wings would make the radar cross section many times bigger.

The USN is working on developments of the HARM called Advanced Anti Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) AGM-88e. It includes multiple sensors RF & IR, GPS, IN, two-way data links and a battle damage assessment package developed under a Quick Bolt ACTD program. Initially it is to be deployed on the F-18. Initial LRIP deliveries commence 2009 and Full Rate Production (FRP) 2011.

The USN & USAF were both engaged in an earlier development program (the USN leads on this weapon) together with Italy and Germany, but the USN cancelled the program. The USAF have started their own interim program to add a GPS to modify their current stocks, in the long run they are moving away from a dedicated ARM, relying on general purpose precision weapons. Germany started the development of its own missile, but the government has withdrawn funding for the project. Italy has joined the USN program.

Just a few snippets.

The air-launched version of the HARM has fixed fins and so would not fit in the internal weapons bay of the F-35.

Buried in the detail of a budget for the AARGM was a statement that in addition to the development of HARM a folding fin version was being developed for the F-35 & F-22 aircraft. Now that was a surprise because I thought that it would have been too big to fit in the F-22 weapons bay.

There was also reference to the weapon being used against other high value targets of opportunity.

There was the usual funding to add new threats to the threat list etc.

But what was interesting is that there is a classified program for a derivative of the AARGM. I don’t know anything more about this program.

There are reports that the seeker head from the German ARM could be integrated with the body of the Meteor AAM. This would certainly be small enough to fit in the weapons bay of the F-22 & F-35 aircraft.

There is also some researched being carried out for the USN into an air-breathing version of the missile to increase its range against long range SAM sites.

Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM). This is a joint USAF and USN program to develop a missile capable of both A-A & A-G missions, including SEAD (or these days DEAD). This would be a long range high speed missile small enough to fit in the weapons bay of the F-22 & F-35 aircraft.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004guns/wed/selfpropelled.ppt


So it looks like we will soon be spoilt for choose in weapons that will fit in the internal weapons bays and be capable of attacking SAM sites.



Chris