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

[Tasman]

Well, and this is only my opinion, ... I am not a proponent of STOVL jets for us.
-Marines did just fine with fixed wing aviation before. Today, and considering today we have smaller carrier airwings, there is plenty of room for a Squadron of Marine Super Hornets. This jet brings a lot more weapons to the fight. If the Marines need support they need a full up aircraft carrier supporting them.

That's fine if there is a carrier available and if there is an operational airfield that the jets can move to after the marines have landed, otherwise the carrier will be 'tied up' (perhaps dangerously) close to land based air and missile attack.

Even with the large number of fleet carriers in service in WW2 the marines still deployed fighter bomber squadrons from dedicated escort carriers that were assigned specifically for their use.

I think the ability to deploy their own VSTOL aircraft greatly adds to the flexibility available for operations. Even if deployed initially from carriers the ability of the aircraft to move with the marines after they have landed adds to their capability to provide air support when it is needed.

For allied navies without big carriers the F-35B will enable them to deploy aircraft using their small carriers or amphibious ships. In the case of the RAAF a squadron of F-35Bs in the RAAF's mix would enable them to deploy from the new LHDs (if the right design is chosen).

Cheers

 

[harryriedl]

Now someone may say... "but look how well Harrier performed in the Falklands". My answer to that would be: Think of what a route the Falklands would have been had the RN had real catapult aircraft carriers with real combat jets.

I disagree it might have been even worse if CATOBAR was used because there was still no AEW assets in 1982 as the gannets were retiered in 1967.
and in falklands ARA Veinticinco de Mayo (V-2) showed the diffiulty of normal operations on carriers in rough weather[to be fair she had troble going fast enough SuE TO Lanch them

the only advantage of useing phantoms and buccaners would be BVR[missles weren't really good enough for BVR then anyway] and the carriers could be futher out from the islands apart from that i can't see the adavantage a larger load would be handy as well

less fighers avalible for CAP, CAS, would lack the ablitly to operate of secondy strips, effected by the weather more. slower turn around time for aircraft and no Atlantic Conveyor deverling press ganged raf harriers.

 

[ELP]

Thanks Tas and Rich.


Back to the topic at hand, JSF cost. If there are no more screw ups in congress, I think things might workout. If.... congress keeps a trend of underfunding the original production schedule for a few years running, I don't see how a cost rise can be avoided. At this point it might be a wait and see.

 

[Tasman]

60 Minutes Report on JSF

Apart from Smythstar did anyone else see the 60 minutes report on the JSF? I have to confess to being at a party and I missed it. I did check the website and the program outline said:

You can forget health, forget welfare, wait till you hear how they're spending your money now.

Fifteen billion dollars of it. All for a new war plane.

A top secret project called the Joint Strike Fighter, our biggest defence purchase ever.

Liam Bartlett just had a sneak preview of this wonder jet in Texas, and he says it sure looks impressive.

But then Liam took a look at the fine print. For some strange reason, our defence chiefs have gone into the deal without seriously considering any other plane.

The JSF has only flown seven times. And it might turn out to be a dud, the wrong aircraft to defend Australia.

No wonder there's an almighty dogfight in the air.

An interesting transcript of the program can also be seen on the following link:

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2007_03_18/story_1871.asp

From reading the attached transcript it seems that the usual suspects like Peter Criss were again given a chance to repeat their gripes. I guess the 'top secret' bit refers to the 5% of classified info to which the Defence Minister, Brendon Nelson, has been given access.

LIAM BARTLETT: And there is another reason for this decision, but get this, the Minister says he can't tell us about it because it's top secret.

DEFENCE MINISTER BRENDAN NELSON: It's the five percent of this aircraft's capability that is classified to which I have had privileged access and, that's the five percent that really counts. And that's why this is the correct aircraft for us.

LIAM BARTLETT: 'Trust me, I'm a politician?'

DEFENCE MINISTER BRENDAN NELSON: I'm very privileged to have access to all of the information that is available — not only on this aircraft but on a number of others. This is the right aircraft for Australia.

As abramsteve suggested was likely, on the F/A-18E/F officially selected for Australia thread, this does seem to have been another dodgy story, but the '5% that really counts' (also mentioned by Smythstar in the thread JSF's top secret 5% what we need!) was interesting. From reading the transcript I thought the reporter sounded as naive as a twelve year old kid. Perhaps someone who actually watched the show might be more generous.

Cheers

 

[ELP]

5% classified. Hmmm Well considering that all of the sensor fusion which is:

The AESA APG-81 and all of its modes.
-Precision Alignment of Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) mode over an existing digital map or over a Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) map.
The Precision Direction Finding (PDF) portion of the Electronic Support Measures (ESM) which provides accurate geo-location of an emission
The Radar Warning Receiver (RWR) Which works hand in hand with the PDF...
The Distributed Aperture System (DAS)
The Electro-Optical Tracking System (EOTS) which should be the most known technology as it is based on the advanced SNIPER-XR Pod.
--Air to Air Tracking ( Long range Infrared Search and Track)
--Air to Surface Tracking (video imaging, target search, cue, and image track,
--Laser Ranging measurement, Geo-location generation of coordinates

The helmet which replaces the task of the HUD ( no HUD on JSF ) and has Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) -like operation

Those are just a few of the Buck Rogers things and they have to be tied together to show relevant situational-awareness in the fancy displays and have to be connected on a network. Some of those things are tested in other platforms like F-22 and F-18 Super Hornet, however a lot of it is not and all of that in it's Block III avionics package has to work. So even whole chunks of the classified capabilities are only estimates because a complete Block III avionics jet isn't tested yet.
What is most likely classified are:
-Aircraft Raw Performance
-The estimates of all of that sensor fusion tied together
-Stealth profile, where this aircraft has less stealth ability than an F-22. One lacking any other present information has to consider it a moderately capable "bow tie" non-all-aspect stealth profile or worst case a "pacman" stealth profile, vs. the F-22's more capable "bow-tie" profile that is all aspect stealth. (See: "The Radar Game", in my Stealth post in the tech section of this forum. )

So 5% classified isn't bad. That is a lot of sensor capability and total aircraft capability to estimate. And again it is affordable stealth. And the whole platform has a way to go before it is completely tested to a Block III avionics standard. It is my belief that the lessor stealth ability of the aircraft is not an issue when you consider that RAAF will have all three of the "J" weapons: JDAM, JASSM, JSOW. Where you may even someday opt for the powered JSOW now in testing. JDAM and JSOW will be internal carry. Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) in it's current fixed target ability version and it's future moving target ability (SDB) should be available by the time of delivery.
Anti-ship ability could be addressed by:
-The J weapons including software mods to JASSM
-Where a sensorless datalinked JDAM to hit moving targets has already been tested with JSTARS E-8 (test produced hits), and is being worked on with Super Hornet datalinking the GMTI radar mode info to a datalinked JDAM kit.
-This item also holds promise for JSF anti-ship capability and is being proposed for internal carry and I believe Australia is considering contributing funding for it:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/02/lockheed-kongsberg-partner-to-bring-nsm-to-jsf/index.php

My worry is not the JSF technology working as the program seems to be really well run and where some of the technology already mentioned in the jet: The new tech engines, some of the sensor avionics and a few other things are already being worked out in F-22 and Super Hornet. My real worry is what the 2009, 2010, 2011 etc U.S. budgets look like. Any more slow down on JSF production and we are in some serious trouble where the "broken-rifle-all-defence-procurement-is-screwed-up", crowd will have a field day with the rising program costs due to mandated slow downs in U.S. budgets. Which are not the fault of the program itself.

If you haven't already, I highly recommend the following PDF file that goes into the unclas version of the JSF program progress dated September 2006.
Very good reading:

Go to the following link:
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/down_documentation.htm

Then on that page select this product(PDF file):
AFA Conf - JSF Program Brief - 26 Sept 06.ppt
Adobe Acrobat file (5.88 MB) - AFA Conf - JSF Program Brief - 26 Sept 06.PDF


All of this is just my opinion and nothing more.

 

[rossfrb_1]

{snip}From reading the transcript I thought the reporter sounded as naive as a twelve year old kid. Perhaps someone who actually watched the show might be more generous.

Cheers

Not naive, just trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
32 minutes hasn't 'done' a proper story for decades. It was the most amount of sensationalism for the least amount of journalistic effort. The story wasn't balanced on either side. And an uninformed audienced would have stayed exactly that.

rb

 

[Tasman]

Thanks for the link ELP. Interesting info!

Cheers

 

[Occum]

Interesting Read

Thanks for the link ELP. Interesting info!

Cheers

Yep, this makes an interesting read, particularly the part that has the CTOL JSF weighing in at an empty weight of 29,036 pounds.

What is the MT weight of the F-15C? ...the F/A-18C?

Might be time to sign up as a contestant on the 'Biggest Loser' - nothing else seems to be working!

The comparison charts are also a hoot. Looks like the JSF has been on a steroid diet 'cause it's planform seems to have morphed to about the size of that of an F-22A.

There is a cupie doll for every mistake and bit of spin (hint: words and pictures) you can find on these charts and in this brief, overall.

 

[ELP]

Yep, this makes an interesting read, particularly the part that has the CTOL JSF weighing in at an empty weight of 29,036 pounds.

What is the MT weight of the F-15C? ...the F/A-18C?

Might be time to sign up as a contestant on the 'Biggest Loser' - nothing else seems to be working!

The comparison charts are also a hoot. Looks like the JSF has been on a steroid diet 'cause it's planform seems to have morphed to about the size of that of an F-22A.

There is a cupie doll for every mistake and bit of spin (hint: words and pictures) you can find on these charts and in this brief, overall.

Consider it very informative in some things but at the end of the day it is like the super nice glitzy car brochure in the car dealership. The Road & Track Magazine review of it's true ability is yet to be written and not for some time.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Interesting little article courtesy of DT here:

Defencetalk.com

Japan considers buying European fighter jet
Reuters | Mar 19, 2007


TOKYO (Reuters): Japan is considering the Eurofighter Typhoon as a replacement for some of its ageing fighter jets, in what would be a surprise move for a country that has hitherto relied on the United States for combat aircraft.

The Defence Ministry is examining its options as it plans to start replacing its fleet of 60 F-4 fighters as well as training aircraft in the next couple of years, the defence ministry said.

"Of course we are considering the Eurofighter among other options," a spokesman at the Defence Ministry said.

The Eurofighter is built by a consortium headed by BAE Systems, Europe's largest defence firm.

The Rafale fighter jet manufactured by Dassault Aviation of France, was also under consideration, the ministry spokesman said.

The U.S. Congress has banned exports of its most advanced and most expensive fighter jet, the F-22A, built by Lockheed Martin (LMT.N: Quote, Profile , Research) and Boeing (BA.N: Quote, Profile , Research), possibly pushing Japan to seek other options.

"We understand that the F-22A is an amazing aircraft," the Defence Ministry spokesman said. "Approval would be needed from Congress, and that may be a factor."

U.S. Ambassador to Japan Thomas Schieffer said last week that Europe made good fighter planes, but that interoperability should be a factor in the decision.

"The more interoperability, the greater your ability to have an effect on the battlefield," he told reporters in Tokyo.

Japan and the United States have agreed to step up cooperation between their armed forces in the face of rising regional tensions after North Korea's nuclear and missile tests last year.

In their first deployment overseas in February this year, a group of Raptors on their way to the Kadena airbase on the southern Japanese island of Okinawa were delayed by several days because of software problems.


Seems even the Japanese don't think the US will sell the F-22A. Maybe they are corrupt and incompetent as well? That so far makes: Australia, Japan and Israel who believe the US will NOT sell F-22 and representatives of their respective Governments have publicly stated same...

I guess none of them are really trying hard enough though. That's what it must be... nfloorl:

 

[hybrid]

Yep, this makes an interesting read, particularly the part that has the CTOL JSF weighing in at an empty weight of 29,036 pounds.

What is the MT weight of the F-15C? ...the F/A-18C?

Might be time to sign up as a contestant on the 'Biggest Loser' - nothing else seems to be working!

The comparison charts are also a hoot. Looks like the JSF has been on a steroid diet 'cause it's planform seems to have morphed to about the size of that of an F-22A.

There is a cupie doll for every mistake and bit of spin (hint: words and pictures) you can find on these charts and in this brief, overall.

Er I think someone's info here is wrong. The variant that weighs in at approximately 29,000lbs is AA-1 which is the test jet. The F-35A production is on target regarding weight requirements (thats the CTOL version the RAAF wants), the B variant in its early phase had gained nearly 3000lbs but that was trimmed off by engineers who decided the easiest solution was to reduce the size of the internal weapons bays to fit up to only 1000lb class weapons (rather than 2000lb for the other variants). Overall there has been a further 1300lbs shaved off the total OEW of the other 2 variants as well.

 

[swerve]

Interesting little article courtesy of DT here:

Defencetalk.com

Japan considers buying European fighter jet
Reuters | Mar 19, 2007


TOKYO (Reuters): Japan is considering the Eurofighter Typhoon as a replacement for some of its ageing fighter jets, ...

U.S. Ambassador to Japan Thomas Schieffer said last week that Europe made good fighter planes, but that interoperability should be a factor in the decision.

"The more interoperability, the greater your ability to have an effect on the battlefield," he told reporters in Tokyo.... nfloorl:

Nice attempt to cloud the issue with hints about non-existent interoperability problems with Eurofighters. Spain, Germany, Italy & the UK have no problems with interoperability with US aircraft . . .

 

[Occum]

Bah Bah!

Er I think someone's info here is wrong. The variant that weighs in at approximately 29,000lbs is AA-1 which is the test jet. The F-35A production is on target regarding weight requirements (thats the CTOL version the RAAF wants), the B variant in its early phase had gained nearly 3000lbs but that was trimmed off by engineers who decided the easiest solution was to reduce the size of the internal weapons bays to fit up to only 1000lb class weapons (rather than 2000lb for the other variants). Overall there has been a further 1300lbs shaved off the total OEW of the other 2 variants as well.

Yep, you are quite right - someone's info here IS wrong!

If you would care to take a look at the table in the JSF Program Brief of the 26th of September last year to the US Air Force Association, you will see that the target IOC empty weight of JSF Design Configuration 240-4 is listed at 29,036 lbs.

The AA-1 design configuration is unique (a one off), is predominantly out of the 240-2/3 Design Configuration stable, and, thus, predates 240-4 by some degree. When fully configured with the full avionics, sensor and fixed weapons suite (yet to be done), the empty weight of AA-1 is 'just a tad' heavier than this figure.

The target IOC empty weight for the CTOL variant back in 2003 (Configuration 240-1) was 27,100 lbs.

Sorry, no cupie doll for you.

You are also quite right about the STOVL Weight Attack Team (SWAT) efforts to reduce the aircraft weight when you point out that the bulk of the weight reduction was off the MTOW (maximum take off weight) in the form of reducing the payload. Other 'savings' were made by increasing overall engine thrust (eg. by reducing lateral control post thrust) and converting this (analytically) into a commensurate 'saving' in weight.

Now this is all fine and beaut, but an aircraft weight reduction program should be all about reducing the aircraft's empty weight - not its MTOW.

The JSF would have to be the first aircraft development program in living memory where reductions to the payload are being claimed to be savings in the aircraft's design weight!

nfloorl:

 

[Tasman]

The JSF would have to be the first aircraft development program in living memory where reductions to the payload are being claimed to be savings in the aircraft's design weight!

nfloorl:

It's certainly a strange bit of 'spin'!

The weight issue with the F-35B concerns me because I've always been a fan of the VSTOL version for at least one RAAF squadron for potential use from the LHDs. I can't imagine the air force being enthusiastic if weight issues reduce weapons load (especially the internal capacity which is important in maintaining stealth) and adversely effect performance.

Cheers

 

[hybrid]

Yep, you are quite right - someone's info here IS wrong!

If you would care to take a look at the table in the JSF Program Brief of the 26th of September last year to the US Air Force Association, you will see that the target IOC empty weight of JSF Design Configuration 240-4 is listed at 29,036 lbs.

The AA-1 design configuration is unique (a one off), is predominantly out of the 240-2/3 Design Configuration stable, and, thus, predates 240-4 by some degree. When fully configured with the full avionics, sensor and fixed weapons suite (yet to be done), the empty weight of AA-1 is 'just a tad' heavier than this figure.

The target IOC empty weight for the CTOL variant back in 2003 (Configuration 240-1) was 27,100 lbs.

Sorry, no cupie doll for you.

You are also quite right about the STOVL Weight Attack Team (SWAT) efforts to reduce the aircraft weight when you point out that the bulk of the weight reduction was off the MTOW (maximum take off weight) in the form of reducing the payload. Other 'savings' were made by increasing overall engine thrust (eg. by reducing lateral control post thrust) and converting this (analytically) into a commensurate 'saving' in weight.

Now this is all fine and beaut, but an aircraft weight reduction program should be all about reducing the aircraft's empty weight - not its MTOW.

The JSF would have to be the first aircraft development program in living memory where reductions to the payload are being claimed to be savings in the aircraft's design weight!

nfloorl:

I stand quite corrected.

 

[Occum]

There are llies; damned lies . . and then there is spin!

I stand quite corrected.

Yeh, it is pretty disturbing when you realise that such an important matter as our Nation's air combat capability is being treated with such disdain.

Sadly, the JSF program is more about spin and keeping the dollars rolling in to LM and its team of contractors than about substance.

Take a look at the Program Brief of 26 September last, and see how many more errors in fact and "the spin" you can find. There are many more.

Take a look at the last GAO Report on the JSF Program and compare it with the media release from the Minister's Office that is posted on this thread on the previous page. The latter is what can, at best, be called 'benefit trawling'. Clearly, whoever wrote this media release either did not read the GAO Report or is intentionally telling porkies in an attempt to defend the indefensible.

Take a look at the PFSD MOU that the Minister signed Australia up to back in December last year. He has committed Australia, in the first instance, to another US$690 million dollars into the JSF Program and, if you read the words, you will see this number will rise, and significantly so, if the cost of the JSF goes up and/or if the schedule blows out and/or if the other participants, especially the US DoD, reduce the number of aircraft they intend to buy or the rate at which they intend to purchase them. By the way, according to the GAO Report and the soon to be released CRS Report Update, all of these things are happening NOW.

Not sure about others on this forum but I, for one, object when people "who don't know what they don't know" about things they don't understand choose to make judgements based upon rumours, perceptions, hearsay and innuendo (aka spin) rather than seek out the facts and tell the truth. That's the difference between professional and unprofessional behaviour, don't you know!



ps. Please don't read this as being aimed at you or anyone else who is questioning these matters, many of whom are starting to smell a rat. This is aimed at those who are generating the spin since their unprofessional and inappropriate behaviours, which are clearly all about supporting their personal agendas, is putting our people and Nation at risk and costing Australians a sh*t load of money, unnecessarily.

 

[Occum]

Back on Costs

This thread is supposed to be about costs, so if people are interested, they might want to take a look at the comparison on costs posted here -

http://www.ausairpower.net/media.html

You are invited to try to tear this apart since it is only through such robust debate can the 'What is Right' be elevated above the ad hominem based view of 'Who is Right'. Maybe then we can start looking at 'What is Best' for Australia and what we, collectively, will leave its future generations.

FYI - the figures on the left come from budget papers, ANAO reports, and Defence itself. The notes also go some way to explain the basis of the numbers presented.

 

[Tasman]

This thread is supposed to be about costs, so if people are interested, they might want to take a look at the comparison on costs posted here -

http://www.ausairpower.net/media.html

You are invited to try to tear this apart since it is only through such robust debate can the 'What is Right' be elevated above the ad hominem based view of 'Who is Right'. Maybe then we can start looking at 'What is Best' for Australia and what we, collectively, will leave its future generations.

FYI - the figures on the left come from budget papers, ANAO reports, and Defence itself. The notes also go some way to explain the basis of the numbers presented.

Thanks for the informative link Occum.

It does seem to me that we have now reached or very soon will have reached a point of no return with the F111s. RAAF attention will now be focussed on introducing the Super Hornet into service. Consequently I expect that the F111 fleet will probably be run down and that maintenance efforts will be reduced to just what is necessary to keep sufficient aircraft operational until the planned 2010 withdrawal. I think the situation is very different now compared with the situation at the time the Industry Plan was submitted. At that stage the RAAF had around 36 F/F111C/RF111C and F111G aircraft available. We now have a reduced fleet. I don't have any technical competence that qualifies me to discuss the merits of the evolved F111S proposal at the time it was made but it seems to me that it is fast becoming too late for it to be realistically considered as part of Australia's future force mix. However, that's just the opinion of a non professional and I would be happy to be shown that I am wrong.

Based on the information I have seen I am happy with the F-35A making up the bulk of our future air combat force, providing of course that it meets its specifications and can be afforded in reasonable numbers.

If the F-22 Raptor is released for export at a future date, and I don't think we can categorically rule that out, I would like to see it considered for at least one squadron to ensure air dominance. If it can double as a 'day one' bomber that would be a bonus. IMO, the time gained for the airforce as a result of the FA18F purchase, before it will have to finalise its selection for the final batch of new air combat aircraft, increases the likelyhood that this could still be a possibility.

As a 'lay person' in this forum, so far as aviation issues are concerned, I find the conflicting arguments, claims and counter claims very confusing. I feel that I should be able to believe what our defence and air force chiefs tell us. However, as a person heavily involved in the study of Australian naval history I have also learned to develop a degree of scepticism of the opinions of the service chiefs.

I was pleased at the extensive reading list provided in the link and I now plan to go through the articles I haven't read before. It should keep me busy!

At this stage I will leave it to the professionals in the forum to debate the technical arguments. After I have read the attached articles and read any other responses that may be posted I expect I will return.

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

This thread is supposed to be about costs, so if people are interested, they might want to take a look at the comparison on costs posted here -

http://www.ausairpower.net/media.html

You are invited to try to tear this apart since it is only through such robust debate can the 'What is Right' be elevated above the ad hominem based view of 'Who is Right'. Maybe then we can start looking at 'What is Best' for Australia and what we, collectively, will leave its future generations.

FYI - the figures on the left come from budget papers, ANAO reports, and Defence itself. The notes also go some way to explain the basis of the numbers presented.

The figures you present seem to add up, however I have a few issues with the ideas behind your funding levels.

1, Hasn't the majority of the HUG project budget already been spent? I am aware that CBR remains a considerable part of that budget however the majority I understood has already gone into phases 1 and 2?

If so, it's a furphy adding that funding. It's already gone. You might as well add the cost of the original Hornet acquisition budget to the graph...

2nd. Your graph presumes the F-22 is even available for sale. RAAF and Government clearly think it's not, as do Japan and Israel. The infamous letter Defmin Nelson referred to may or may not be legitimate, but if it is then the "game is over" so to speak. In either case, I think it'd be politically expedient if nothing else, for Government to clarify the issue "officially".

3rd. Defmin Nelson acknowledged publicly today (20/03/07) that the budget for the Super Hornet includes an extensive weapons and sensor (24x ATFLIR pods, additional JHMCS for the "backseaters" etc) package. A similar sized (if not in specific weapons type) package would be needed even for a dual F-22/F-111 based force. Including it's cost against the SH, but not against the F-22/F-111 force is just a bit unfair, isn't it?

On top of this, has the "aussie dollar" versus US dollar been taken into account?

I did a quick calculation based on a 2006 CRS report which states current F-22's are costing USAF US$173m a piece in 2006 dollars. 50x such aircraft adds up to US$8.65b or AUD $10.81b at current exchange rates (as of 20.03.2007)...

It all effects the equation somewhat...

 

[Markus40]

From the info im getting the F111s will retire in 2008. And the "supers" take over the role as anticipated. The question is also an interesting one and its resonating from the RAAF in actual fact and its why has Defence Minister Nelson gone so quickly with the replacement of the F111s for the supers, when in actual fact the F111s could have continued till at least 2012.???

Defence Minister Nelson has not only agreed to ditch the F111s hedging strategy in favour of the supers but to also press forward with an early retirement of the former and a rapid acquisition of the latter. This has implications in my view to the national asset of the F111s expertise built up on the jet over the past few decades which will be lost to the Australian Industry forever. It just smacks of premature judgment and knee jerk reactions under pressure to bridge the gap in the technology field between the stalled F35s and the F111s.

What makes this argument highlighted even more is that a former CAF now CDF Angus Houston "repeatedly" and publicly stated that the unique regional strike capability offered by the F111s would NOT be relinquished until a series of new force structures are in place. This included the Wedgetail, KC-10s, JASSM Missile, and JDAM, used now by the classics in their HUG programme. Even now as i write this that much of the Phase 1 HUG is still far from finished. The Hornets CBR is due for replacement about now and so the pressure is on. So we have more upgrade work to be done on the classics. It would seem that the many advanced systems being installed under the HUG Phase 1 program isnt as great as perhaps Boeings marketeers would make us believe.

The whole thing doesnt make sense, earlier the MOD wanted a 1 Tier stealth 5th generation F35 capability and now it would seem we have a reinvention of the current Hornet.

The JSCFADT has said in the last 2 months and quote " that the F111 is in GOOD condition and probably more reliable than it has ever been." Another comment by Air Marshal Shepherd went on record to say last August 2006 that the RAAF needs to get out of the F111 Business and get us into the JSF business. But its now quite clear that he has shot himself in the foot as human and monetary resources will now likely be diverted to the Super Hornet business. So there appears to be cracks in the upper echilons of Defense procurement for the JSF. The winner here it may seem could be LM for the money that the Australian MOD has placed for the JSF well in advance without realising the problems that now are occuring.

Its odd too that Boeing made a special visit to Nelson last September and returned to the states and not long after came up with figures for a purchase in principle with the US Navy to release 24 sufficient early super production slots for the RAAF jets within 18 mths. The cost too was lower than the commonly quoted US Navy unit flyaway cost of AUD $69 M. From the info i have read the flyaway cost was AUD 57 M a copy. However i think its more realistic to believe the cost was higher due to the support, tooling, engineering support etc to a AUD 100 m plus UPC. Not to mention the basic infrastructure measures needed for spares and training, contracter services etc.