RAAF Stopgap air plan is 'dumb'

[Occum]

Aussie Digger Response

This paragraph is pertintent from this report: "The total program cost estimates provided in the SAR include research and development, procurement, military construction, and acquisition-related operation and maintenance".

Aussie Digger, thanks for this. From my read, you are quite right when it comes to the 'total program budget' as shown in the 'total program budget' column of the SAR tables.

However, in the report (text) part of the SAR, they say that the budget for "4 (F-22) aircraft from 172 to 176 (+$506.6 million)". This equates to US$126m per aircraft and is from the procurement budget. After all, the F-22 aircraft is now in full rate production.

As for the JSF figures, the table in the GAO report aligns with what is listed in the US DoD Procurement Budget reports (not R&D Budget Reports). So, these costs are based on Procurement Budget figures.

I respectfully suggest you will find these are procurement cost figures, not, as you say, "ENTIRE project cost" figures.

FMS sales are NOT charged development costs. They charge only what the individual platform and maintenance, support and training charges cost.

From my read of the relevant US Law, you are quite right in this regard. This goes to the exchange with Magoo on the 'USAF Plans to sell F22's to "trusted allies"' thread. It also puts in some doubt what Dr Stephen Gumley had to say at the hearing when asked about the cost of the F-22 and he stated the "range is anything of the order of $US105 million to $US115 million per copy" but went on to say "We have not had the discussion yet but there is always the question of: do we have to pay our share of the past research and development and bringing it into manufacture? What is our share of the amortisation?".

I would have thought that Dr Gumley, being the CEO of the DMO, would have known what you and I obviously know and anyone can find on the www. Maybe not.

WHY do people continue to believe this rubbish?

Maybe because it is beginning to look a hell of a lot more plausible than what Defence (and others) have been saying. After all, this information is coming from reports to the US Congress and it would be mighty surprising if the US DoD were to be misleading the US Congress.

And un-informed rag that sensationalises EVERYTHING and demonstrates on a regular basis it's almost complete lack of knowledge on ANYTHING defence related, when the very well informed customer has already testified to a Parliamentary enquiry (only a matter of weeks ago) as to what it expects to pay for this platform, based on it's discussions with the US Government and the manufacturer???

Though I can not disagree with your sentiments about some in our 'journalistic profession', are you saying that Defence still expects to pay the US$45m that they have been telling people when asked how much the JSF will cost?

On the point of 'the very well informed customer', I suppose time will tell, though it is not looking good. Wouldn't suggest putting any money down on this being the case. This looks to be a fairly risky bet, at the moment.

 

[Cootamundra]

On the point of 'the very well informed customer', I suppose time will tell, though it is not looking good. Wouldn't suggest putting any money down on this being the case. This looks to be a fairly risky bet, at the moment.

Risky, sure it is, as are all Australian Defence procurements. Go and read what Gumley has to say about risk. Some risk is necessary for any project to deliver on both price and schedule, the only you can get both is to accept a 'manageable' level of risk, this is a basic tenent of professional project management.

To you point or more likely sarcastic comment (that's how I read it), do you really think the guys who have access to all of the classified info and who speak regulary with the JSF program office are not 'informed'! You sound just like Goon&Kopp and all the journo's, you assume that the guys in the know have no idea...
:kar

 

[Aussie Digger]

From my read of the relevant US Law, you are quite right in this regard. This goes to the exchange with Magoo on the 'USAF Plans to sell F22's to "trusted allies"' thread. It also puts in some doubt what Dr Stephen Gumley had to say at the hearing when asked about the cost of the F-22 and he stated the "range is anything of the order of $US105 million to $US115 million per copy" but went on to say "We have not had the discussion yet but there is always the question of: do we have to pay our share of the past research and development and bringing it into manufacture? What is our share of the amortisation?".

I would have thought that Dr Gumley, being the CEO of the DMO, would have known what you and I obviously know and anyone can find on the www. Maybe not.

Maybe because it is beginning to look a hell of a lot more plausible than what Defence (and others) have been saying. After all, this information is coming from reports to the US Congress and it would be mighty surprising if the US DoD were to be misleading the US Congress.


Though I can not disagree with your sentiments about some in our 'journalistic profession', are you saying that Defence still expects to pay the US$45m that they have been telling people when asked how much the JSF will cost?

On the point of 'the very well informed customer', I suppose time will tell, though it is not looking good. Wouldn't suggest putting any money down on this being the case. This looks to be a fairly risky bet, at the moment.

Re: Dr Gumley, he's in a difficult position, IMHO. He AND defence are being asked to provide exact figures for a purchase of an aircraft, when virtually nothings been decided upon.

Aust hasn't decided to purchase JSF, YET, it's just most probable that they will. They haven't decided how many they need, or rather can afford and it's doubtful RAAF have been given EXACT budget details as yet. They more likely have a "working" figure.

I doubt Defence seriously think that they will get F-35A's for US$45m a piece in 2012. (None of this info in the recent reports differentiate between the models either. F-35B/C will be significantly more expensive than the "A" model, AFAIK). What they can say NOW is that according to the advice THEY have received, they can still get them for US$45m a piece. Newspaper reports are hardly a basis for panic, afterall...

Many of our assumptions are based on the figure of the AIR 6000 budget being, AU$16 billion. With this sort of budget taking into account exchange differences and a cost of AU$182m per aircraft (at current exchange rate, based on the US$135m) cost, Australia would be lucky to purchase 61 JSF aircraft, considering that actual platform cost only makes up about 70% of the overall budget.

Even if we bought F-22A's at US$126m a piece with my basic math, we could only afford 65 of them. This does not take into account the upgrades that would be necessary to allow the F-22A to fill the roles required by the RAAF. For instance the F-22A has no IRST system, no laser targetting/designation capability, no EO/IR surveillance system, no maritime strike capability (besides dropping JDAM), no SEAD capability (besides dropping JDAM), no tactical datalink capability and only limited CAS/battlefield interdiction capability.

It will be a superb A2A fighter and it will possess a reasonable long range strike capability (thouhg not equal to that of JSF, by dint of it's lesser range and weapons capability).

In addition the processors used in F-22 are already obsolete and require an upgrade before the aircraft even enters operational service. The pre-planned Block upgrades for F-22 have already been canned, and these weren't programmed to deliver the sorts of multi-role capability that JSF will come with standard, anyway.

It really is a "no" brainer if you ask me.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Taken from Diar subscriber access:

NEW LEASE OF LIFE COMING FOR PROJECT AIR 5402?: Subject to Defence Minister Nelson’s revelations that the A330 jet used to return Private Kovco’s body to Australia was “one which the ADF has leased, and we have been using it to transfer predominantly our troops around the theatre in the Middle East,” the Minister has pushed for new measures to ensure incidents – including mix-ups over casket shipping – do not happen again. According to Dr Nelson, “all of the options …. I want put before me …. and if that means that we have to spend additional money on supporting leasing or even acquiring aircraft to undertake these tasks, then in my view that’s something that I would be recommending to the government and my colleagues to consider.” Project Air 5402 is currently acquiring five Airbus A330 multi-role tanker transport (MRTT) aircraft that have a secondary troop/cargo transport function, although five aircraft are generally considered deficient for evolving military requirements, with nine aircraft understood to have been originally requested by ADF planners. [29.04.06]

Looks as if there is starting to be some movement towards increasing the MRTT fleet. The rumoured acquisition 3-5 Ex-Qantas A330-200 aircraft may be closer to the truth than many realised...

 

[cherry]

What is the situation with the surplus qantas aircraft? I have heard this rumour a few times now and was wondering why these aircraft are surplus. There seem to be lots of rumours flying about at the moment of what may be in the revised DCP, if all of them come true, there will be a shite load of money needed to provide it.

 

[Aussie Digger]

What is the situation with the surplus qantas aircraft? I have heard this rumour a few times now and was wondering why these aircraft are surplus. There seem to be lots of rumours flying about at the moment of what may be in the revised DCP, if all of them come true, there will be a shite load of money needed to provide it.

Qantas has made a major strategic decision to concentrate it's fleet around the new 787 aircraft, given it's reputed efficiency's. As such these will replace it's existing A330-200 and other aircraft. These A330's are practically brand new, and apparently extremely similar in configuration to the A330's (minus, obviously the military comms etc that will be fitted to the RAAF new builds) that the RAAF is purchasing for it's MRTT program.

As second hand (slightly) they will be significantly cheaper to acquire than new builds, plus obviously in-service much quicker. Suggestions have been made that Government may look at "snapping up" several of these aircraft (between 3 and 5 is the figure commonly mentioned) and put them into RAAF service, even if the full MRTT conversion is not conducted immediately and they are only used for cargo/personnel movements initially.

It is yet another way, that ADF may be able to quickly and relatively cheaply enhance it's capability, in the face of continuing obvious gaps...

 

[Whiskyjack]

Qantas has made a major strategic decision to concentrate it's fleet around the new 787 aircraft, given it's reputed efficiency's. As such these will replace it's existing A330-200 and other aircraft. These A330's are practically brand new, and apparently extremely similar in configuration to the A330's (minus, obviously the military comms etc that will be fitted to the RAAF new builds) that the RAAF is purchasing for it's MRTT program.

As second hand (slightly) they will be significantly cheaper to acquire than new builds, plus obviously in-service much quicker. Suggestions have been made that Government may look at "snapping up" several of these aircraft (between 3 and 5 is the figure commonly mentioned) and put them into RAAF service, even if the full MRTT conversion is not conducted immediately and they are only used for cargo/personnel movements initially.

It is yet another way, that ADF may be able to quickly and relatively cheaply enhance it's capability, in the face of continuing obvious gaps...

This is out there I know, but if the RAAF could only fund 3 A330s, then it would be a perfect opportunity for the RNZAF to get the other 2. More expensive to run I know but a significant increase in lift and potential to convert to a basic hose refuelling config.

As I said not likely to happen but something that would be worth while.

 

[Magoo]

Qantas has made a major strategic decision to concentrate it's fleet around the new 787 aircraft, given it's reputed efficiency's. As such these will replace it's existing A330-200 and other aircraft. These A330's are practically brand new, and apparently extremely similar in configuration to the A330's (minus, obviously the military comms etc that will be fitted to the RAAF new builds) that the RAAF is purchasing for it's MRTT program.

As second hand (slightly) they will be significantly cheaper to acquire than new builds, plus obviously in-service much quicker. Suggestions have been made that Government may look at "snapping up" several of these aircraft (between 3 and 5 is the figure commonly mentioned) and put them into RAAF service, even if the full MRTT conversion is not conducted immediately and they are only used for cargo/personnel movements initially.

It is yet another way, that ADF may be able to quickly and relatively cheaply enhance it's capability, in the face of continuing obvious gaps...

Four of Qantas's domestically configured A330-200s will be going over to Jetstar International later this year to get it up and running, plus one more has been ordered for JI. Once the 787s arrive from late 08, the A330s will probably be surplus to Qantas's requirements and will then be available.

One thing to consider is that the RAAF's new-build A330s will have mission commander stations built into them from scratch which, although it doesn't sound like much, involves quite a bit of work. Then there's the pods, boom, lighting and other gear which would need to be fitted.

AD - the item you posted from Diar.com (an excellent newsletter by the way!) asks several pertinent questions, and also raises the possibility of additional A330s being operated on behalf of, but not necessarily by the ADF under a PFI by a contractor.

Two or three such aircraft being available to do weekly 'milk-runs' to the Middle east, or the Solomons, or to exercises such as Red Flag etc would be an economical way of enhancing our airlift without the upfront acquisition costs, but would also ensure deceased ADF personnel being returned from overseas are done so on an ADF operated aircraft rather than as freight in the cargo hold of an airliner.

Now that Airbus has decided to end production of its A300 line, there are hopes that they will quickly develop a freighter version of the A330, hopefully in time for a couple of our aircraft to be configured with a freight floor and door, or at least for the ex-Qantas aircraft to be retro-fitted thus.

BTW - Pte Kovco's body was returned from Kuwait on board an ADF-chartered A330 which was re-tasked specifically for the repatriation flight.

Magoo

 

[Aussie Digger]

AD - the item you posted from Diar.com (an excellent newsletter by the way!) asks several pertinent questions, and also raises the possibility of additional A330s being operated on behalf of, but not necessarily by the ADF under a PFI by a contractor.

BTW - Pte Kovco's body was returned from Kuwait on board an ADF-chartered A330 which was re-tasked specifically for the repatriation flight.

Magoo

Yep there's a company operating out of Sydney with an A330 that is chartered almost permanently for ADF operations. Can't remember the name, Luxar or some such.

It's how our digs are getting to the middle east etc.

Makes the acquisition of the Ex-Qantas aircraft more likely in my view, as ADF obviously isn't overly impressed with "chartered aircraft" as witnessed by the C-17 decision and if money can be found will seek additional airlift capacity.

Even if the additional aircraft are not converted to full MRTT spec, they'd still provide useful cargo and personnel movement capability. It'd be preferrable to upgrade them once in-service to full MRTT spec, but let's get the planes first and then see what we can do.

At least if they get them, the 5x MRTT's on order can be exclusively devoted to AAR duties, which will give us a bit of a boost. There's also persistant rumours that the additional C-130J's, if ordered, will be ordered as KC-130J-30's (AAR capable) aircraft, to give us the ability to refuel helo's in-flight as well as fixed wing aircraft.

We'd then have a fleet of 11x AAR aircraft, and even Dr KOPP couldn't ask for much more than that!!!

 

[Magoo]

Yep there's a company operating out of Sydney with an A330 that is chartered almost permanently for ADF operations. Can't remember the name, Luxar or some such.

The company is called Strategic Aviation. They are operating an A330-200 chartered from Portugal's Air Luxor, although now that their contract has been renewed, they're putting Australian flight and cabin crews in it. They run a good operation.

Makes the acquisition of the Ex-Qantas aircraft more likely in my view, as ADF obviously isn't overly impressed with "chartered aircraft" as witnessed by the C-17 decision and if money can be found will seek additional airlift capacity.

Even if the additional aircraft are not converted to full MRTT spec, they'd still provide useful cargo and personnel movement capability. It'd be preferrable to upgrade them once in-service to full MRTT spec, but let's get the planes first and then see what we can do.

At least if they get them, the 5x MRTT's on order can be exclusively devoted to AAR duties, which will give us a bit of a boost. There's also persistant rumours that the additional C-130J's, if ordered, will be ordered as KC-130J-30's (AAR capable) aircraft, to give us the ability to refuel helo's in-flight as well as fixed wing aircraft.

The additional Hercs are almost a given, it's just the timing which is in question. And they'll most likely be tanker configured, so long as there isn't too much certification work to do with the tanker pods on the long fuselage which no one else has done before.

We'd then have a fleet of 11x AAR aircraft, and even Dr KOPP couldn't ask for much more than that!!!

Yeah, HE could. He'd insist they all be KC-747s!!! :dbanana

I personally think a fleet of 10-12 A330s would be appropriate. Five or six of them could be on the regular rotation, with the remainder available for surges and crewed by reserve 'weekend warrior' crews who fly for Qantas/Jetstar Int'l. I'm sure the Gov't could figure something like that out!

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Aussie Digger]

The company is called Strategic Aviation. They are operating an A330-200 chartered from Portugal's Air Luxor, although now that their contract has been renewed, they're putting Australian flight and cabin crews in it. They run a good operation.



The additional Hercs are almost a given, it's just the timing which is in question. And they'll most likely be tanker configured, so long as there isn't too much certification work to do with the tanker pods on the long fuselage which no one else has done before.

Yeah, HE could. He'd insist they all be KC-747s!!! :dbanana

I personally think a fleet of 10-12 A330s would be appropriate. Five or six of them could be on the regular rotation, with the remainder available for surges and crewed by reserve 'weekend warrior' crews who fly for Qantas/Jetstar Int'l. I'm sure the Gov't could figure something like that out!

Cheers

Magoo

That's right, I forgot he was not a big fan of the A330 either...

Just imagine Kopp's future dream ADF of 50x F-22's, 50x F-111S , 16-18x KC-747's "Smart Tankers", plus about a dozen Wedgetails, about a dozen C-17's, plus a dozen or so MMA's and a dozen Global Hawk's, plus NO AWD's (which he also doesn't like).

We'd be a force to be reckoned with then. WHY are the ADF and Government listening?

This is the ONLY way to confront the hordes of ADVANCED flankers, AWACS and missiles proliferating our region...

 

[Big-E]

Who would want 50 F-111S

 

[Aussie Digger]

Dr Carlo KOPP and Mr Peter GOON for 2...

 

[Big-E]

Dr Carlo KOPP and Mr Peter GOON for 2...

Are they retarded?

 

[Cootamundra]

Are they retarded?

Very good question!

Certainly they don't think they are, in fact Carlo Kopp is quite sure that he is one of THE most brillant minds in Australia (certainly regarding our future air force needs and network/communication strategies/technologies). Peter Goon is actually quite accomplished, however they both suffer from a case of one-track mind AND in the case of Goon have serious integrity issues (as he has a vested interest in retaining and refurbishing any future F-111s!!!!!!!!

 

[Aussie Digger]

Very good question!

Certainly they don't think they are, in fact Carlo Kopp is quite sure that he is one of THE most brillant minds in Australia (certainly regarding our future air force needs and network/communication strategies/technologies). Peter Goon is actually quite accomplished, however they both suffer from a case of one-track mind AND in the case of Goon have serious integrity issues (as he has a vested interest in retaining and refurbishing any future F-111s!!!!!!!!

Peter GOON is the owner of a defence company (Flight Test Services) that responded to a request for proposal from Defence Industry during the initial stages of AIR 6000 in relation to life extension and long term upgrades for the F-111 fleet, which was being looked at back then.

RAAF decided this was not a sensible option to pursue, despite apparently a comprehensive package designed within this proposal. GOON has been obviously bitter ever since and has been lobbying hard for years for Defence and or Government to overturn this decision.

As such has mostly Commerical reasons at heart for wanting Defence to follow this path. As such his criticisms of the RAAF must be weighed against this.

Likewise, Doctor KOPP is a freelance Journalist in addition to his academic life and has spent a good part of his professional life studying and writing about the F-111 and (potential) F-22 usage in RAAF service. These articles (available mostly at airpowerint.net) were and are written for such publications as Defence Today, Air International/Air Forces Monthly and other popular military/aerospace magazines.

As such he too has (at least partly) commercial reasons for pursuing this line of argument. When the F-111 is retired from RAAF service, a goodly proportionate of his professional work will become irrelevant.

ANYTHING that comes from them about Defence matters, must be balanced against their Commercial interests, and once you're aware of this, it's relatively easy to see why they are going to such lengths (at least it is to me)...

 

[gf0012-aust]

In addition re Goon.

He also submitted proposals for re-engining the Caribous - which were also rejected.

He also submitted proposals for the AP-3C Orion upgrades - which were also rejected.

His relationship with RAAF is somewhat unhappy and has been since circa 1997 when he and I were both members of the Def Teaming Centre. He's actually a nice bloke at the social level, but he's a bit bitter and twisted re ADF and DMO and to some extent subscribes to a vendetta if not conspiracy theory.

A brief gaze at his JSC submission is therefore a little illuminating.

In fact both Kopp and Goons submissions are puzzling in the sense that they both don't have the requisite security clearances that would provide them with necessary access to some of the JSF data - and yet they think that they're entitled to it on the basis of making a public submission. You can vaguely dismiss Kopps mistaken belief re access, but Goon is more than aware of what he could and cannot get.

A technical seduction by Powerpoint is also never a convincing argument. Sooner or later someone in the tender assessment team goes through it with a purple pen and cuts the fantasy from the fact.

In the Tender Eval Teams I've been on we had 3 trays.

1. Complied with RFT
2. "Plan B" Compliance (to be visited only if Grp 1 Compliant submissions fell over)
3. Failed to address RFT criteria (and that meant any element, irrespective of how "good" the rest of it was.

A publicly submitted green paper is akin to addressing an RFT - and you'd have to present a stellar case if you only had access to public (and thus "filtered and purged" data)

 

[rjmaz1]

Some people dont have a clue. They say we could buy some cheaper F-15's or Eurofighters to suppliment the JSF if it gets too expensive. We wont be getting many extra aircraft even if the second aircraft is much cheaper.

Lets punch in some numbers ..

Ordering one aircraft
100 JSF totalling $15 billion = 100 million per aircraft (10billion) + support (5 billion)

200 Eurofighters totalling $15 billion = 50 million per aircraft (10 billion) + support (5 billion)

So say we have 15billions total, that doesn't mean we can get 50 JSF's and 100 Eurofighters as the support/repair/maintenance cost doesn't halve when the number of aircraft is cut by half.

A realistic value would be that half the number of aircraft would see the support costs from from 5 billion to 4 billion. Quarter of the aircraft would see 3 billion.

Ordering two aircraft
Now If you haved the JSF order from 100 to 50 aircraft and bought eurofighters with whats left from the 15 billion. Lets see how many eurofighter we could buy...

50 JSF at 100million each (5 billion) + support (4 billion) = 9 billion for 50 JSF's.

That leaves us with 6 billion remaining for Eurofighters

We'd be able to buy so few that support cost would equal the aircraft purchase price.

60 Eurofighters at 50 million each (3 Billion) + support (3 billion)


Results
So if the Australian Government had 15 billion to spend, then the two options are.

A) 100 JSF's
B) 50 JSF's and 60 Eurofighters.

As you can see even though the eurofighter is half the cost we could only afford 10 extra aircraft.

That is why Australia wants to go with one aircraft, not multiple.

My opinions
If the JSF ends up costing too much it may be too late to order advaned versions of the F-15e's as the F-15 production line will most likely be closing next year. So we will have two options either buy less JSF's or pay the higher price per aircraft.

Someone suggested a squadron of F-22's, F-35a, and F-35b's. Some people suggest that out of our 100 JSF's we should buy some VTOL versions to make the force more flexible.

I think a similar solution could be used. We could purchase one squadron of Expensive F-22's to provide us our long range strike and air dominence aircraft. With the rest of the budget, 3 squadrons of the VTOL versions of the joint striker fighter could be ordered. This would provide the bread and butter role and would be higher flexible.

The longer range of the conventional JSF wouldn't be needed with the F-22 doing all those missions. The VTOL version can provide much better close air support than the conventional version as it can be based closer to the battle front or from ships, so it gets on the scene quicker.

20 F-22's.
60 F-35B's

Thats what i reccon australia should strive for.

 

[Brutus Caesar]

Look, I'm as interested in defence and Australia having that best defence force in the region as the next guy. However, as I see it (and I am certainly no expert that's for sure) the reality of the situation is that Australia is not going to need large scale air assets between 2008 and 2014. Noone is going to invade us, and the only reason we could possibly need them is as part of a US/UN led force, in which case the burden for strike capability would be carried by our allies and partners.

As such I just see it as a complete waste of tax payer money that could be far more effectively used elsewhere on acquiring a stop-gap aircraft to fill in void in which it will never be used. Surely Australia is not going to implode into a volcanic pit of doom if we go 2-4 years without being able to deploy a dozen F-111's or a similar number of say F-15's.

But then I really have no idea so please don't be too harsh on me.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Some people dont have a clue. They say we could buy some cheaper F-15's or Eurofighters to suppliment the JSF if it gets too expensive. We wont be getting many extra aircraft even if the second aircraft is much cheaper.

Lets punch in some numbers ..

Ordering one aircraft
100 JSF totalling $15 billion = 100 million per aircraft (10billion) + support (5 billion)

200 Eurofighters totalling $15 billion = 50 million per aircraft (10 billion) + support (5 billion)

So say we have 15billions total, that doesn't mean we can get 50 JSF's and 100 Eurofighters as the support/repair/maintenance cost doesn't halve when the number of aircraft is cut by half.

A realistic value would be that half the number of aircraft would see the support costs from from 5 billion to 4 billion. Quarter of the aircraft would see 3 billion.

Ordering two aircraft
Now If you haved the JSF order from 100 to 50 aircraft and bought eurofighters with whats left from the 15 billion. Lets see how many eurofighter we could buy...

50 JSF at 100million each (5 billion) + support (4 billion) = 9 billion for 50 JSF's.

That leaves us with 6 billion remaining for Eurofighters

We'd be able to buy so few that support cost would equal the aircraft purchase price.

60 Eurofighters at 50 million each (3 Billion) + support (3 billion)


Results
So if the Australian Government had 15 billion to spend, then the two options are.

A) 100 JSF's
B) 50 JSF's and 60 Eurofighters.

As you can see even though the eurofighter is half the cost we could only afford 10 extra aircraft.

That is why Australia wants to go with one aircraft, not multiple.

My opinions
If the JSF ends up costing too much it may be too late to order advaned versions of the F-15e's as the F-15 production line will most likely be closing next year. So we will have two options either buy less JSF's or pay the higher price per aircraft.

Someone suggested a squadron of F-22's, F-35a, and F-35b's. Some people suggest that out of our 100 JSF's we should buy some VTOL versions to make the force more flexible.

I think a similar solution could be used. We could purchase one squadron of Expensive F-22's to provide us our long range strike and air dominence aircraft. With the rest of the budget, 3 squadrons of the VTOL versions of the joint striker fighter could be ordered. This would provide the bread and butter role and would be higher flexible.

The longer range of the conventional JSF wouldn't be needed with the F-22 doing all those missions. The VTOL version can provide much better close air support than the conventional version as it can be based closer to the battle front or from ships, so it gets on the scene quicker.

20 F-22's.
60 F-35B's

Thats what i reccon australia should strive for.

Platform costs only equate to about 70% of the overall costs of an aircraft. The other 30% is the support, maintenance and training costs that come with such a platform.

As such with a budget of roughly $16 Billion,as is outlined in the current DCP, we could afford to spend AU$11.2b on the actual platforms. In US dollars this equates to about US$8.6b.

At a flyaway cost of US$45m per plane, this would mean we could purchase up to 192 F-35A's, if as is likely, the base cost of the platform increases (as EVERY aircraft program in history has) this will decrease the maximum number of aircraft we could buy.

The VTOL version is likely to be far more expensive,as is the F-35C carrier version. In addition to the aircraft costs, weapons packages will also be included in this project, further reducing the number of aircraft we can afford.
On top of this, AIR 60000 is split into 3 phases. Only the first 2 are confirmed as JSF purchases. Phase 3 MAY result in an additionalk F-35 purchase, but may look at UCAV's as well.

As such, the amount that can actually be spent on F-35A's is coming down all the time. If a UCAV solution is pursued, I would expect that we would not acquire any more than 75x F-35A's.

I doubt we would acquire any "second" platform beyond UCAV's. The only way it seems likely we will operate a different manned platform would be if we had to withdraw from the F-35 program for some reason.

If that occurred, the Typhoon or advanced F-15 variants (if still in production) would surely be favourites, and RAAF would be fairly unhappy with this outcome, I'd venture...