RAAF Stopgap air plan is 'dumb'

[rjmaz1]

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.

That is not entirely true.

The 30% represents the average cost percentage of all the countries opporating that aircraft. The countries operating a handful of aircraft would see it go above 50%.

In Australias case our small purchase will not change the aircraft price at all. So the aircraft cost will stay the same regardless if we buy 20 or 100 aircraft. So 50 aircraft cost 5 billion or 100 aircraft cost 10 billion.

However the support cost as i mentioned before does not change at the same rate. 100 aircraft will cost 5 billion to support. 50 aircraft will cost 4 billion to support. Percentage wise the support costs would equate to 45% of the Platform cost if only 50 aircraft are ordered. But if the full 100 aircraft are ordered the support cost is only be 33% of the total platform cost.

Those numbers were just made up to get my point across to show that in our case the percentage of cost for Support increases if less aircraft are bought.

 

[Magoo]

That is not entirely true.

The 30% represents the average cost percentage of all the countries opporating that aircraft. The countries operating a handful of aircraft would see it go above 50%.

In Australias case our small purchase will not change the aircraft price at all. So the aircraft cost will stay the same regardless if we buy 20 or 100 aircraft. So 50 aircraft cost 5 billion or 100 aircraft cost 10 billion.

Yes and no - I guess it depends on whether you buy all of your aircraft at once or not, as perhaps the biggest single influence on the cost of an aircraft is where in the build program you buy it.

For example, if you buy early-build or LRIP aircraft (e.g. The RAAF's 30-40 or so AIR 6000 Tranche 1 JSF aircraft), they are likely to be a lot more expensive than the projected average non-recurring unit price throughout the build program, as the early aircraft will amortise much more of the development costs.

If you buy midway through the program, you are likely to pay close to the projected avearge price (e.g. Tranche 2) as the development costs begin to tail off.

If you buy towards the end of a build run when most or all of the development has been done and paid for, the price is likely to be alot cheaper (e.g. Tranche 3).

This, of course may not necessarily apply if you are buying radically enhanced versions of a jet which may have been in production for years or even decades (e.g. UAE F-16E/F and to a lesser extent, the Singaporean F-15SG), as there are new development costs to be amortised - I'd hate to think how much the UAE F-16s cost each, but US$150m wouldn't surprise me at all!!!:eek

However the support cost as i mentioned before does not change at the same rate. 100 aircraft will cost 5 billion to support. 50 aircraft will cost 4 billion to support. Percentage wise the support costs would equate to 45% of the Platform cost if only 50 aircraft are ordered. But if the full 100 aircraft are ordered the support cost is only be 33% of the total platform cost.

Correct - the establishment of a support base for a new aircraft type (e.g. simulators, hangars and basing infrastructure, in-country support - i.e. DSTO etc, maintenance personnel, training etc) is a large cost, and will NOT vary greatly whether you buy 30 or 100 aircraft - you will still need the training, the simulators, the spares, the in-country support etc. This is why many in the RAAF support the single-type solution for AIR 6000, i.e. one support base instead of two.

Magoo

 

[Occum]

Originally Posted by Magoo
Correct - the establishment of a support base for a new aircraft type (e.g. simulators, hangars and basing infrastructure, in-country support - i.e. DSTO etc, maintenance personnel, training etc) is a large cost, and will NOT vary greatly whether you buy 30 or 100 aircraft - you will still need the training, the simulators, the spares, the in-country support etc. This is why many in the RAAF support the single-type solution for AIR 6000, i.e. one support base instead of two.

Being somewhat aware of the attitude of some on this forum, the following may be seen to be a bit on the controversial side. However, here goes.

Given the cited 'support base' costs referred to here have already been spent and the 'support base' already established for the F-111s (and, for that matter, the F-18s), why is there this, IMHO, almost fanatical support for a single type solution for Air 6000. Surely it makes more sense to replace the F/A-18s with F-22s and wait till the JSF both proves itself AND comes down in price to replace the F-111s.

Again, IMHO, a unit procurement cost of US$120m plus a copy is a hell of a lot of money to pay for a jet still in development that is, at the very least, going to require several upgrades of not insignificant complexity and size before these plans have it fully mission capable. The critical point here is that these are still 'plans'.

As for the 'old chestnut' that the F-111s are too expensive to operate and maintain, have yet to see any figures from the RAAF to support this claim. In fact, the figures in their Air Combat Capability paper show the exact opposite and the word out of Amberley is that the F-111 fleet is nowhere near as expensive to operate and maintain as the F/A-18 fleet, or for that matter, the AP-3C fleet.

Looking forward to the comments this POV might generate.

 

[rjmaz1]

If you buy midway through the program, you are likely to pay close to the projected avearge price (e.g. Tranche 2) as the development costs begin to tail off.

If you buy towards the end of a build run when most or all of the development has been done and paid for, the price is likely to be alot cheaper (e.g. Tranche 3).

Magoo is spot on there.

We should be buying the aircraft mid way through the production run.

In 2010-2012 when we plan to start receiving our first aircraft, this would be some of the first JSF's off the production line and would cost alot.

In 2010 the F-22 program would be at the midway point of its production cycle with 150 aircarft being delivered to the US, so the price for the F-22 would only be slightly more than the JSF's. If we wait even longer to say 2015 the US would offer as very good deals on the F-22 as they would want to keep the production line open.

That is why we should purchaseing F-22 aircraft starting in 2010 getting say 5 aircraft per year.

Then in say 2015 we can see the real world performance and cost figures of the JSF and decide if we should keep ordering more F-22's or switch over to JSF.

I doubt that switch over would ever be made as the JSF will be inferior to our F-22. Its like when people own a bmw they cant go back to inferior holden or fords.

The VTOL JSF's would be good though as it offers many extra capabilities that the F-22 wouldn't have, where as the normal JSF would be inferior in every way but cost half as much. In that case they'd just order fewer F-22 aircraft.

Gone are the days where our enemy could outnumber us with cheaper aircraft, we dont need 100+ aircraft anymore as the enemy is also downsizing their number of aircraft to more advanced aircraft. So even if we had only 50 F-22 and no other combat aircraft our capability would be far superior to any possible enemy.

 

[Occum]

rjmaz1 -

You look like you are on the right track, here, but suggest F-22s could start to be bought in 2008, thus avoiding the very expensive and risky CBR program on the F/A-18s (and a bunch of equally expensive and risky deeper maintenance and support modifications).

Suggest you might want to check out the figures because what I have read coming out of the US GAO and the US Congressional Budgtary Reports, in 2012 a JSF will cost more than a Raptor.

 

[rjmaz1]

Exactly why we should be buying F-22's instead of JSF's.

If the early production JSF and late production F-22's cost the same, then who on earth would buy the JSF?

The F-22 can fly quicker and faster, is more agile, has better stealth and a better radar. The F-22 can do the role of our F-111's much better than the JSF.

Saying that ordering the F-22's two years earlier will prevent the need for upgrades of the current hornets. There is nothing stopping the hornets from being flown for 2 more years without the upgrade. Considering they will be 20years old, whats another 2 years?

If we want a single combat aircraft fleet the F-22 is the way to go. This way we are uneffected by delays or cost increases.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Exactly why we should be buying F-22's instead of JSF's.

If the early production JSF and late production F-22's cost the same, then who on earth would buy the JSF?

The F-22 can fly quicker and faster, is more agile, has better stealth and a better radar. The F-22 can do the role of our F-111's much better than the JSF.

Saying that ordering the F-22's two years earlier will prevent the need for upgrades of the current hornets. There is nothing stopping the hornets from being flown for 2 more years without the upgrade. Considering they will be 20years old, whats another 2 years?

If we want a single combat aircraft fleet the F-22 is the way to go. This way we are uneffected by delays or cost increases.

The F-22A's CANNOT do the role our F-111's perform without extensive upgrades. They do not possess the range (F-35A's will likely possess greater range), the sensor capabilities or the weapons capability.

The F-22 has virtually NO air to ground capacity in it's current form. An ability to drop 500lbs GBU-38's is ALL it has. It has no EO/IR targetting system, no laser target marking/spot tracker system or CCD system, common to all current generation aircraft and to be included in the get go on the F-35A.

Finally there is NO guarantee that we COULD actually acquire F-22 even if we wanted to. The chief of RAAF admitted this publicly only 4 or so weeks ago. Vague promises years ago, are a bit different to an actual order.

One point F-22 proponents conveniently overlook (IMHO) is the source code issue. We are having great trouble with this issue for the "lower tech" F-35A. I can only imagine the issues we'd have attempting to get the F-22A.

Anyhoo, on to the F-35B issue.

VTOL F-35's do NOT possess the capacity to carry 2000lbs class weapons internally, (nor does the F-22 EITHER), meaning they will NEVER carry JASSM type weapons or 2000lbs JDAM/LGB's internally, requiring any such weapons to be carried externally and thus negating much of the F-22's stealth capacity.

The VTOL F-35B also has vastly reduced range compared to the F-35A CTOL version and is likely to cost up to half as much again as the normal F-35A.

The lift fan system that gives the F-35B it's VTOL capability, is amazingly complex and imposes a massive weight penalty on the F-35B. As such it is also likely to have greater performance/ordnance limitations compared to the F-35A, which is already critised in some areas as having in-sufficient performance to compete against other aircraft types.

I cannot see that type being a realistic aircraft for our major frontline combat aircraft. A niche role would be about it I would suggest IF we can afford it.

 

[Occum]

Originally Posted by Aussie Digger
Finally there is NO guarantee that we COULD actually acquire F-22 even if we wanted to. The chief of RAAF admitted this publicly only 4 or so weeks ago. Vague promises years ago, are a bit different to an actual order.

But didn't Dr Gumley say at the same hearing that they had not asked if the US would make the F-22 capability available to Australia? If they haven't asked, then how do you know or are so confident that Australia can't get the Raptor?

Your alluding to 'vague promises years ago' does not gel with your earlier posts on this subject - refer Air 6000 for ADF. Back then you seemed quite confident that the USAF had offered Australia the F-22 but this had been turned down for 'political reasons' or some such thing.

As to the capabilities you say the F-22 has or doesn't have, your views are quite at odds with what Lt Gen David Deptula had to say in the interview that appeared in last month's Defence Today. Any idea why this is?

Besides, if you are correct in you views, then what is to say these capabilities will not be available in the jet by, say, 2010 if not 2008. The way things are going with the JSF, such capabilities are unlikely to have been demonstrated on that aircraft (the JSF) till some time after 2014.

Is this not a reasonable position or is there something we are all missing?

 

[Aussie Digger]

But didn't Dr Gumley say at the same hearing that they had not asked if the US would make the F-22 capability available to Australia? If they haven't asked, then how do you know or are so confident that Australia can't get the Raptor?

Your alluding to 'vague promises years ago' does not gel with your earlier posts on this subject - refer Air 6000 for ADF. Back then you seemed quite confident that the USAF had offered Australia the F-22 but this had been turned down for 'political reasons' or some such thing.

As to the capabilities you say the F-22 has or doesn't have, your views are quite at odds with what Lt Gen David Deptula had to say in the interview that appeared in last month's Defence Today. Any idea why this is?

Besides, if you are correct in you views, then what is to say these capabilities will not be available in the jet by, say, 2010 if not 2008. The way things are going with the JSF, such capabilities are unlikely to have been demonstrated on that aircraft (the JSF) till some time after 2014.

Is this not a reasonable position or is there something we are all missing?

I know about the article you are referring to and the only response I have, is that the USAF is desperate to get as many F-22's as it possibly can. It is consistently lobbying Congress in relation to this, and the "trumped up" "results" of Cope India go a long way towards this. The majority of this article is based on this and an actual sentence in the article states:

"Accordingly, the F/A-22A is crucial to ensuring our Combatant Commanders around the world have this capability to meet the demands of our National Security Strategy. Any F/A-22A shortfall in numbers sufficient to maintain the rotational base required to fulfill the force structure requirements of our defence strategy will directly affect the ability to execute that strategy if called upon to do so". (Defence Today, page 60 March/April 2006).

It sounds to me like this was taken straight from a request to Congress!!!

Any comments that the JSF may be closer in capability to the F-22 then many think are NOT going to be publicly admitted by any members of the USAF until the F-22 issue is resolved...

The fact is that if F-22 COULD perform ALL the missions Lt Gen DEPTULA says, and that article states it can perform air to air, surface attack, SEAD/DEAD, airborne warningEA, cruise missile defence "and others" what need would there be for JSF? Surely evolved F-16/F-18 versions would be FAR cheaper and offer acceptable capability once F-22 had "WON" the war...

The majority of these roles is what the JSF is being specifically designed for. As such, I can't put much faith in this bit of propaganda...

 

[rjmaz1]

The fact is that if F-22 COULD perform ALL the missions Lt DEPTULA says, and that article states it can perform air to air, surface attack, SEAD/DEAD, airborne warningEA, cruise missile defence "and others" what need would there be for JSF?

Thats why the JSF should not be ordered in such large numbers as its just a cheaper less performing aircraft to the F-22. If the JSF program was never started, all that development money could have been put towards ordering 2000 F-22's. That would have been a much better situation than 200 F-22 and 2000 JSF's.

When the JSF program started the F-22 was a pure air dominence fighter with no air to ground capability. Now that it is multirole all the missions of the JSF can be done by the F-22. The JSF would never have started if they knew this, which is why it shouldn't be ordered in such great numbers.

Surely evolved F-16/F-18 versions would be FAR cheaper and offer acceptable capability once F-22 had "WON" the war...

This shows that the F-22 is needed to win the war, without them the F-16/F-18's dont stand a chance to win or sustain. So if only one model aircraft has to be purchased then top of the line technology is the way to go. After the critical parts of the war is over the F-22 would do much better than conventional aircraft, strap four fuel tanks under the wings it could patrol an area twice as large as any other fighter aircraft and would reduce the need for inflight refueling.

Dont get me wrong the JSF would suit australia very well, however the F-22 would be better and is available earlier. Also with GPS positioned bombs, laser designators aren't required, however it would be recomended to use

 

[Aussie Digger]

Thats why the JSF should not be ordered in such large numbers as its just a cheaper less performing aircraft to the F-22. If the JSF program was never started, all that development money could have been put towards ordering 2000 F-22's. That would have been a much better situation than 200 F-22 and 2000 JSF's.

When the JSF program started the F-22 was a pure air dominence fighter with no air to ground capability. Now that it is multirole all the missions of the JSF can be done by the F-22. The JSF would never have started if they knew this, which is why it shouldn't be ordered in such great numbers.


This shows that the F-22 is needed to win the war, without them the F-16/F-18's dont stand a chance to win or sustain. So if only one model aircraft has to be purchased then top of the line technology is the way to go. After the critical parts of the war is over the F-22 would do much better than conventional aircraft, strap four fuel tanks under the wings it could patrol an area twice as large as any other fighter aircraft and would reduce the need for inflight refueling.

Dont get me wrong the JSF would suit australia very well, however the F-22 would be better and is available earlier. Also with GPS positioned bombs, laser designators aren't required, however it would be recomended to use

F-22's are more "limited" role, than "multi-role" IMHO.

GPS guided bombs are all well and good until you want to bomb a moving target. Then you're screwed if you don't have an EO/IR targetting pod, which the F-22 doesn't, even if you JDAM's DO have a seeker capable of engaging said moving target, let alone the datalink needed to guide it. (Something ELSE F-22 DOESN'T have).

GPS bombs are also far less accurate than LGB's, and despite the proliferation of JDAM's within US forces, LGB's were still used to a FAR greater degree than GPS bombs in GW2...

 

[Occum]

Aussie Digger -

You seem to have quite a focus on what the F-22 can't do, with emphasis. Given such 'emphasis', just wondering what's your source material?

 

[Occum]

Aussie Digger -

The majority of these roles is what the JSF is being specifically designed for. As such, I can't put much faith in this bit of propaganda...

Doubt if the Vice Commander of USAF PACAF would be very impressed with what is being implied here.

Nor that you have summarily demoted him to Lt.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Aussie Digger -

You seem to have quite a focus on what the F-22 can't do, with emphasis. Given such 'emphasis', just wondering what's your source material?

Dr KOPP admits such things himself...

If you need further clarification you can read up on the F-22 on ANY number of websites including airforce-technology.com, fas.org, globalsecurity.org etc.

It is a fact however that F-22A has been limited in it's "mulit-role" capabilities as a budget measure. The planned Block upgrades that Dr KOPP referred to in last months Defence Today, that you quote as a "source" HAVE been canned. They may be re-instated, maybe not.

However it is also a fact that to gain as many F-22's as they can, USAF has opted to retire HALF their existing B-52 fleet and their entire F-117 and U-2 fleets...

That's a lot of capability to lose to gain a handful of new fighters, which is ALL the F-22 is, whatever it's capabilities may be.

 

[Occum]

Dr KOPP admits such things himself...

If you need further clarification you can read up on the F-22 on ANY number of websites including airforce-technology.com, fas.org, globalsecurity.org etc.

Glad to see you have corrected your post - there is a bit of a difference between the rank of Lt and Lt Gen.

Bit confused as to what you mean by, "Dr Kopp admits such things himself ....".

Have you and he discussed such things?

From what I have read and observed, the Raptor already has the makin's of a "true multi mission aircraft", plus some.

I sincerely hope you are not falling into the trap of 'drinking one's own bath water'. Risky business, that.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Glad to see you have corrected your post - there is a bit of a difference between the rank of Lt and Lt Gen.

Bit confused as to what you mean by, "Dr Kopp admits such things himself ....".

Have you and he discussed such things?

From what I have read and observed, the Raptor already has the makin's of a "true multi mission aircraft", plus some.

I sincerely hope you are not falling into the trap of 'drinking one's own bath water'. Risky business, that.

I'm sure you are aware that Dr Kopp has written extensively on the F-22? You provided a link to one such article, IIRC. That is what I was referring to. You have used him as a source, yet apparently I cannot? Is that what you are implying?

Raptor will be outstanding, I have never doubted it. It's just that it cannot presently do what Australia wants to do. It needs to be upgraded to do so and is likely to cost more than double what the JSF will. That is the only reason I argue against it being selected to provide for our air combat capability.

I'd love RAAF to operate a Sqn or 2 of Raptors. It's just not realistic and I AM a pragmatist, whatever else I may be...

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

hey guys, i know this is a bit off the conversation and this question has probably been answered in annother thread but just how good is the F35's air to air capability. I know its probably the best next gen strike aircraft out there. The AESA radar is meant to be great and so is the Infa Red tracking system and its highly networked. This all sounds promising (as does the price tag) but it seems to be lacking some air to air qualities i.e. supercruze and thrust vectoring. This all helps the bottom line but it doesent seem to be that impresive when it comes to basic manuverability, top speed, operational sealing, range, rate of climb ect. Doesnt that stuff still count? I'm not baging the JSF i'm just wondering if anyone has a general idea of how it shapes up in the Air to Air role againt next gen Russian/Europen fighters?

 

[knightrider4]

Jsf

From an amatures point of view, It if operated as part of a networked system ie; AEW&C, Jorn, Vigilaire etc then it will be more than capable. The whole platform v platform argument as far as Australia goes is a moot point. Apart from the old pig Australia has never in my opinion operated the worlds best platform eg we chose hornet over F-15 Eagle? As for facing hordes of Russian made fighters if it comes to serious blows between Australia and either India/China well you may as well go and dig up your daddy's SKK cause it's game over no matter if we had Raptors or not.

 

[Big-E]

As for facing hordes of Russian made fighters if it comes to serious blows between Australia and either India/China well you may as well go and dig up your daddy's SKK cause it's game over no matter if we had Raptors or not.

If you have 80+ Raptors you could wipe out both AFs 4th gen arms and leave the 3rds to the reserve Hornets IMHO. Purely defensive

 

[Brutus Caesar]

Just on the Hornets, once they are retired will they be kept in storage, sold for scrap, sold on, used in the reserves etc.?