- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #301
I'd imagine that they'd end up at Woomera pending disposal. Some would be too shagged to onsell as working units anyway.Brutus Caesar said:
RAAF Stopgap air plan is 'dumb'
- Thread starter gf0012-aust
- Start date
- Status
Not at all. I have no problem your using Dr Kopp as a source. My objection is to your misquoting such sources (or any others for that matter) either directly or by implication eg. your use of the comment 'Dr Kopp admits such things himself ....' to somehow support your belief that the Raptor is not a multi role capability. Shame!Aussie Digger said:
If this (or these) are you only reason/s, then you need have nothing to fret about. IIRC, according to testimony before the House Arms Services Committee by the Hon Michael Wynne the Raptor spiral development program is already well underway. As for costs, check the budgetary and GAO performance audit reports to Congress. No way the Raptor will 'cost more than double what the JSF will'. Even common sense dictates that the delta between the learned out costs of these two platforms will be the cost of one engine, minor differences in the avionics costs and cost differences due to airframe sizing. Low side will be around US$10m and high side around US$20m. Remember, this is for the learned out costs. JSF will be more costly in early production numbers which is when the RAAF are intending to purchase. GAO reports estimate JSF procurement costs in the order of US$130m per unit. And this is before the program budget breaks through $300bn and has run the Congressional gauntlet.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Well it will have an advanced AESA radar which is itself a development of the F-22's radar system. It's direction ranges are likely to be very significant, whilst it's stealth is not equal to that of F-22, is likely to be better than anything else out there, and whilst it will be inferior to F-22, the likelyhood of us having to face F-22's is less than us having to face "hordes" of AAR/AWACS supported Sukhoi's supported by "AWACS" killing anti-radiation missiles, so I won't be "losing sleep at night" if we DON'T opt for F-22 and evolved F-111's...Ozzy Blizzard said:
I love the pig as it is a really impressive aircraft that has served Australia very well, but I have always wondered why Dr Kopp is so wedded to the the evolved F111 option. Being the sole opertor of any aircraft type is expensive and I can believe that being the sole operator of a very limited number of a old airframes it is very expensive.Aussie Digger said:
Given the limitless air budget Dr Kopp envisages I would have thought he would be recommeding buying the stored B-1B Lancers. They are newer, have lower RCS and massive range and are in current inventory with another airforce which should reduce upgrade costs. All things an evolved F111 would do (albeit a touch slower).
I am not suggesting this is a real possibility but it seems to make more sense than the evolved F111.
Does it still count? Yes and no, Yes when you are engaged first by an aircraft that has already tagged you. No when your stealth gets your kill before the enemy knows your there. It already doesn't count 85% of the time in 4th gen combat with BVR, it will count even less in 5th vs 4th gen like 95% of the time.Ozzy Blizzard said:
abramsteve
New Member
Can someone please give me some info on this 'evolved F-111'? I love them as symbols and as aircraft, but if their time is up then.... I love the B-17 and Spitfire but somehow I cant see them being that usefull no mater how evolved
The only reason those goons propose F-111 upgrades b/c they pose to profit by it.abramsteve said:Can someone please give me some info on this 'evolved F-111'? I love them as symbols and as aircraft, but if their time is up then.... I love the B-17 and Spitfire but somehow I cant see them being that usefull no mater how evolved
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
I was under the impression that the F35 has a limeted internal weapons hardpoints. 4 i think? So in most situations e.g. a Combat Air Patroll an F35 would be carrieing external fuel tanks and additional AAM's, therefore reducing its stealth. Do you think it would stil be a factor? Or is the situation pretty simlar with current models e.g. An F15 vs a MiG 29? dont worry you allready answered that!!:idea2Big-E said:
Last edited:
Yeah, throwing AAMs on your pylons is going to kill your radar signature reduction. You only do that once all threats to the aircraft have been neutralized, anything else would be premature. That's why the F-22s go in first to clear the way for the JSFs in USAF doctrine.Ozzy Blizzard said:
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Yeah so i guess stealth's not going to be a major factor for the RAAF F35's accept for deep strike missioins. Your right It would probably be more effective if we could use U.S. doctorine and have a similar platform mix. If we could tripple our defence budget (forget about useless stuff like roads and hospitalsBig-E said:
) and have say 40 F22s, 40 F35as and 20 F35b's the RAAF would make one formidable opponant to allmost any air force on the plannet (accept for the U.S. but unless John Howard sucsessfully attempts a coup de tas did i spell that right? I dont see that happeneing.)I think one sqd of F-22s, 4 sqds of F-35as and 1 sqd of F-35bs would be enough. Do you think the RAAF could muster those funds?Ozzy Blizzard said:Yeah so i guess stealth's not going to be a major factor for the RAAF F35's accept for deep strike missioins. Your right It would probably be more effective if we could use U.S. doctorine and have a similar platform mix. If we could tripple our defence budget (forget about useless stuff like roads and hospitals
Politics...
Operating a variety of aircraft types in small numbers is extremely costly. Just look at the mess the Australian helicopter fleet is in!
Regarding F22 (defensive fighter, with some strike abilities) versus JSF (strike, with some defensive fighter capabilities), here's a spin... could it be that the opposition wants a defensive aircraft to limit the ability to strike targets overseas? Political doctrine is at the heart of policy making...
"Sorry Mr President, we don't have any strike aircraft to support you..."
So the argument is not about which of F22 and JSF is better. They're both likely to be great at what they're intended for.
Rather the argument is about which capability Australia needs to focus its capability in... air defense or strike...
Take a look round the world. For the last few years the strike aircraft of the UK, USA, Australia, France and others have been very busy. What have the fighters been doing?
This is not the time to hedge on fighters...
Operating a variety of aircraft types in small numbers is extremely costly. Just look at the mess the Australian helicopter fleet is in!
Regarding F22 (defensive fighter, with some strike abilities) versus JSF (strike, with some defensive fighter capabilities), here's a spin... could it be that the opposition wants a defensive aircraft to limit the ability to strike targets overseas? Political doctrine is at the heart of policy making...
"Sorry Mr President, we don't have any strike aircraft to support you..."
So the argument is not about which of F22 and JSF is better. They're both likely to be great at what they're intended for.
Rather the argument is about which capability Australia needs to focus its capability in... air defense or strike...
Take a look round the world. For the last few years the strike aircraft of the UK, USA, Australia, France and others have been very busy. What have the fighters been doing?
This is not the time to hedge on fighters...
Brutus Caesar
New Member
FFS that seems to be the argument every proponent of the F22 is throwing out, yeah we don't need it NOW but when about when we do, we can't be unprepared etc. etc.Big-E said:
The simple reality of the situation is not only don't we need the F22 now, we wont need it for many, many years to come. People talk as though if there ever is war then we are just going to wake up one day with Chinese or whoevers tanks rolling down Martin Place. Even IF we get ourselves involved in a major conflict, it wont happen overnight, and we will have a considerable time to build up and consolidate our forces as neccisary. The fact that we COULD get the F22 is deterent enough for the moment.
We do however need to maintain a viable airforce to beable to support our allies, operate in foreign environments should the need arise and to maintain out airforce infrastructure (Sorry about the bad terminolgy but I hope you get what I mean). For that role the F-35 is perfectly suitable.
There is absoultly no logical, rational reason what so ever to justify the spending of that much tax payer money ATM in an aircraft like the F22.
IMHO.
Et tu brutue?Brutus Caesar said:
(sorry couldn't resist)
Trouble is military capability can't be acquired overnight, hence this thread discussing what is supposed to be acquired circa 2012. That's six years from now, look how the political climate has changed since 2001, five years ago!
Confusing messages from within this group have emphatically stated that the RAAF have been offered the F-22, then no it hasn't. I don't know. If the RAAF can purchase F-35s (given the technology transfer issues, are they that different?) then maybe the F-22 could be an option.
My concern is that an early buy of the F-35 could (ironically) see the RAAF in a similar position it was in when it bought the F-111s. (All those decades ago 'those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes').
OK the R&D going into the JSF would hopefully make this less likely, but the F-22 has recently had a structural issue requiring retrospective modification, so obviously the system isn't perfect. In addition it would also be in the early buy phase for the F-35 (most expensive). Whereas if the F-22 where an option it would be in the late phase, given that the build is slated to cease ~ 2008 (presumably least expensive).
If the F-22 where purchased by the RAAF, say two to three squadrons, ~2009 delivery, then it would be recieving a late tranche model (least risk). My belief is that the F-111 still has some legs left as a bomb truck. It may have limited upgradeability within RAAF budget confines. But I believe it could serve as a serviceable bombtruck for another decade (JASSM, SDB, Harpoon, LGB...).
It has performed very well compared with current western aircraft in Red Flag exercises. The RAAF has the airframes and it has the infrastructure in place for it. What is not there is the polical will (and subsequent silence from a lot of defence minions). The F-111 was the test bed for ALR-2002, but apparently the data for the F-111 specific variant has disappeared.
(It was also the testbed for F-22 internal bay weapons program/s.)
I would be surprised if the 100 JSF purchase eventuates. A few months ago there was a small stir and a buy of 120 JSFs was muted as a minimum. This has since died away. Until recently RAAF F-35 pundits have mainained that the cost price would be ~ 45 million, now they have admitted it might be around 80 million. That's quite a change in tune.
Costs for early phase F-35a's (45-130 million) and late model F-22s (70-350 million) abound, who knows? A multi type fast jet fleet is not the current ideology regards AIR6000. But if the JSF isn't going to be purchased in the proposed RAAF timeframe, what will? The RAAF is fast approaching a critical milestone where it will have to soon commit to an F-35 buy (~2007 for a supposed 2012 delivery?).
What I see as a possibility is an F-22 purchase (2-3 squadrons). Delivery taking place from 2009 onwards. This would take some of the flying hours burden off the F-18s allowing them to be last a few years longer. Yes the RAAF would be left with a multi fast jet fleet F-22, F-18, F-111 (messy from RAAF standpoint). The F-18s & then the F-111s being pensioned off as needed.
Come 2018 or thereabouts the whole JSF future will be a lot clearer. It will be more mature (a safer buy) and hopefully cheaper, being later in the production phase. This staggered approach would see the RAAF maintaining/gaining ability, albeit at some cost. But it does not put all eggs in one basket.
rb
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The JSF has 2x internal hardpoints and 2x internal rails. Just a couple of weeks ago an internal load of 2x 1000lbs JDAM, 2x 500lbs JDAM and 2x AMRAAM was "ground tested" on JSF. Tests of this nature are on-going, but it must be remembered that NON stealth aircraft will also have to carry external targetting pods and drop tanks. JSF carries as much fuel internally as an F-15E does with CFT's fitted as well, which is FAR greater than current Hornet fuel loads...Ozzy Blizzard said:
Compare the JSF loadout to the one used by RAAF Hornets in the Gulf and even internal loadouts alone stack up pretty well.
It may be possible to fit a dual rail launcher to each internal hardpoint, in which case 6x internal AAM's could be carried, (if no strike weapons were to be operated). When compared to the load outs carried by RAAF F/A-18 Hornets on ops, again this stacks up pretty well, particularly given the increasing shift towards BVR combat...
Brutus Caesar
New Member
rossfrb_1 said:
Mate, you don't think delivery can be sped up if it's needed? How long do you think it would take the US to get quality aircraft over here if we were involved in any kind of serious conflict? 5-6 years...I don't think so. Just look at WWII to see how fast the US can build up both itself and it's allies if it needs to.
Australia will not face a threat requiring the F-22 until the USAF can be countered or at the very least neutralised and that wont be for a very long time.
Such Wit
Since when does profiting from one's efforts make what is produced from such efforts somehow wrong, as you seem to suggest? Coming from someone living in the greatest capitalist Nation in the world, your views seem somewhat illogical if not irrational. If you bothered to inform yourself, you would realise that Peter Goon is a member of the Defence Industry down in this neck of the woods.
3
What a witty fellow you are. Real LT JG stuff. I am sure Peter Goon and Dr Kopp will get a real giggle out of this one. I will bring it to his attention and that of his USN mates up in Wash DC.Big-E said:
Since when does profiting from one's efforts make what is produced from such efforts somehow wrong, as you seem to suggest? Coming from someone living in the greatest capitalist Nation in the world, your views seem somewhat illogical if not irrational. If you bothered to inform yourself, you would realise that Peter Goon is a member of the Defence Industry down in this neck of the woods.
3It's not just about physically having the aircraft, you need to be able to support them and have personnel who can use them, that all takes time.Brutus Caesar said:
There's a big difference between WWII era equipment and that produced today.
The P-51 Mustang was top of the line back then and you could roll one off the production line every couple of days.
Training the pilots to use them was a lot simpler as well.
A JSF or F-22 is a little more complex to manufacture and to train a pilot to use and train support personnel to maintain. A competent JSF or F-22 pilot would probably need at least a years training, if not more.
Chalk and cheese.
See my earlier comment regards how things have changed since 2001.Brutus Caesar said:
If in August 2001 someone had insisted that terrorists would crash aircraft into the twin towers and the Pentagon in the US killing about 5000 and as a result the US would invade first Afghanistan, then Iraq (on a pretext of WMD that is hasn't found). And that by 2006 Over 2700 US troops would have died as a result.
Tell me what you would have thought about their sanity?
rb
LTJG... LOL! Are you trying to demote me?Occum said:What a witty fellow you are. Real LT JG stuff. I am sure Peter Goon and Dr Kopp will get a real giggle out of this one. I will bring it to his attention and that of his USN mates up in Wash DC.
Since when does profiting from one's efforts make what is produced from such efforts somehow wrong, as you seem to suggest? Coming from someone living in the greatest capitalist Nation in the world, your views seem somewhat illogical if not irrational. If you bothered to inform yourself, you would realise that Peter Goon is a member of the Defence Industry down in this neck of the woods.
I never mentioned these two gentelmen by name however I will comment. They only propose such a propostorous idea to profit from it. There is no good sense in upgrading F-111s yet again. They are obsolete and do not meet the needs of the RAAF of the 21st century. This argument is as absurd as the IAF trying to upgrade her Mig-21s yet again. Is there anything wrong with profiting from a defense contract... no. Is there anything wrong with pushing a contract that you know is absurd just so you can make money... yes.
Go ahead and mention this to your buddies Goon/Kopp and all those that profit from bad defense deals. Tell them that the pilots who fly the aircraft their influence carries do not appreciate them trying to get pilots to fly planes that are past the age worth upgrading. These are the people who care more about money than the lives of our pilots. :shudder
- Status