RAAF Stopgap air plan is 'dumb'

[knightrider4]

F-111

Well said Mr E, I think Kopp and Goon may have got hold of the idea of an evolved F-111 from an old US Navy project called the 'Missleleer' an idea that originated during the 1960's??? I think it may have been based on the old vigilante airframe? Without knowing the two gentlemen concerned I wont make judgment on their credentials they seem nice mannered intellectuals. Although the persistant rumor that Mr Goon had an AVO taken out on his person is a little disturbing I must say. Anyway this whole debate on F-22, be purchased instead of the JSF and evolved supercruising, cruise missile destroying, AESA carrying pigs is getting tiresome to say the least. I,ll bet a carton of Crown Lager that it's the JSF that wears a RAAF roundel.

 

[Seaforth]

F-111s are obsolete / Don't need the F22

There is no doubt about it. F-111s are obsolete. And with the small number of airframes remaining, upgrade would be very expensive.

The project would be somewhat similar (at least in risk terms) to the acuisition of Kaman SeaSprite helicopters by the RAN - a small number of 40 year old airframes updated with modern avionics.

Disaster. Complete waste of AU$1bn.

Australia would do well to stear well clear of attempting to update our F111s.

(In principal it might be a good idea, but the project wouldn't be manageable.)

Equally, Australia doesn't need the F22.

Given the local environment, together with the likely air warfare scenarios that Australian forces would find themselves in, the DoD has adopted the right approach by focusing 100% on the conventional flight version of the JSF.

 

[Brutus Caesar]

This post is getting old. We've all had our say, time to move on and wait to see what those whose opinions actually matter decide.

 

[rjmaz1]

Just look at the last 30 years, our hornets and F111's have hardly ever seen any combat, and if they weren't used no one would have missed them.

Look at east timor, solomon islands, tsunami relief etc. All these missions do not require ANY aircraft like the F-22 or F-111. If you look at all the missions australian aircraft have flown in the last 30 years and based our aircraft purchase around that we would probably be buying VTOL JSF's instead. They would have done the best job in previous conflicts, as we have never needed any form of air to air defence or strike platform in the past.

Conflicts in the near future will be riots, racial conflicts, and the most advanced weapon our enemy will have will be hand held weapons..

I think its good to see we bought some C-17's. Airlift, Close air support and amphibious operations is where we should be spending future money.

The most benificial thing we have provided in Iraq are our well trained SAS troops. Now with the C-17 they can be self deployed and we dont require external assistance which is a big step forward in the right direction.

 

[Big-E]

This post is getting old. We've all had our say, time to move on and wait to see what those whose opinions actually matter decide.

22 pages of notta...

 

[Occum]

Emotion in Critical Debate

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

My Dear Big E,

Emotion has no place in critical debate as it leads to irrational thought. For example, if you are to be consistent in your view, then this same criticism should be levelled at your USN bosses who would have pilots flying single engine off your carriers. And before you roll out the hoary old chestnut of engine reliability, you should consider such things as battle damage survivability, etc.

On the matter of upgrades, what are your Defense Masters doing with the B-52H, B-1B, A/0A-10C, etc plus the USAF's four roadmaps for its tactical fighter fleet? In your opinion, are they also wrong and, through their actions, putting pilots' lives at risk?

If the aircraft has the airframe life (which the F-111 does) and has the inherent capabilities ('Nothing can replace the F-111', Angus Houston circa 2004), then why not upgrade it? After all, it is the best strike/interdiction/persistent bombardment platform in the region - capabilities which, when combined with air dominance, form the foundation of modern airpower.

On what basis have you determined Australia's F-111s 'are past the age worth upgrading'? Are you an expert in this field or is it because someone on a newsgroup somewhere says so?

Those who are advocates of upgrading the F-111 along with acquiring the F-22 clearly are (and I don't mean just Dr Carlo Kopp and Mr Peter Goon) but others who have tens of thousands of hours working on and maintaining the aircraft as well as flying it and, as a result, know it well.

Group Captain Ron Green, former Chief Test Pilot of the RAAF, says it all in his submission to the parliamentary inquiry. You would do well to read what he has to say.

However, to be fair, your somewhat emotional perspective is, to some degree, understandable since even those who are now saying they are dead against the F-111 are clearly somewhat confused. Take Geoff Shepherd (CAF) and compare what he is saying with what he said in the movie entitled, "Pigs Can Fly". This is a movie well worth watching if, for no other reason, than to see how internally politicised the Australian Department of Defence has become.

 

[Magoo]

On the matter of upgrades, what are your Defense Masters doing with the B-52G, B-1B, A/0A-10C, etc plus the USAF's four roadmaps for its tactical fighter fleet? In your opinion, are they also wrong and, through their actions, putting pilots' lives at risk?

B-52G??? Not much I'd say...the fleet was retired in 1993!

Magoo

 

[Occum]

B-52G??? Not much I'd say...the fleet was retired in 1993!

Magoo

Let he who is without typographicals and journalistic slip ups throw the first editing/proofing note. Nice to see your ability to grasp the big picture, though.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Occum,

Have a look at the Hansard transcript of 31 May 06, found here: http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/Repository/Commttee/Estimate/Linked/4738-3.PDF

The following points are of interest:

JSF flyaway cost has increased only 7% per platform ie: only $1.5m each extra at this stage.

Defence acknowledge this is a concern, but it has not yet gone past the "leeway" factored into the AIR-6000 budget.

Interesting points also made about C-17/C-130J/Caribou/Chinook/MRH-90 issues, Seasprites, Tigers and FFG-UP.

Cheers.

 

[abramsteve]

Just look at the last 30 years, our hornets and F111's have hardly ever seen any combat, and if they weren't used no one would have missed them.

Look at east timor, solomon islands, tsunami relief etc. All these missions do not require ANY aircraft like the F-22 or F-111. If you look at all the missions australian aircraft have flown in the last 30 years and based our aircraft purchase around that we would probably be buying VTOL JSF's instead. They would have done the best job in previous conflicts, as we have never needed any form of air to air defence or strike platform in the past.

Conflicts in the near future will be riots, racial conflicts, and the most advanced weapon our enemy will have will be hand held weapons..

I think its good to see we bought some C-17's. Airlift, Close air support and amphibious operations is where we should be spending future money.

The most benificial thing we have provided in Iraq are our well trained SAS troops. Now with the C-17 they can be self deployed and we dont require external assistance which is a big step forward in the right direction.

Just because they weren't used doesnt mean that they weren't useful! When the F-111s were purchased there was a 'real' threat and they were the 'best' tools for dealing with that threat. Going by your argument why not do away with a air combat group and have an airforce like NZ? The F-111 was and is an awesome weapon, however I agree that in the future it wont be. The F/A-18 still has a while left.

What happens the next time we have to go into a place like Timor, only this time rebels armed with increasingly sophisticated SAMs are in our way? Using PC-9s (for example) in a close support role might fit your argument well on paper, but I would dout their survivability. Whilst I agree that the C-17 deal is an excelent step in the right direction, I am convinced of the need for a dedicated combat arm of the air force. If we can, then we should dominate regional skies, not just be able to 'hold our own'.

 

[Big-E]

I wonder why there isn't a Aussie Hornet sqd. in Iraq or Afghanistan?

 

[Aussie Digger]

I wonder why there isn't a Aussie Hornet sqd. in Iraq or Afghanistan?

They deployed during combat ops in 2003 to Iraq and provided air defence for USAF elements at Diego Garcia in 2002.

I guess the Australian Government doesn't want the on-going cost I guess, of deploying a fighter Sqn. The costs for the deployment to Iraq SINCE 2003 for Australian forces has cost $1.6 Billion already. You could probably multiply that many times over if a fighter element had of been deployed, not to mention the increased wear and tear on our limited fleet.

Constant on-going deployments would have greatly increased the need for an interim fighter prior to JSF simply because of the hours up on our legacy Hornets, which would have blown our budget out and probably meant whatever interim aircraft we got (most likely Super Hornet) would have to last for years...

 

[Sea Toby]

My knowlege about fighter aircraft is next to nil. From what I read above the F-35A is the aircraft Australia should buy in numbers, although it appears the price is increasing significantly. Being a maritime nation almost isolated from the rest of the world, the strike capabilities of the F-35A beats the F-22A. However, I have a few questions, and yes, I know the amount of aircraft purchased changes the program costs significantly. Therefore, please respond to these questions with 75 aircraft in mind.

What is the combat radius range of the F-35A with or without fuel tanks?
What is the combat radius range of the latest version of the F-15 with or without fuel tanks?
What is the combat radius range of the latest version of the F/A-18 with or without fuel tanks?
What is the the total program cost for the F-35A? Fly away costs? An approximation will do.
What is the total program cost for the F-15? Fly away costs? An approximation will do.
What is the total program cost for the F/A-18? Fly away costs? An approximation will do.

I don't see any of the Southeast Asian nations acquiring stealth aircraft, nor do I see any acquiring F-15s either, the line will close soon. I'm under the impression the latest version of the F/A-18, the Super Hornet, will be sufficient for Australia's air combat force? Currently the US Navy is acquiring the Super Hornets, they can't be that obsolete. I understand any decision will have to last 25 years or more, so its very important.

Since Australia has not deployed its air combat force to a major war, Diego Garcia is not the front line, does Australia require a stealth aircraft? While the Super Hornet may not be a stealth aircraft, if its costs are significantly less than a stealth aircraft and its range similar, buying them may be a better choice, budget wise. Surely upgrades will be available over the next 25 years to keep the Super Hornets up to date. On the other hand if the F-35A is cheaper or similar in price of a Super Hornet and has a longer range, the longer range would be the factor that would swing my selection.

I'll be waiting for answers. Thanks.

 

[Occum]

Anyone for a Glass of Bathwater?

Occum,

Have a look at the Hansard transcript of 31 May 06, found here: http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/Repository/Commttee/Estimate/Linked/4738-3.PDF

The following points are of interest:

JSF flyaway cost has increased only 7% per platform ie: only $1.5m each extra at this stage.

Defence acknowledge this is a concern, but it has not yet gone past the "leeway" factored into the AIR-6000 budget.

Interesting points also made about C-17/C-130J/Caribou/Chinook/MRH-90 issues, Seasprites, Tigers and FFG-UP.

Cheers.

I agree. Not the best of Senate Estimates for Defence or the Senators, for that matter.

I expect there will be quite a few red faces in the department after this one.

See Adm Steve Enewold's latest statement (Defense News, 12 June 2006) on JSF costings - US$150m per on average through to ~ 2014.

http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=11908

The Adm is in a difficult job as Program Director but even the attempt to soften the blow by putting forward the contractor's claims that the price will drop to around US$50m after 2014 gets gazzumped by the GOA, CBO and CRS reports to Congress.

See the latest CRS Report on the JSF. It states that the average unit procurement cost estimate, based upon the budgetary figures posted in December 2005, to be US$94.8 million per. Mind you, you could do this calculation yourself from the Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) of December 2005.

This is the same SAR that Air Commodore Harvey refers to in his testimony before the Senate Estimates Hearing. However, he seems to have overlooked the part that shows for 2,458 JSF aircraft, the total procurement budget is around US$233 Bn. Check the figuring and compare it to what the Congressional Research Services (CRS) reported to the US Congress.

By the way, the 7% that Harvs referred to is actually 7.7% and it was the net increase in the total program budget for the JSF for 2005, only. Not the increase in cost per platform as claimed or, for that matter, the increase in platform cost since start of the program, as implied. As for stating the 7.7% as opposed to the rounded down 7% - the 0.7% of US$256 billion is a bucket load of change, by any measure.

Seems when some folks start talking in the millions and the billions that there is a dollar sign attached to this and if one understands the value of a dollar, then the number of zeros to the right of the number does not diminish this but rather increases it by an order of magnitude for every zero.

There's a lot of smoke and mirrors being employed by some people and drinking of their own bath water on this issue of JSF costs. Pity that, since there have been some excellent technological developments achieved, so far, but it will be the program that suffers once people realise they have been misled. Affordability indeed!

FYI, the latest Procurement Budget Estimate for the JSF Program that I have seen is about US$247 Bn. This is due to the roll backs on the 2nd engine (not including the RDT&E cost estimates) and removal of some of the smoke and mirrors identified by those who check for such things and use magenta pens. This figure puts the average unit procurement cost over US$100 million per.

This is an average and as the good Air Commodore says, if you buy early in the program, you pay more. Buy quite early in the program, like 2012, and you pay a lot more.

I know where I would be putting the money.

 

[Sea Toby]

While I am not familiar with the F-35 program, I do know fly away costs and total procurement costs divided by the number of aircraft are different. I'm sure a considerable amount of development costs are included in the total procurement costs, this money for the most part has already been spent. Therefore, $100 million per plane may not be the fly away costs.

Since Australia has already invested into the development phase, surely any purchase by them will only include the fly away cost plus the support package. If the fly away cost is indeed $50 million, I can't imagine the support cost being the same. It should be much less, usually around 20-25 percent, possibly $10-15 million per plane over 20 years. Thus the average cost per aircraft to Australia could possibly be in the neighborhood of $60-65 million. Multiply this number by 75 aircraft and the total is $4.5-4.875 billion. 100 aircraft could be $6-6.5 billion. These prices are in US dollars. Australia is budgeting $12-15 billion of Australian dollars for the new fighters.

After more research into the matter, forget I ever mentioned the F/A-18E. Its obviously a lesser strike fighter than the F-35A. On the other hand the F-35A is not a great replacement for the F-111s. I would prefer a two fighter approach, 20 F-22As and 60 F-35As to replace the Australian air combat force.

 

[Occum]

What really is Unit Flyaway Cost?

Unit Program Acquisition Cost (UPAC) is the cost that includes the RDT&E costs, amortized across the production build.

As Air Commodore Harvey said to the Australian Senate Hearing back on 31 May, the Total Program Budget is made up of two parts - the RDT&E Budget and the Procurement Budget.

The Average Unit Procurement Cost (AUPC) is, put simply, the Procurement Budget divided by the number of aircraft. The Unit Procurement Cost (UPC) is what the US military pay for the aircraft. This includes everything necessary to put the aircraft on the flight line at initial operational capability (IOC) status and includes the amortised costs for such things as aircrew and maintainer and logistician training, GSE, ATE, documentation, initial spares, etc. In other words, IOC costs.

Unit Flyaway Cost (UFC) is a bit of a misnomer. It is the cost for producing the production aircraft; that is, the cost of the aircraft going out the factory door.

Therefore, UPC = UFC + IOC costs.

A lot of folks get this confused. The thing is (which is why it is a misnomer) you can't fly the aircraft without trained people, support equipment, documentation (eg flight manual, maintenance and engineering data, etc), and spares support.

Air Commodore Harvey and other Defence people down here only recently started using the correct terminology. Up till then, they kept talking about what they called the Average Unit Recurring Flyaway Cost (AURFC) which is the recurring cost part of the UFC where UFC is made up of the URFC plus the non recurring costs for the actual production, called the Unit Non Recurring Flyaway Costs (UNRFC). This is why the figure they have been quoting up until recently (US$45 million) as the average is so low.

UFC = URFC + UNRFC.

Hope this helps.

As to your point on the F/A-18E, not sure Mr Boeing would agree with you on that, nor the USN folks.

One of the big problems with the F-22/F-35 force structure for Australia is tanking. This is a single point of failure in the force stucture. Without tanking, they can't get to Lombok. Same thing with the F/A-18 classic.

 

[Big-E]

I don't see any of the Southeast Asian nations acquiring stealth aircraft, nor do I see any acquiring F-15s either, the line will close soon. I'm under the impression the latest version of the F/A-18, the Super Hornet, will be sufficient for Australia's air combat force? Currently the US Navy is acquiring the Super Hornets, they can't be that obsolete. I understand any decision will have to last 25 years or more, so its very important.

Since Australia has not deployed its air combat force to a major war, Diego Garcia is not the front line, does Australia require a stealth aircraft? While the Super Hornet may not be a stealth aircraft, if its costs are significantly less than a stealth aircraft and its range similar, buying them may be a better choice, budget wise. Surely upgrades will be available over the next 25 years to keep the Super Hornets up to date. On the other hand if the F-35A is cheaper or similar in price of a Super Hornet and has a longer range, the longer range would be the factor that would swing my selection.

I'll be waiting for answers.

This is the exact opposite of the argument I made why they need JSF. Does stealth mean nothing to you? Do you want RAAF and USN pilots being shot down b/c they can be detected? Each JSF is worth 4-5 SHs since her force protection assets aren't required. If range is your only factor then they should buy F-15s. The Super Hornet is a great aircraft for today but will not be able to operate in the high-threat environments of the future. IMO procurement funds should be saved for the JSF, even if costs start to balloon a little it will still be well worth it. If they blow their money on acquisitions that will be obsolete in 10 yrs, rather than 20-30, they won't have the procurment funds to order JSF if costs go up.

 

[Occum]

This is a very good argument for Australia buying the Raptor, don't you think?

Back on topic. Looks like the RAAF are seeking updates on proposals for interim fighter solution - the RAAF stopgap air plan. Word is that Tornado and Super Bug are in the mix, with the F-15 sitting in the background.

 

[Sea Toby]

Having done some research, why are the Australians discarding the F-111s in 2010? I would rather acquire 20 F-22As first, unload a third of the F/A-18s, then acquire 60 F-35Bs, and unload the F-111s and the rest of the F/A-18s. From what I read the combat radius for the F-35Bs is 590-620 miles, and the combat radius of the F-22As is close to 1,000 miles, a considerable diffference in range. Since the F/A-18s combat range is around 400-450 miles, the F-35Bs will replace them. While the F-22As won't match the F-111s in range, no new aircraft has more range than the F-22As. At best, the F/A-18Es have a range of 600 miles.

Since Australia is a long way from significant targets, I would maintain some long range aircraft. The fly away costs for the F-22A has been dropping 10 percent each year the past few years, down to $120 million this year. If the F-35Bs are heading upwards to $100 million, there doesn't appear to be that much difference in price for the longer range aircraft. We should know what the price for the F-35B is before the end of the year.

Now, if the price of the F-35B is much lower, $50-60 million in US dollars, compared the F-22As $100 million, this will be a tough call, I might lean to a full order of F-35Bs. It all depends on price.

Recently F-15s have been running up to $100 million, F/A-18Es and F-16s are over $50 million each. Obviously I would rather purchase fifth generation stealth aircraft. My, my, the price of fighter aircraft is quickly going up.

 

[rossfrb_1]

Having done some research, why are the Australians discarding the F-111s in 2010? I would rather acquire 20 F-22As first, unload a third of the F/A-18s, then acquire 60 F-35Bs, and unload the F-111s and the rest of the F/A-18s. From what I read the combat radius for the F-35Bs is 590-620 miles, and the combat radius of the F-22As is close to 1,000 miles, a considerable diffference in range. Since the F/A-18s combat range is around 400-450 miles, the F-35Bs will replace them. While the F-22As won't match the F-111s in range, no new aircraft has more range than the F-22As. At best, the F/A-18Es have a range of 600 miles.

{snip}

You'll notice that this thread is 23 pages long. Have a read from the start. Your idea and variations thereof, have been hashed over and then some more. There are some that think the retirement of the F-111 at ~2010 to be premature, there are those who think not. I don't believe that any one group will ever convince the other otherwise
cheers
rb