RAAF Stopgap air plan is 'dumb'

[Occum]

Dear Cootas,

What is it that makes some people (and it would appear this includes you) not want the best for our troops - particularly when the best is far more capable than, far more cost effective than and far less risky than what senior folks in Defence are intending for Australia to acquire?

Sadly, we now have a whole generation of fighter pilots who have only flown the F/A-18s with severe limitations in order to try to extend their fatigue lives (the aircrafts', that is).

On the issue of whether or not the Raptor is available for FMS. Would you like to make this interesting and have a little wager on the side? Nah, that would be unfair; so here is the skinny.

The fact of the matter is that the LOEXCOM/ENDP process has meant that it has always been available to the select few (namely, the ABC countries). All they had to do was ask and all you have to do is read the Molloy Paper, written circa 2000, to find out the why and how of this process.

The language of the Obey Amendment (put on the US Defence Budgetary Appropriation Bill back in 1996 by Congressman David Obey) meant that the US Govt and its departments could not spend any money on marketing/selling the Raptor. This language did not prevent an ally seeking to procure this capability under FMS; just made things a little bit more long winded.

Anyways, this is likely to be mute since the US Congress is voting on removal of the Obey Amendment in the next week or two. The House of Representatives has already removed the Obey Amendment from their Defence Budget Appropriation Bill. Again, by reading the Molloy Paper, all will be revealed to you. The approach by the Japanese with their expressed interest in acquiring the Raptor has prompted this action by the Congress. Again, it is all in the Molloy Paper.

As to your question and belief about which has the better radar, I suggest the laws of physics and radar theory have a lot to say about which is the better radar. Don't let the design/production sequence numbers fool you.

 

[rossfrb_1]

The F-22 will be cleared to drop SDB very soon. Do you have any idea how far a SDB bomb can travel if dropped at 60,000ft at Mach 2? We're talking up to 80miles here, this weapon can be used against all stationary ground targets and soon moving targets that will include ships.

Tactical Reconnaissance and the JSF? Reconnaissance will be one of the F-22 primary upcoming roles. Just think about it, what would you prefer, a JSF flying at 50,000feet at 1000km/h or a F-22 flying at 80,000ft at 2,000km/h? The F-22 will be untouchable by most SAM's as the F-22 can pull 9G and change course 45degree's automatically putting it in the escape zone of all SAM's. Thats if it was even detected in the first place
{snip}

I know nothing about the launch characteristics of these weapons types from these aircraft. So can you launch a weapon from the bay of an F-22 at mach2 (Or from a BSF at mach1 for that matter)? Granted, at higher altitude there would be less wind resistance, but....

rb

 

[Magoo]

I know nothing about the launch characteristics of these weapons types from these aircraft. So can you launch a weapon from the bay of an F-22 at mach2 (Or from a BSF at mach1 for that matter)? Granted, at higher altitude there would be less wind resistance, but....

Yes you can.

The RAAF was actually quite involved in the development of a pnuematic (as opposed to pyrotechnic) ejector rack which has sufficient force to punch a weapon through a supersonic boundary layer of air around an aircraft's fuselage.

At the time these racks were being developed in the late 90s, our F-111Cs were the only western aircraft with a 'supersonic' bomb bay, and several tests were conducted of SDB representative shapes being banged out of ARDU's test aircraft at various altitues and attitudes.

The F-111 could in theory carry four SDBs internally, but in practice carried only two, with the othe two hardpoints being taken up by an integration kit. In fact, ARDU's jet had to have the ceiling of its bomb bay strengthened due to the reaction forces of the ejection rack, and slow speed cameras were fitted in the rear of the bomb bay and on the wing pylons to monitor the release.

Anecdotal evidence from the tests suggested the F-111/SDB combination would be quite effective.

Magoo

 

[rjmaz1]

Also if I'm not mistaken isn't the JSF going to have the most adavnced radar going around - even more advanced than the Raptor's?

This is software only providing a few extra features, the Range of the JSF radar is noticably less. The F-22 has adopted alot of the radar functions from the JSF, so the APG-77 will always have the edge due to it being more powerful.

it has not been built to be a 'down in the mud' striker. That is why the USAF is pushing for 2 platforms, not just Raptor, they obvioulsy believe that both birds have their advantages and disadvantages.

Are you trying to say that the JSF gets down in the mud? The USAF is keeping all its A-10's because the JSF is just as delicate as the F-22 when it comes to things like ground fire. So the JSF has the same disadvantage that the F-22 has in that regard. The JSF can loiter longer due it the subsonic airframe but that does not help in most strike missions. Most missions that require long endurance are primary missions of the A-10.

Out of interest what happens when hardpoints are being used how do things stack up then?

The F-22 can actually carry more external loads. The F-22 has four 5000lb hardpoints where as the JSF has two 5000lb hardpoints and two 2500lb hardpoints. So the JSF can only carry 75% the external load. The JSF would have been exceptional if it reached the original cost goals, but now the price has become too close to the F-22 for it to be such good value.

The Raptor is NOT a better striker (at the moment and without costly upgrades)

The upgrades have already been done and are being tested and will be added to all operational aircraft at a later date. The F-22 was rushed into service under pressure of it being cancelled, thats why its only A2A, these features are getting added as well as the use external hardpoints for those air to ground stores. .

Finally your point about buying less weapons is bullshite, we will be purchasing SDB's but they are limited in destructive capacity (250lb) not to mention range (30+Kms). That's why we went with JASSM (as well) with its 300km range. JASSM-ER is going to see that push out to 750km and beyond so the JSF will have plenty of options from both a range and payload point of view and the ADF will buy them - that is as it should be...

Of course you need standoff weapons when launching from conventional aircraft, however with stealth you can drop unpowered bombs as you can get much closer which was proven by F117's in dessert storm. So range is not a worry as a SDB can travel 60+km on an F-22 or 30+km on a JSF. Destructive power depends on how accurate a weapon is, 250lb is enough to destroy most military related targets. If extra punch is needed the F-22 just like the JSF can also carry the 1000lb JDAM.

Australia's Tiger helicopters provide a nice step down from the F-22 or JSF. The Tigers can do alot of the slow moving low altitude close air support leaving the JSF or F-22 to remain safe at higher altitude. I can see our Tigers moving from Recon to a similar role as an Apache.

 

[Occum]

Weapons Clearances

I know nothing about the launch characteristics of these weapons types from these aircraft. So can you launch a weapon from the bay of an F-22 at mach2 (Or from a BSF at mach1 for that matter)? Granted, at higher altitude there would be less wind resistance, but....

The F-22 has demonstrated supersonic releases of the JDAM et al and analysis suggests its weapons bays are unlikely to have any surprises as the Raptor goes through its weapons clearance programs.

However, this is an area of some concern for the JSF due to the size/location of its two weapons bays, the canted carriage nature of the main internal pylons, and the mechanical configurations of these pylons and the various spacers/standoffs required. Analysis of these bays indicates a number of areas of risk which, in turn, will need some pretty snappy aerodynamic/aeroacoustic assistance to gain usable clearances which, if not achieved, will result in clearances with limitations relative to and possibly on the aircraft's envelope. Not the most desirable of circumstances for what some folks are tounting (or hoping) the JSF will be nor even for a BAI/CAS bomb truck. However, these folks aren't going to know till the weapons clearance flight testing which is to be done in the latter stages of the integrated flight test program is well underway and that will not be for some time, given the bulk of the original threshold weapons package (circa 2002) has now been slipped to beyond the SDD Phase. One can only do so much with CFD et al modelling and simulation, particularly when the models have yet to be validated with real world data off the aircraft. Even then, all must be verified and validated by flight test. To do otherwise falls into the category of 'stupid is as stupid does'.

There are similar concerns in relation to external carriage as well as interactions between external and internal stores carriage configurations and envelopes. This goes some way to explain the work that has produced the new, rather unique 426 gal external fuel tank. Funny shape, that. Gonna be a right royal bitch on the carrier as will be the various spacers and standoffs.

Oh, by the way, I think Magoo meant to say 'high speed cameras'.

When played back at normal speed, these allow you to observe hi speed events in relatively 'slow motion'. Also gives you sufficient data (aka. high enough sampling rate) to enable real world errors to be identified and removed or adjusted so that the test/analyses people can produce such things as the equations of motion for the store and the actual store trajectories, particularly during the clearance stage from the bay and the subsequent phases of free flight as the store transitions from the near field to the far field, relative to the aircraft.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the number of SDBs cited as being able to be carried but agree such a weapon delivered from the F-111 would be somewhat more than quite effective.

 

[Magoo]

Oh, by the way, I think Magoo meant to say 'high speed cameras'.

Yep, that's what I meant...I could blame an aneurism or too much beer, but I just stuffed up!

Magoo

 

[alexsa]

Dear Cootas,

What is it that makes some people (and it would appear this includes you) not want the best for our troops - particularly when the best is far more capable than, far more cost effective than and far less risky than what senior folks in Defence are intending for Australia to acquire?

Israel have not stinted on their defence purchases and have some of the most developed systems about. The fact that even they balk at the the cost of F-22 is telling as is the fact they are looking at JSF.

Can some one answer this; if as it appears:

1. The F-22 is not a dedeicated ISR platform, it is the best A2A platfrom; but
2. Nobody knows if it will be offered outside the US and their is a pretty strong lobby wanting to kill the programme at the 187 aircraft approved; and
3. All the figures suggest it will be much more expensive than the JSF (particualrly if you start modifying it as a strike platform) as indicated by the Isael decision.

If F-22 is not a real prospect then what else can you choose except the JSF?

Seems to be a bad case of shiny kit syndrome rather than an objective assessment based on reality from my uninformed perspective. Get the F-22, have great A2A but limited ability to support the troops and strip the budget from all the other services to do it. Seems to lack balance to me.

Given their history I would suggest the IDF are not fools but the suggestions being made in these discussion would suggest they are in that they are making an appalling error in picking the JSF ....... I am not convinced.

 

[rjmaz1]

I find it hard to believe the F-22 program will be killed after 187 aircraft.

Once the USAF receives its 187th F-22 in 2012, the entire development costs will now have been paid for. This is a very smart move considering the circumstances as the development cost represents a significant percentage of the aircraft price. After 2012 any extra F-22's will come at a bargain price.

In 2012 the first or second batch of JSF's will be coming off the production line. The first batch of JSF's will be priced very close to that of the F-22. This alone will insure that F-22 production remains open.

Once both aircraft are operational the capabilities can be directly compared and the USAF can order aircraft to suit its requirements.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Once both aircraft are operational the capabilities can be directly compared and the USAF can order aircraft to suit its requirements.

Thats one of the things that I'm curious about. The obsession people have about the USAF comparing capability between the types. In the USAF context they have already decided that F-22/JSF fill their Hi-Lo combat requirement. They have the mass and logistics to be able to still run discretionary capability.

Australia OTOH has a force requirement that if anything is more paralleled to the Israelis and Singaporeans - where as much as we'd like to be able to have a mixed capability - the on costs in current economies favours single type platforms that can multi-task. The Israelis are undoubtedly a slick outfit - you would wonder why they're more interested in JSF than the F-22. Especially when they do have a demonstrated history of requiring and establishing air supremacy in every war they've fought since 1948. Air supremacy is a given for them out of a demonstrated necessity

You have other airforces that are respectable in capability looking at JSF to supplant and replace existing multi-role structures - so there must be a degree of confidence between all of the disparate International Tender Evaluation Teams (or whatever they call their own teams) in the absolute capability of the platform.

Getting an air supremacy capability in the short term doesn't address the immediate concerns of keeping the Pigs and Bugs flying so as to fulfill a strike requirement.

I still have a degree of curiosity as to why there is an expectation that the US would release their future Tier 1 capability to allies when a supposedly inferior product is being constrained in absolute terms by ITARs issues.

Apart from the fact that they've been argey bargeying over codes re ITARs inpact on JSF - why would anyone think that F-22 source code access would be easier?

It just doesn't compute.

I'd love to see the big red rat painted on F-22's - but there's still more questions than answers.

 

[Occum]

Originally posted by GF0012-aust.
I'd love to see the big red rat painted on F-22's - but there's still more questions than answers.

You don't sound too happy, Larry.

There are even more questions going the other way when one does the OA of likely USAF led coalition force scenarios in our region with trusted partners equipped with FMS F-22s. However, these questions are factually based and have solid, objective answers that strongly support the currently countervailing position.

Thought post # 378 would at least bring a smile to your dial and some worthy contribution. Look forward to it.

 

[gf0012-aust]

You don't sound too happy, Larry.

I am, but that doesn't mean that you stop being devils advocate. Not even a year ago I was bouncing all over the JSF - but the F-22 fan club left my comments alone

There are even more questions going the other way when one does the OA of likely USAF led coalition force scenarios in our region with trusted partners equipped with FMS F-22s.

Actually, I'm not sure thats a given (US unfettered support). I distinctly remember a scenario where US support re an Oz-Indon conflict was factored out. That was based on the issue of the US wanting to keep the worlds largest islamic state a moderate and not wanting to push them over to the wrong end of the "friends" equation. As it is - one only has to look at Clinton and East Timor, and Hawke and the Gulf War to see that US interests don't always lie with us. Another example of US interests clashing with allies interests is Suez in 1956. Their help is never a "given" no matter how much we might all slap each others backs.

However, these questions are factually based and have solid, objective answers that strongly support the currently countervailing position.

True enough - but the US stance on political self interest will always look inward. Again - East Timor in 1999 was very different from their stance in 1974-5. US political interest in Fiji in 1987 was also very different to their response on the 2nd Coup.

Thought post # 378 would at least bring a smile to your dial and some worthy contribution. Look forward to it.

Are you suggesting that any cautious input that does have valid points is an unworthy contribution?

I'm not suggesting that the US is an unreliable partner - but a considered look at history and their attitude to the UK and Oz in the last 60 years shows that political and military convergence is not always a given - irrespective of the strength of our military relationship - the political pragmatism does not always let it run "free".

and I do have a serious problem with single platforms from sole source countries. I'm rather tetchy about having logistics compromised because we're beholden to one country. we've played that game with the french, swedes and to some extent the poms and seen it fall in a direction not in our favour.

its not ideal logistically - but at least we can't have our nutz squeezed.

 

[Magoo]

I find it hard to believe the F-22 program will be killed after 187 aircraft.

Especially as only 183 are funded, however, I digress!

I also believe the aircraft will survive beyond airframe 183, and suspect that an 'F-22C' or a major Block upgrade may be in the works which addresses many of the aircraft's looming hardware and software obsolescence issues. This would be a true replacement for the F-15E and F-117. The major challenge here will not be in getting these upgrades to work, but in getting them funded under the current Bush regime.

Once the USAF receives its 187th F-22 in 2012, the entire development costs will now have been paid for. This is a very smart move considering the circumstances as the development cost represents a significant percentage of the aircraft price. After 2012 any extra F-22's will come at a bargain price.

Not necessarily. Any foreign customer is going to have to buy the F-22 through the USAF, and you can bet the USAF will put a premium on the aircraft or have some substantial FMS fees in place to offset their development costs to a certain extent. They'd be mad if they didn't!

Magoo

 

[Whiskyjack]

Not necessarily. Any foreign customer is going to have to buy the F-22 through the USAF, and you can bet the USAF will put a premium on the aircraft or have some substantial FMS fees in place to offset their development costs to a certain extent. They'd be mad if they didn't!

Magoo

I could be off base here and I am happy to be corrected, but my understanding is that it is standing practice to place a cost for the development of systems bought from the US onto any systems sold. Something to do with Congress?

 

[Occum]

I could be off base here and I am happy to be corrected, but my understanding is that it is standing practice to place a cost for the development of systems bought from the US onto any systems sold. Something to do with Congress?

Dear Whiskyjack,

IMMS, FMS legislation specifically excludes this. One of the key reasons goes to IP ownership. There is an FMS admin fee that is capped by Congress. Last time I looked, this was 3.58% but is also negotiable.

 

[Cootamundra]

Dear Cootas,

What is it that makes some people (and it would appear this includes you) not want the best for our troops - particularly when the best is far more capable than, far more cost effective than and far less risky than what senior folks in Defence are intending for Australia to acquire?

Dear Occum,
You see this goes right to the heart of it....I (like you) do want the best for our troops. However unlike you I do not agree that the aircraft in question (the Raptor) is far more capable (based on Australia's requirements), more cost effective or even less risky. But then you know that and so either we continue to back and forth (as entertaining as it has been) for another 10 pages on this thread alone or we agree to disagree.

I'm learning plenty from all of the discussion, I'm impressed by your knowledge as I am by others on this here board but unfortunately I just don't believe you.

Actually let me re-phrase that, I believe that much of what you've said could be considered to be correct but depends on which end you come from (pro Raptor vs pro JSF). Bottomline for me is that I DON'T think the brass of the ADF are a bunch of muppets with their head up their proverbials, nor do I think that regular joes like you and I really have much of a base for questioning them (the ADF decision makers) - why - cause it's their job to defend Australia. I wouldn't listen to people who know nothing about my industry if they choose to tell me how to do my job....but that's just me.

Adios for now amigo,
Coota

p.s it should be noted that if we had oodles of $$$$ then I too would be all for the Raptor and the JSF - I just don't think the claim that the JSF will cost as much as the Raptor stands up....

I stand ready for....:lam

 

[Cootamundra]

This is software only providing a few extra features, the Range of the JSF radar is noticably less. The F-22 has adopted alot of the radar functions from the JSF, so the APG-77 will always have the edge due to it being more powerful.

Guess I'll have to take your word for it:sleepy2

Are you trying to say that the JSF gets down in the mud? The USAF is keeping all its A-10's because the JSF is just as delicate as the F-22 when it comes to things like ground fire. So the JSF has the same disadvantage that the F-22 has in that regard. The JSF can loiter longer due it the subsonic airframe but that does not help in most strike missions. Most missions that require long endurance are primary missions of the A-10.

Apart from the fact that the Raptor wasn't ever designed for CAS while the JSF was...

The F-22 can actually carry more external loads. The F-22 has four 5000lb hardpoints where as the JSF has two 5000lb hardpoints and two 2500lb hardpoints. So the JSF can only carry 75% the external load. The JSF would have been exceptional if it reached the original cost goals, but now the price has become too close to the F-22 for it to be such good value.

Righto on the weaponsload comment. I sstill don't agree on the dollars side of things, but we'll never know until the RAAF signs its production agreement, got some years to wait yet.

The upgrades have already been done and are being tested and will be added to all operational aircraft at a later date. The F-22 was rushed into service under pressure of it being cancelled, thats why its only A2A, these features are getting added as well as the use external hardpoints for those air to ground stores. .

And when they are added they will all cost additional dollars!

Australia's Tiger helicopters provide a nice step down from the F-22 or JSF. The Tigers can do alot of the slow moving low altitude close air support leaving the JSF or F-22 to remain safe at higher altitude. I can see our Tigers moving from Recon to a similar role as an Apache.

Hey we agree on somehthing

 

[Big-E]

Good show old chap! :lol2 Your assement of Raptor enthusiusts and Occum is dead on IMHO. Just like the top brass didn't go for F-111 upgrades they did not ask for the F-22. They did so b/c they listened to the praticality of it all and made the best decision. The only thing that could go wrong is if JSF becomes way overpriced... from the data I have seen Occum has IMO overspeculated the price by taking every worst case scenerio and scewing the numbers to make JSF look like a total money pit. I don't want to be so pessimistic as the media makes out the JSF to be as they lie and misrepresent the facts with dated project info that is not even relavent today.

 

[rjmaz1]

Guess I'll have to take your word for it

Do you disagree that the F-22's radar is more powerful? It has a little over half the amount of T/R modules with the same power rating. Giving it about two thirds the range of the F-22

Apart from the fact that the Raptor wasn't ever designed for CAS while the JSF was...

Obviosly the JSF wasn't designed well enough for CAS as the USAF is using A-10's to do this role.

The F-22 never being designed for ground attack is the most common argument against the F-22.

The F-15 eagle was never designed to carry bombs either, yet look at the F-15E one of the best strike fighters ever made. Its airframe has the same design of an air superiority fighter yet could easily perform the strike role.

The original F-15 could not drop bombs as it did not even have the software or radar capabilities to drop bombs, let alone the equipment required to guide precision weapons to the target.

Then the F-15E came out, they added ground functions to the F-15E's radar such as SAR so it can search and track for ground targets. They added the ability to guide precision guided bombs to take out these targets. The F-22 already have both of these capabilities, its currently dropping precision guided bombs and has the radar functions required.

Just like the F-15E used its speed and agility to add flexibility to the strike missions, the F-22 can add even more speed and agility with the huge bonus of stealth. That in my books makes the F-22 a full capable strike aircraft.

With the JSF we rely greatly on stealth, imagine if stealth is compromised in a few decades. Our JSF's would be sitting ducks to flankers and SAM's, however an F-22 being the highest performing aircraft will still have the edge to defeat these.

 

[rossfrb_1]

Good show old chap! :lol2 Your assement of Raptor enthusiusts and Occum is dead on IMHO. Just like the top brass didn't go for F-111 upgrades they did not ask for the F-22. They did so b/c they listened to the praticality of it all and made the best decision.

I wish I had your confidence.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/RN/2005-06/06rn32.htm

The competitive tendering process for Air6000 was prematurely terminated and it was announced that the JSF was the selected aircraft for the project. I believe that politics has played a key role in this decision.
I don't know how familiar you are with Australian politics, but our Prime Minister has done his best to ingratiate himself with the US, as he believes that a very tight OZ/US relationship is in Oz's best interest. Hence a 'free trade agreement' between the two countries where US agriculural subsidies still exist. And it goes on. Someone else pointed out that in regards military technology partnerships in the submarine area, Australia shares, US sells.
I also believe that a lot of high up ADF brass and non military personnel are also very politically orientated, ie they can feel the prevailing political wind emanating from on high and act like windsocks. I also believe that the decision to kill off the F-111 had a political edge as well, the general lack of protest (viewed by some as approval) again stems from those in the know protecting their careers and not this country's best interests.
I'm sure there are a lot of good people trying to make the F-35 work for the RAAF. If, however, the decsion to go with the F-35 turns out to be the correct one for the RAAF, IMO it will be just as much fortuitous as good management.

If there had been a clear process of selection based on logic, unaffected by politics, then I wouldn't be such an F-111/Raptor tragic.


rb

 

[Occum]

I am, but that doesn't mean that you stop being devils advocate.

Where are your 'devil's advocate' comments on post #378? I am looking forward to your insight into the costings? By the way, apart from the F-22 UPC, these figures are all traceable back to Defence and RAAF financials and statements.

Through your reluctance to comment, are you suggesting that $6bn to $10bn are worth ignoring? Or is it that numbers and hard data just aren't your forte?