USAF Bomber Replacement: F/B-22

[gf0012-aust]

I remeber reading an article in Aviation weekly or something like that about Australias future fighter. The F-22 always acme accross as the 'wet dream' of defence planners. However, the speculated price tag them (2001 or so) was close to $250 mill (Oz $). This price will cement the F-22 as a no show in the RAAF.

Correct me if i am wrong, however, didn't the F-14 evolve from studies and development of the F-111? At the time the F-111 came about, were the same arguments not being made i.e inhibitive price?

What i see happening is that the F-22 will be marketed as a platform which can be developed into many other platforms. Becuase it is so expensive, the only real selling point that the USAF may have is its ability to be diversified to carry out multiple missions (F/B-22).

It will be interesting to see where the F-22 lies in the USAF inventory. Further, the make up of the second tier fighter (f-15 variants), i think, is just as important of a choice for the USAF.

DRUB, we are getting the JSF, F-35. F-22 is out of our price range, the JSF isn't.

You are correct about the F-111 in a sense. The F-14 was the successor to the Naval F-111. As it stands, the F-111 is still the fastest deck hugger in the region. RAAF F-111's have managed to tap F-16's in Red Flag exercises - much to the annoyance of the F-16 drivers...


2nd tier units are critical for any balanced force, and I guess at a personal level I wouldn't invest all my marbles into a pure JSF strike component. I'd rather have a 50/50 split that inludes either Eurocanards or digital F-15's

 

[DRUB]

It is unfortunate Winter however most of these idiots haven't served in the Boy Scouts. Personally I've always felt that these positions should be chaired by members that not only served but retired from the military. If you think about it, a retired military officer of any nation has spent their entire professional life in the military and should be considered experts in their respective positions. Now in the US these Congressmen many of whom have no military experience whatsovever dictate what the experts need. It's unfortunate but that is they way it is.

I understand where this argument is comming from, however, i would disagree to an extent. The fact that these congressmen have no knowledge of defence issues makes them good canditates to make desicions. Sure, thier repitoire of military knowledge would be greatly inferior to the serving as past military men, but, thier lack of knowledge would give them a less biased view.

The fact that they wouldn't know the ins and outs of military issues, means that they can balance each argument and place the greatest emphasis on whats needed. What i mean by this is, a military officer may place undue emphasis on upgrading platform Y. However, may fail to recognise other issues such as jobs created, money needed and the impact of the choice.

Finally, i do acknowledge this argument is indeed double sided.

 

[DRUB]

I remeber reading an article in Aviation weekly or something like that about Australias future fighter. The F-22 always acme accross as the 'wet dream' of defence planners. However, the speculated price tag them (2001 or so) was close to $250 mill (Oz $). This price will cement the F-22 as a no show in the RAAF.

Correct me if i am wrong, however, didn't the F-14 evolve from studies and development of the F-111? At the time the F-111 came about, were the same arguments not being made i.e inhibitive price?

What i see happening is that the F-22 will be marketed as a platform which can be developed into many other platforms. Becuase it is so expensive, the only real selling point that the USAF may have is its ability to be diversified to carry out multiple missions (F/B-22).

It will be interesting to see where the F-22 lies in the USAF inventory. Further, the make up of the second tier fighter (f-15 variants), i think, is just as important of a choice for the USAF.

DRUB, we are getting the JSF, F-35. F-22 is out of our price range, the JSF isn't.

You are correct about the F-111 in a sense. The F-14 was the successor to the Naval F-111. As it stands, the F-111 is still the fastest deck hugger in the region. RAAF F-111's have managed to tap F-16's in Red Flag exercises - much to the annoyance of the F-16 drivers...


2nd tier units are critical for any balanced force, and I guess at a personal level I wouldn't invest all my marbles into a pure JSF strike component. I'd rather have a 50/50 split that inludes either Eurocanards or digital F-15's

gf, i was talking about the f-22 being out of the our price range and not hte JSF. I should have made it more clear . You mention that the F-111's tapping F-16's in the red flag exercises. Is there any place that i could read more about Oz's involvement in these excercises, especially where teh air force is involved?

As for having a 50 / 50 split. Couldnt agree with your more. Having all your eggs in the same basket just seems a lil risky, especially when there is technology involved.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Aussie Digger might have a link, it's not the kind of thing I save. I had a hard copy in my files - but am not at that location. (wrt to the RAAF Flipper kill)

damn shame about them being expensive to maintain. in one of my quieter moments I'd always wondered what a '111 with carbon fibre swing wing panels, main wing, tail and inlet panels, thrust vectoring and a weasel package would have been like.

the power to weight and range would have been interesting. plus carbon fibre panels on the swingers would have reduced fatigue on the hubs.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Drub as to your last post I don't have any links to the red Flag exercises. Everything I've ever heard about them has come from defence related magazines etc. I do know we've pulled out of this years exercise. We were going to deploy 4 F-111's and 6 F/A - 18's, however this deployment would have required 20% of the RAAF's currently available airlift capacity and so this year was cancelled... And since when has a politician's generally acknowledged lack of knowledge about anything other than politics mean they will make the right decision? Politicians in my experience care very little about "what is needed" and care very greatly about how their "decisions" will impact their chances of being re-elected. Do you think for one second a greater or more capable military option would be chosen if it impacted negatively on the politician's chances at the next election, even if it was cheaper, more readily available or whatever? I certainly don't and have observed this to be true time and time again.

 

[DRUB]

Drub as to your last post I don't have any links to the red Flag exercises. Everything I've ever heard about them has come from defence related magazines etc. I do know we've pulled out of this years exercise. We were going to deploy 4 F-111's and 6 F/A - 18's, however this deployment would have required 20% of the RAAF's currently available airlift capacity and so this year was cancelled... And since when has a politician's generally acknowledged lack of knowledge about anything other than politics mean they will make the right decision? Politicians in my experience care very little about "what is needed" and care very greatly about how their "decisions" will impact their chances of being re-elected. Do you think for one second a greater or more capable military option would be chosen if it impacted negatively on the politician's chances at the next election, even if it was cheaper, more readily available or whatever? I certainly don't and have observed this to be true time and time again.

Aussie, the actions of politicans has a lot to be desired. I agree with what you say, however, there are times when not being involved will result in the best available desicion.

And your not accusing politicians of thinking about themselves are you?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I've worked under 4 different Prime Ministers and they were all selfish
p-ricks when it came to vote catching opportunities.

I worked under a defence minister who regularly used to give speeches while intoxicated, I have little time for them.

 

[Gremlin29]

Drub, I wasn't intending to make it sound as if I were suggesting that these positions be appointments made to retired military commanders. I was simply stating that the individuals placed in these positions should have some expertise in military science which is simply not the case. While I agree some "unbiased" thoughts are good, I don't believe that ignorance is a virtue to these weighty decissions either. Otherwise good points.

 

[Red aRRow]

I've worked under 4 different Prime Ministers and they were all selfish
p-ricks when it came to vote catching opportunities.

I worked under a defence minister who regularly used to give speeches while intoxicated, I have little time for them.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Drub, I wasn't intending to make it sound as if I were suggesting that these positions be appointments made to retired military commanders. I was simply stating that the individuals placed in these positions should have some expertise in military science which is simply not the case. While I agree some "unbiased" thoughts are good, I don't believe that ignorance is a virtue to these weighty decissions either. Otherwise good points.

I think I agree with Gremlin here. If not at the decision making position then atleast some ex-military guys should be there as second tiers or in other places of influence.

 

[Winter]

Related articles, concerning the F/A-22 developement:

Pentagon backs next phase of F/A-22 fighter tests

(Reuters) Top U.S. defense officials on Monday approved the start of operational testing of Lockheed Martin Corp.'s (nyse: LMT - news - people) F/A-22 fighter beginning the end of April, citing progress in resolving software and avionics problems, people familiar with the decision said.

The testing begins a month later than recently planned, but the stealthy, next-generation fighter program -- currently valued at more the $70 billion -- could still be on track for a December review on whether to proceed to full production levels, these people said.

"There appears to be no significant problems with the aircraft, " said Loren Thompson, director of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute.

Thompson, who consults for Lockheed, said the delay was due to an issue involving the number of support flights by transport aircraft required to maintain the aircraft at bases outside the United States.

Critics have blasted the F/A-22 as expensive Cold War relic initially designed for air-to-air combat with Soviet MiGs. Some lawmakers and defense officials have suggested the Air Force will have to further trim the total number it plans to buy.

A General Accounting Office report issued earlier this month said the Air Force could afford to buy only 218 aircraft if a congressional cost cap stays in place, down from 277 based on last year's program costs.

Nevertheless, the program has broad support in Congress with subcontractors in 44 states.

Officials at Lockheed and the Air Force had no immediate comment on the testing decision.

Source: Forbes

----------------

U.S. Air Force, Lockheed agree terms for more F/A-22s

(Reuters) The U.S. Air Force has agreed to buy 22 more F/A-22 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin Corp. for less than $110 million per plane, Air Force acquisition chief Marvin Sambur told Reuters on Tuesday.

Sambur told Reuters in an interview that the terms agreed by the Air Force and Lockheed were "exactly on the target price curve" and would allow the Air Force to buy a total of 277 F/A-22s by 2013 -- and possibly more.

He also confirmed that top Pentagon officials approved the start of operational testing of the F/A-22 at the end of April after the Air Force and Lockheed showed they had resolved problems linked to the plane's avionics and software.

"We've turned this program around," he said of the $72 billion radar-evading multirole F/A-22, which was designed to replace the F-15C as the top U.S. air-superiority fighter.

Critics decry the F/A-22 as a Cold War relic and say it should be trimmed back significantly.

Sambur said he still expected the Pentagon to decide in December on whether to move into full production of the F/A-22s from the current low-rate initial production schedule, despite a month-long delay in the start of operational testing.

"We're still on track for that," he said.

Sambur did not specify the total price tag for the 22 "Raptor" jets, which were approved by Congress in the 2004 defense budget, but said the two sides negotiated a price of just under $110 million per plane.

That price excludes $28.7 billion the Air Force has already spent on research and development, as well as maintenance, training and logistical support for the new planes.

The Air Force earmarked $4.2 billion for F/A-22 procurement in the budget for fiscal 2004, which began Oct. 1, 2003, including $3.7 billion for up to the 22 aircraft, and $500 million to buy certain manufacturing items for the next batch.

The Pentagon in November gave the Air Force the go-ahead to start negotiations with Lockheed for the next order of 22 warplanes, but the discussions dragged on for months while the two sides haggled about the price, defense sources said.

"These were tough negotiations," said one source.

Sambur said the Air Force and Lockheed were able to lower the per-unit cost of the next batch of planes because of increased stability in the program and hard work by both sides to trim production and development costs.

"We're getting production costs under control and we're certainly getting control of development," he said.

Lockheed officials had no immediate comment.

Loren Thompson at the Virginia-based Lexington Institute, said the F/A-22 was now meeting or exceeding performance standards, and at the current price the Air Force could afford nearly 300 aircraft under a 1998 congressional cost cap.

But Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said the Air Force was being "hopelessly optimistic" about the costs of the program, noting the General Accounting Office just this month predicted total program costs could reach $80 billion.

However, he conceded Congress was unlikely to make major changes to the program -- which has parts made by more than 1,400 suppliers in 46 U.S. states -- before the 2004 election.

The Raptor is built by Lockheed in partnership with Boeing Co., and is powered by engines made by Pratt & Whitney, a United Technologies Corp. unit.

Source: Reuters