USAF Plans to sell F22's to "trusted allies" very soon
- Thread starter Sea Dog
- Start date
Jsf Costing Vs Raptor Costing
Catch up, No 4. You are not keeping up with the costing situation.
In the time frame of interest for Australia to buy (2012), the JSF will cost more than the Raptor, on a unit procurement cost basis. It has done a reversal. Just ask Adm Steve Enewold and take a look at the SARs.
The last four F-22s in the current production of 184 will cost the USAF (all up - unit procurement cost) around US$126 million per.
When USAF get the approval to go to 260 units, the 260th's UFC will be somewhat less than US$100 million per, based upon the costing model when the buy was 277 back in 2003.
In 2012, the JSF is slated to cost around US$136 million per unit (Unit Procurement Cost).
Norm Augustine's Law on fighter aircraft costs in motion.
As for need, happy to go up against Su 30 MKIs or Su 35 MKKs in an F-22. Would not be happy in a JSF and, at my stage in life, most likely wouldn't.
Big-E said:
Catch up, No 4. You are not keeping up with the costing situation.
In the time frame of interest for Australia to buy (2012), the JSF will cost more than the Raptor, on a unit procurement cost basis. It has done a reversal. Just ask Adm Steve Enewold and take a look at the SARs.
The last four F-22s in the current production of 184 will cost the USAF (all up - unit procurement cost) around US$126 million per.
When USAF get the approval to go to 260 units, the 260th's UFC will be somewhat less than US$100 million per, based upon the costing model when the buy was 277 back in 2003.
In 2012, the JSF is slated to cost around US$136 million per unit (Unit Procurement Cost).
Norm Augustine's Law on fighter aircraft costs in motion.
As for need, happy to go up against Su 30 MKIs or Su 35 MKKs in an F-22. Would not be happy in a JSF and, at my stage in life, most likely wouldn't.
The source for F-35 costs is the director of the JSF project office. See this -Big-E said:Source please
http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=11908
"But by 2014 or so, that price tag should fall to slightly less than $50 million for a conventional F-35 and a bit more than $60 million for a vertical-lift plane, Enewold said."
Is AU supposed to get her JSF much before 2014, US delivery doesn't start until 2012 and talk has been to push it back another year for more test savings. So AU can just wait till then and get them at these prices. Whats the problem with that? You made it sound like the whole build was going to be more expensive then F-22s.:nono
Is AU supposed to get her JSF much before 2014, US delivery doesn't start until 2012 and talk has been to push it back another year for more test savings. So AU can just wait till then and get them at these prices. Whats the problem with that? You made it sound like the whole build was going to be more expensive then F-22s.:nono
Big E
You need to look at the other posts and references, particularly the program budgetary and performance audit reports to your Congress on this and do a little figuring yourself.
On the point you rely upon for making such an accusation, it comes down to a simple pair of premises. Either Adm Steve Enewold is being fed marketeering speak by the contractors for the post-2014 nose dive in costs (aka blue sky futures) or someone is not telling the Congress the full and correct story.
Which do you think it is?
Do you really think going from $150m to $50m is plausible in 10 years let alone four. Look at it another way. Add up the cost of the installed hardware - an engine, radar, full EW Suite, the rest of the Sensor Suite, standard flight and mission avionics. Then add in the recurring and production non recurring cost of the software load. Now the cost of the airframe.
Do the numbers then let's debate the points, critically.
You need to look at the other posts and references, particularly the program budgetary and performance audit reports to your Congress on this and do a little figuring yourself.
On the point you rely upon for making such an accusation, it comes down to a simple pair of premises. Either Adm Steve Enewold is being fed marketeering speak by the contractors for the post-2014 nose dive in costs (aka blue sky futures) or someone is not telling the Congress the full and correct story.
Which do you think it is?
Do you really think going from $150m to $50m is plausible in 10 years let alone four. Look at it another way. Add up the cost of the installed hardware - an engine, radar, full EW Suite, the rest of the Sensor Suite, standard flight and mission avionics. Then add in the recurring and production non recurring cost of the software load. Now the cost of the airframe.
Do the numbers then let's debate the points, critically.
Last edited:
Simple Numbers.
1. Selected Acquisition Reports Dec03, Dec04, and Dec05.
2. CRS Report to Congress: JSF Program Update, RL 30563 dated 02 Jun 06.
3. GAO Report NO 06-356 of 15 Mar 06
4. CRS Report to Congress: F136 Engine, RL33390 dated 13 Apr06
Total Procurement Budget (Dec05) = $231.69Bn
Nos of Aircraft = 2,458 minus SDD funded builds (14)
Average Unit Procurement Cost = $94.8 million per
For comparison on basis of cost effectiveness -
Cost of Su-30MKI = ~$43 million per (Not an estimated program average, but actual cost. Also in established production and operational)
For comparison on basis of capability, cost effectiveness and risk -
Cost of F-22A (for 260 unit production) = ~$100 million per
Big-E said:Please post the numbers your looking at so we don't have any discrepancies.
1. Selected Acquisition Reports Dec03, Dec04, and Dec05.
2. CRS Report to Congress: JSF Program Update, RL 30563 dated 02 Jun 06.
3. GAO Report NO 06-356 of 15 Mar 06
4. CRS Report to Congress: F136 Engine, RL33390 dated 13 Apr06
Total Procurement Budget (Dec05) = $231.69Bn
Nos of Aircraft = 2,458 minus SDD funded builds (14)
Average Unit Procurement Cost = $94.8 million per
For comparison on basis of cost effectiveness -
Cost of Su-30MKI = ~$43 million per (Not an estimated program average, but actual cost. Also in established production and operational)
For comparison on basis of capability, cost effectiveness and risk -
Cost of F-22A (for 260 unit production) = ~$100 million per
Last edited:
Don't You Love It When a Plan Comes Together?
Here is an extract from Defense Daily of 22 June 2006 -
"House Panel Lifts Decade-Long Ban On Overseas Sales of Lockheed’s F-22 Fighters (aka the Obey Amendment of 1997):
The House lifted a ban yesterday on overseas sales of the Air Force’s F-22 Raptor aircraft by Lockheed Martin as it approved a $427.4 billion 2007 defense appropriations bill. Lawmakers quickly agreed by voice vote to strip a decade-old provision from the bill that prevented the sales of the aircraft to foreign nations. The ban was meant to keep crucial U.S. technologies from falling into the wrong hands. The House had been the lead supporter of the ban, which the Senate has also backed in recent years. The Senate has yet to markup its version of the annual defense spending bill, but sources say the Senate is also likely to ease the ban. Rep. Kay Granger, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, said the ban was no longer necessary because of tighter arms control rules that are enforced by the Pentagon." (Defense Daily)
Makes one wonder about the 'senior US official' who CAF, AM Geoff Shepherd, spoke with - 'who was employed in the US air force as a US air force defence civilian'? - which resulted in him saying to the Senate Estimates Committee not three weeks ago -
Air Marshal Shepherd - "As I have said at this committee previously and at other committees, the F22 is not for sale to any other country."
He has obviously not heard of the LOEXCOM/ENDP process nor read the Molloy Paper nor spoken with someone knowledgable of this process or of what was coming down the pipe with the Congress in relation to the Obey Amendment of 1997. By any measure, this is a most peculiar form of 'proper due diligence'!
Maybe the operative phrase for this person whom CAF spoke with is '...was employed as a senior defense civilian'.
Wonder what he was doing when he and CAF spoke and is doing now? Maybe working for LM on the JSF Program, perhaps?
Here is an extract from Defense Daily of 22 June 2006 -
"House Panel Lifts Decade-Long Ban On Overseas Sales of Lockheed’s F-22 Fighters (aka the Obey Amendment of 1997):
The House lifted a ban yesterday on overseas sales of the Air Force’s F-22 Raptor aircraft by Lockheed Martin as it approved a $427.4 billion 2007 defense appropriations bill. Lawmakers quickly agreed by voice vote to strip a decade-old provision from the bill that prevented the sales of the aircraft to foreign nations. The ban was meant to keep crucial U.S. technologies from falling into the wrong hands. The House had been the lead supporter of the ban, which the Senate has also backed in recent years. The Senate has yet to markup its version of the annual defense spending bill, but sources say the Senate is also likely to ease the ban. Rep. Kay Granger, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, said the ban was no longer necessary because of tighter arms control rules that are enforced by the Pentagon." (Defense Daily)
Makes one wonder about the 'senior US official' who CAF, AM Geoff Shepherd, spoke with - 'who was employed in the US air force as a US air force defence civilian'? - which resulted in him saying to the Senate Estimates Committee not three weeks ago -
Air Marshal Shepherd - "As I have said at this committee previously and at other committees, the F22 is not for sale to any other country."
He has obviously not heard of the LOEXCOM/ENDP process nor read the Molloy Paper nor spoken with someone knowledgable of this process or of what was coming down the pipe with the Congress in relation to the Obey Amendment of 1997. By any measure, this is a most peculiar form of 'proper due diligence'!
Maybe the operative phrase for this person whom CAF spoke with is '...was employed as a senior defense civilian'.
Wonder what he was doing when he and CAF spoke and is doing now? Maybe working for LM on the JSF Program, perhaps?
Thats a bit snippy isn't it? After all, even when Armitage did his big tour with LM 2-3 years back they were very very cautious and said that if Congress lifted restrictions then they couldn't see any obstacle. Considering that the obstacle has only just lifted - then where's his error in comment? I assume that you were sitting in the same room as me when Armitage made his comment at the Conference? Nobody in RAAF or AustGov as far as I can see has actually said anything wrong at all - it was a temporal comment and was accurate - unless you're suggesting that the RAAF should make comments pro-F22 in anticipation of the US lifting restrictions. That would make you Nostradamic - and a somewhat valuable asset in any org.Occum said:Makes one wonder about the 'senior US official' who CAF, AM Geoff Shepherd, spoke with - 'who was employed in the US air force as a US air force defence civilian'? - which resulted in him saying to the Senate Estimates Committee not three weeks ago -
Air Marshal Shepherd - "As I have said at this committee previously and at other committees, the F22 is not for sale to any other country."
He has obviously not heard of the LOEXCOM/ENDP process nor read the Molloy Paper nor spoken with someone knowledgable of this process or of what was coming down the pipe with the Congress in relation to the Obey Amendment of 1997. By any measure, this is a most peculiar form of 'proper due diligence'!
Maybe the operative phrase for this person whom CAF spoke with is '...was employed as a senior defense civilian'.
Wonder what he was doing when he and CAF spoke and is doing now? Maybe working for LM on the JSF Program, perhaps?
I find it funny that the US is prepared to lift a restriction on the F-22 (on paper) and yet a number of people in here (at least 3 of the senior posters)can attest to the fact that ITARs restricts technology share on a few other "smaller" platforms.
Perhaps the tech on F-22 isn't as ITARs sensitive as this other gear?
Continous Improvement
No, not 'snippy' just wary of the BS and mandarins who wear rose coloured glasses and not much else.gf0012-aust said:Thats a bit snippy isn't it? ........ That would make you Nostradamic - and a somewhat valuable asset in any org.
FYI, the LOEXCOM/ENDP process has been available to Australia since the late 1990s. This is/was the process established for close allies to get around or, rather, through the Obey Amendment of 1997. You should read the Molloy Paper.
All Australia had to do was ask ...... though not some former USAF civil servant now working for LM.
I wouldn't call that Nostradamic - just a matter of being professional and doing the proper due diligence on the capability, costs and risks - aka:..... doing the work.
Now you really are clutching at straws. What do you reckon?Perhaps the tech on F-22 isn't as ITARs sensitive as this other gear?
Are you that desparate in wanting to be seen to be 'right' that you would be prepared for Australia to get a much less capable Tier 2 fighter that will be more expensive than the F-22 (both unit cost as well as fleet cost) and has a bunch more risk still to be retired with a fair proportion still to be acknowledged? Or are you prepared to let/encourage people to admit to mistakes (yourself included) then learn from them (lesson learned - a powerful human learning process, that) and help them get on with getting Australia the best damned air combat capability possible while saving a bucket of money for other capabilities eg. tankers, etc. I think that's what is called 'continuous improvement' - learning from one's mistakes and getting on with it.
errr. armitage was not working for LockMart - he was part of the Executive of the US Govt of the day - this was well before he exited the GovtOccum said:
and Australia has had a tech sharing agreement with the US and NATO since the early 60's, thus predating LOEXCOM/ENDP by some margin. Just because we ask, doesn't mean we get it. Are you suggesting that Armitage as a representative of the Executive didn't know what he was talking about?
where wasn't the homework done? If the US Ambassador to Australia makes a comment that the F-22 would be considered for close allies if it was available - then seems to indicate that its been flagged already.Occum said:
your eagerness to respond to challenge seems to have ignored the fact that I was being facaetious. As it is the point still stands. I can think of a number of Australian projects where we have sought access to technology thats been hobbled by ITARS. The F-22 seems to have come off that list whereas the others clearly have not - and we have asked. Similarly, I can think of 3 current aust technologies that we have embargoed even against our cousins across the pond. Its a damocles sword.Occum said:
On an issue of restricted technologies - where is that clutching at straws?
How did you come to that conclusion? If you've bothered to read comments I've made on the F-22 over the last 4 years either on here or in other fora, then you'll note that I'm a supporter of the platform. You should have also seen my views re the F-35. The question for me is whether multiple squadron level purchase will cause an imbalance for other asset purchases that we need. I'm also at a loss to comprehend how F-35 has been subject to Congressional friction re ITARS and yet F-22 as a superior asset, is apparently less so - and maybe "not" now. There seems to be a logical disconnect somewhere. So Congress was twitchy about selling F-35's to the poms with ToT, but now have no difficulty now in selling their primary weapon to their cousins - knowing full well that the caveats still apply. ie the poms will still want to load their own systems onto a plane.Occum said:
Whats your suggested force mix and what should get the chop? We're barely maintaining pilot numbers as it is. We're currently at real risk of not deploying some naval assets due to staffing issues.
they're mission weighted differently - why would you compare an F-22 to a F-35?, thats like comparing a Starfighter to a Buccaneer.Occum said:
and now you are being rather tedious. thats an unnecessary comment and rather churlish. I have no difficulty in admitting fault - and I'm more than willing to learn. Hubris is something thats a useful learning experience for us all. Maybe you should be referencing it as well rather than carrying on just because others don't enthusiastically agree with you across the board.Occum said:
thats the same air-combat that dictates that our pointy aircraft also undertake maritime strike - something that JSF is tagged to do - and that the F-22 to date cannot? (unless you want to bugger up its RCS by adding lumpy bits to it and thus negating part of its capability)Occum said:and help them get on with getting Australia the best damned air combat capability possible while saving a bucket of money for other capabilities eg. tankers, etc. I think that's what is called 'continuous improvement' - learning from one's mistakes and getting on with it.
or are we still planning on the notion that the Kumarians are going to launch Bears, Badgers and Blackjacks and that we need to wage war on our own merits - and thus expend so as to be a miniature US as far as offensive capability?
I'm curious as to where we can make the other platform cuts so that we can buy the extra 5-6 AAR's and extra 3-4 AWACs that we really need to have if we intend to mimic a micro version of USAF capability that is relatively autonomous
abramsteve
New Member
So, as I understand it... The F-22 is an awesome fighter aircraft, one we are worthy of, have access to and is somewhat cheaper than the JSF in the short term. However, the multi purposeness (don't know if thats a word or not) of the F-35 makes it a better choice for Australia. Therefore the F-35 works out to be a better choice in the long run, bar the risk of it being a new project.
Whilst personaly likeing the idea of Australia having a 'mini US capability' I understand that budget restrictions apply and, in all seriousness, dont see the need. Realisticaly a multi role aircraft is better suited to our needs in the future.
Again correct me if Im wrong!
Whilst personaly likeing the idea of Australia having a 'mini US capability' I understand that budget restrictions apply and, in all seriousness, dont see the need. Realisticaly a multi role aircraft is better suited to our needs in the future.
Again correct me if Im wrong!
Out of interest what would your proposed 2015 RAAF consist of?Occum said:Here is an extract from Defense Daily of 22 June 2006 -
"House Panel Lifts Decade-Long Ban On Overseas Sales of Lockheed’s F-22 Fighters (aka the Obey Amendment of 1997):
The House lifted a ban yesterday on overseas sales of the Air Force’s F-22 Raptor aircraft by Lockheed Martin as it approved a $427.4 billion 2007 defense appropriations bill. Lawmakers quickly agreed by voice vote to strip a decade-old provision from the bill that prevented the sales of the aircraft to foreign nations. The ban was meant to keep crucial U.S. technologies from falling into the wrong hands. The House had been the lead supporter of the ban, which the Senate has also backed in recent years. The Senate has yet to markup its version of the annual defense spending bill, but sources say the Senate is also likely to ease the ban. Rep. Kay Granger, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, said the ban was no longer necessary because of tighter arms control rules that are enforced by the Pentagon." (Defense Daily)
Makes one wonder about the 'senior US official' who CAF, AM Geoff Shepherd, spoke with - 'who was employed in the US air force as a US air force defence civilian'? - which resulted in him saying to the Senate Estimates Committee not three weeks ago -
Air Marshal Shepherd - "As I have said at this committee previously and at other committees, the F22 is not for sale to any other country."
He has obviously not heard of the LOEXCOM/ENDP process nor read the Molloy Paper nor spoken with someone knowledgable of this process or of what was coming down the pipe with the Congress in relation to the Obey Amendment of 1997. By any measure, this is a most peculiar form of 'proper due diligence'!
Maybe the operative phrase for this person whom CAF spoke with is '...was employed as a senior defense civilian'.
Wonder what he was doing when he and CAF spoke and is doing now? Maybe working for LM on the JSF Program, perhaps?
I ask because even if we were able to both buy and afford the F-22 what then do we do to enable it to carry out off the functions we require?
Either swallow the development costs ourselves or accept the capabilities gap and wait to piggyback a US program?
knightrider4
Active Member
Jsf
There is an article in todays Weekend Australian 24-25/6/06 written by Michael McKinnon and Cameron Stewart indicating some concerns from the DSTO in regards complex software integration and the cockpit display. Rob Mclelland wants to look at Raptors if labour win power, if so it wont be on my vote. Defmin Nelson is over in the United States to chat with LM officials on ToT issues I guess 16 Billion gets pollies down here a little nervous.
There is an article in todays Weekend Australian 24-25/6/06 written by Michael McKinnon and Cameron Stewart indicating some concerns from the DSTO in regards complex software integration and the cockpit display. Rob Mclelland wants to look at Raptors if labour win power, if so it wont be on my vote. Defmin Nelson is over in the United States to chat with LM officials on ToT issues I guess 16 Billion gets pollies down here a little nervous.