USAF Plans to sell F22's to "trusted allies" very soon

[gf0012-aust]

From Bigpond:

Mr McClelland says the Government should instead buy the F-22 Raptor fighter jet which is already in production."A country the size of Australia has to look at getting this sophisticated technology off the shelf," he said.

"That is seeing something that operates is sophisticated, is battle-tested and does the job.

"We repeatedly ignore that for developmental technology and that is when we end up getting into trouble."

methinks McLellan is being fed again - or he has no idea that the F-22 is not battle tested

I've had some dealings with his ex-mil adviser a year or so ago (ex army). At the time he was incrediby frustrated as McLellan appeared to be out of his depth and was apparently more interested in being contrarian.

Anyone noticed that his recent comments are structurally different from prev announcements? Excuse me for being cynical, but he seems to be "ghosting" information - and he can't get it right even when presented on a plate.

Considering that the major "developmental" platforms in the past were initiated by Labor - then go figure...

 

[abramsteve]

It is so frustrating when on something as important as defence the public is fed the wrong information and nobody corrects it. If Labor did purchase the F-22 it would likely be half as many (if we're lucky) that we need to defend our 'big country' and even then they would be undermanned and equipted. Sorry if I touched on politics, I just hate un-informed speeches being taken as gospel.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It is so frustrating when on something as important as defence the public is fed the wrong information and nobody corrects it. If Labor did purchase the F-22 it would likely be half as many (if we're lucky) that we need to defend our 'big country' and even then they would be undermanned and equipted. Sorry if I touched on politics, I just hate un-informed speeches being taken as gospel.

The problem for Lab is that they are divided themselves on this issue. I know 3 of the current Senators and used to be responsible for Sec Support for 2 of the ex ministers. Just in this little group they are not pro F-22.

Some subscribe to Defence of Australia - some don't. and from my last round of conversations, a lot of them think that the Coastguard concept is lunacy - and they've been given private briefings by Navy.

98% of our Int'l trade is carted by sea, and we are responsible for maritime security of almost 1/9th of the worlds oceans (that was Labs own speech to a RUSI function some 4 years ago - so they can hardly challenge it). One would think that the priority to deal with those stats lies in multiple capability and maritime protection/projection. As per the last round of Exercises (Ex Northern Edge 06) the F-22's provided assistance for the maritime strikers - but weren't able to engage in maritime strike themselves. In real terms they Ewarfared for the F-15's. That seems to me to be a job for the Wedgetails seeing we don't have the luxury of calling on the same electronic blanket and sensing packages.

But, I guess like everything else when peoples pet platforms are up for discussion, this will degrade into robust and sarcastic debate.


At the end of the day, these conversations are very much LeMay/Boyd, Towers/Rickover type contrarian discussions.

 

[Transient]

"In real terms they Ewarfared for the F-15's. "

Could you elaborate on this please? I was uder the impression that EW capabilities came under a future spiral for the Raptor.

 

[knightrider4]

Ew

Certainly not wanting to answer for GF but I was under the impression that the APG-77 AESA had some pretty formidable EW capabilities.

 

[gf0012-aust]

"In real terms they Ewarfared for the F-15's. "

Could you elaborate on this please? I was uder the impression that EW capabilities came under a future spiral for the Raptor.

In Ex Northern Edge 06 the F-22's paired with various aircraft including F/A-18 Hornets, F-15C/E Eagles, E/A-6B Prowlers and E-2C Hawkeyes to indulge in maritime strike. ie "door opening"

"The Raptors gave our guys a chance to focus on their mission to find and destroy specific naval targets," said Capt. George Mullani, 3rd Wing air-to-ground tactics chief and F-15E Strike Eagle pilot. "That was just one example of our joint domination in the airspace."

 

[webmaster]

Is there any indication on what type of targets did the Raptors destroy and how were they different than from lets say a target that an F-18 would take out?

 

[Occum]

Who Knew?

Originally posted by GF0012-aust. 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 Govt

errr. Was not talking about the former deputy secretary of state. The reference was to a former US Air Force senior civilian official now working for LM. Suggest you might want to read the posts more carefully.

Mr Goon and Dr Kopp knew. See their testimony before the committee on the 31st of March last and Submission No 29 on the Joint Standing Committee's web site :

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs.htm

If CAF and the Department were doing 'proper due diligence' which is what Australian tax payers are paying them to do, then wouldn't you think they should have known?

Do you still think their testimony was roundly defeated by CAF and the boys? Heh,Heh.

Do you think the boys know about the further delays to the JSF Program that are coming down the congressional budget appropriations pipe?

What about the JSF procurement costs - US$150m is a tad more than US$45m, wouldn't you say?

BTW, are you aware of the increased costs in HUG 2.3 and HUG 3.2? And the delays?

 

[Occum]

Bah! Bah! Wrong again.

Geez...and YOU accused THEM of playing the man, and even said it with a hesitation in your voice and almost tear in your eye!!!

Magoo

Methinks you mistake me for someone else.

Either way, these people are being paid to do the right thing and by all accounts (and evidentiary facts) they are not - either deliberately or because they are unable.

I agree with what the person I think you mistake me for says - it is not a matter of WHO is right or WHO is wrong but WHAT is right.

The analysis and the resulting numbers and the facts should speak for themselves. In this case, these people have not put forward any analysis to support what they are saying; their numbers have been proven to be wrong (US$45 million?????); and, their 'facts' are wishful thinking in an attempt to cover their six - eg. The Raptor is not available for foreign sales! The Raptor costs three times the price of the JSF! etc.

Now, I don't know about you but I for one object strongly to the Government and the Parliament being misled basically because, any way you cut it, that is misleading the Australian people, which includes you and I.

You may be content with this situation - I am not and am at least prepared to say so.

"Why?", you might ask. Because we need to get this one right, for all our sakes, and that of future generations of Australians. I would have thought you of all people should know this and be in a position to state the facts and the real situation as opposed to the spin. After all, isn't that what professional journals are supposed to do - with neither fear nor favour?

 

[gf0012-aust]

errr. Was not talking about the former deputy secretary of state. The reference was to a former US Air Force senior civilian official now working for LM. Suggest you might want to read the posts more carefully.

Are you seriously suggesting that a uniform now civilian would have a better idea of what is available for transfer to another country than someone who is part of the Executive? A civilian in a commercial entity will have no input - its ultimately at the whim of the Executive - including Sec of State. I suggest that you get a grip on the approval process for FMS.

Mr Goon and Dr Kopp knew. See their testimony before the committee on the 31st of March last and Submission No 29 on the Joint Standing Committee's web site :

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs.htm

Please show me where the US Executive in the clear stated that the F-22 was available for sale to Australia. ie a comment from the executive - not some wishful thinking comment from would be purchasers.

If CAF and the Department were doing 'proper due diligence' which is what Australian tax payers are paying them to do, then wouldn't you think they should have known?

As above.

Do you still think their testimony was roundly defeated by CAF and the boys? Heh,Heh.

I'm not sure why you're giggling. I thought Goons submission did him no favours - and muttering short little responses such as "bullschitt" during others testimony was hardly the way to conduct yourself in front of the committee. And yes, I have been subjected to the joys of a Senate Select Committee, so I do know whats expected.

As for Kopp - I don't think he made a convincing argument at all. A response geared around likely achievable threat matrix, geared around need - and something that dealt with the mechanical liabilities (eg the rocket booster degradation issues for the escape module being a significant issue) would have shown far more weight. A powerpoint attack is the traditional tool de rigeur used for govt "show and tells" - but its still got to be relevant.

Do you think the boys know about the further delays to the JSF Program that are coming down the congressional budget appropriations pipe?

I suspect that DMO and ADF will know about real identifiable variations in cost and manuf deployment well before any of us - or do you have a real insiders knowledge?

What about the JSF procurement costs - US$150m is a tad more than US$45m, wouldn't you say?

BTW, are you aware of the increased costs in HUG 2.3 and HUG 3.2? And the delays?

In the history of military aircraft sales, when have lead aircraft in early sales not cost more than the end stream? fixed pricing of platforms went out of US sales policy circa WW2.

As for delays, every Tender Evaluation Team I was on was advised to accept a max 25% variation in delivery cycle - and a 15-30% variation in end costs. ie the initial platforms were considered more expensive at the beginning of the procurement cycle, and the last were cheaper. this was a paper assessment only as all units within the tender purchase were averaged out anyway.

So, until I saw the exact nature of the purchase and delivery cycle, I'd be loathe to be crowing either way. Variations are expected - and nobody (since WW2 in the US and since the Collins in Aust) works on fixed price procurement cycles.

 

[Occum]

Originally posted by GF0012-aust. And yes, I have been subjected to the joys of a Senate Select Committee, so I do know whats expected.

And when/what inquiry was that about, pray tell?

A response geared around likely achievable threat matrix, geared around need - and something that dealt with the mechanical liabilities (eg the rocket booster degradation issues for the escape module being a significant issue) would have shown far more weight.

Rocket booster degradation???? The issue is storage shelf life which is easily addressed by either recertification or, better still, remanufacture. Clearly, you have not read the submissions to the inquiry (and not just those from the Air Power Australia people). If you had, you would know these points have all been covered, and some; including the risks of the current myopic focus on NCW as a panacea for downgrading platform performance and capabilities aka. not going for the best.

Nice application of deception theory, though.


:tasty

 

[gf0012-aust]

And when/what inquiry was that about, pray tell?

2 Senate estimates and Senate Investigations. One was to explain why a Federal Minister managed to lose a laptop with confidential information at a NATO conference, and the second was to explain why staff were not called out when it was apparent that the DefMin was drunk. 1996-2001

add edit: correction. I was part of DefMins and PM&C's Senate Estimates support team for approx 5 years.

Rocket booster degradation???? The issue is storage shelf life which is easily addressed by either recertification or, better still, remanufacture. Clearly, you have not read the submissions to the inquiry (and not just those from the Air Power Australia people). If you had, you would know these points have all been covered, and some; including the risks of the current myopic focus on NCW as a panacea for downgrading platform performance and capabilities aka. not going for the best.

where were they covered adequately by K&G? I've got all the reports and submissions in front of me - I don't see anything which AA covered as far as the booster modules were discussed. The RAAF comments about remanufacture and costs seem pretty coherent to me - or is your mission just to ignore the RAAF input automatically?

Clearly, you are committed to believing the Airpower end of the story - clearly I don't think they've made a solid case for themselves. As I said before, my views on F-22 vis a vis the JSF are out in the open in a number of places. In fact if you have read anything of my comments they were anti-JSF up to 12 months ago. They're not now. My point about transfer of ITARS tech related to F-22 and JSF still stands. I can hardly see the yanks letting the jewel in the crown go when they're being anal about JSF ToT issues.

Nice application of deception theory, though.

nice attempt at supporting the unsupportable yourself. If you seriously regard Goons submission as an inciteful argument of your cause, the you need to re-read it. That was a stellar example of off topic incoherence if I ever saw one. And I've had over 25 years in Federal Govt looking at some pretty daft submissions and reports. Maybe he had a bad day. if so he should have with-held that gem and submitted another later on.

as for "deception theory" - you need to chill a bit, you're starting to sound like a McArthyist acolyte.

 

[Occum]

The RAAF comments about remanufacture and costs seem pretty coherent to me

What comments were made by the RAAF regarding 'remanufacture and costs'? I didn't see any mention of either 'remanufacture' or 'costs' by the RAAF. I did see the CDS's (Dr Roger Lough) comments and, for a former rocket scientist, they were somewhat disappointing. After all, this is the country that has developed the Nulka hovering rocket decoy.

As for what AA had to say about the F-111 rocket motors (which Roger claimed were a show stopper), read their Submission No 29. Even if you double the number out of their trade study, that's cheap in anyone's language - about the same number of dollars as the travel vote for ARH Tiger project.

 

[gf0012-aust]

What comments were made by the RAAF regarding 'remanufacture and costs'? I didn't see any mention of either 'remanufacture' or 'costs' by the RAAF. I did see the CDS's (Dr Roger Lough) comments and, for a former rocket scientist, they were somewhat disappointing. After all, this is the country that has developed the Nulka hovering rocket decoy.

My bad, I've used as the overall title for comments coming from Govt, so inclusive of ADF/DMO/DSTO/RAAF. If you're familiar with Nulka, then you'll also be aware of its history in development - so you'll be aware that its cost and operational benefit was challenged within DSTO - and there are some ex-heads of Dept for Maritime who still regard it as a waste of time. On the surface Nulka is a success, its not universally regarded as so within DSTO.

read their Submission No 29.

I have, and I have all the submissions at hand.

As for what AA had to say about the F-111 rocket motors (which Roger claimed were a show stopper), read their Submission No 29. Even if you double the number out of their trade study, that's cheap in anyone's language - about the same number of dollars as the travel vote for ARH Tiger project.

The issue is not whether it can be done, as one assumes that unless we're trying to rewrite the laws of physics, that anything can be done given time and will and intent. In this case, the issue is whether the cost of remanufacturing x capability for a limited number of units for a limited platform shelf life seems to be the case. ie their own view of the CBA of that particular platform impediment.

 

[Occum]

You may have 'em, but have you read 'em!

Originally posted by GF0012-aust. I have, and I have all the submissions at hand.

And what do they say about the crew module rocket motors?

This cost as stated in Submission No 29 is chickensh*t, compared with what is going to have to be spent on the Hornet just to keep it flying till 2015. The latter being considerably more than what the RAAF said it would cost to keep the F-111 fully operational to 2020 (refer the Angus Houston paper entitled, 'New Air Combat Capability', June 2004). Then, of course, one must add in the $1.1 bn+ per year it costs just to operate and maintain the Hornet fleet. Now I know there are a lot of Hornet lovers out there and it has given Australia good service. However, if you have to replace the center fuselage barrel just to get it through to 2015, then there is something quite wrong with the thinking.

The issue is not whether it can be done, as one assumes that unless we're trying to rewrite the laws of physics, that anything can be done given time and will and intent. In this case, the issue is whether the cost of remanufacturing x capability for a limited number of units for a limited platform shelf life seems to be the case. ie their own view of the CBA of that particular platform impediment.

What are you trying to say here? Seems a lot of words that say very little of substance.

Checking with colleagues at Amberfield, the shelf life of re-manufactured rocket motors is 20 years. The installed life is 8 years. Seems they have a copy of the AA trade study. They agree - the cost is as above - aka chickensh*t, in the scheme of things.

Ergo - the rocket motors are not the show stopper as claimed by senior defence officials at the hearing on the 31st of March last. Another fine piece of, what did you call it - "bullschitt"?

Hey, if you can be that easily bamboozzled, I know of a bridge you might be interested in purchasing.

:dance

 

[gf0012-aust]

What are you trying to say here? Seems a lot of words that say very little of substance.

maybe you need to spend less time getting excited at people who disagree with you and more time reading slowly then? (see, it's not only you can be rude in public)

Checking with colleagues at Amberfield, the shelf life of re-manufactured rocket motors is 20 years. The installed life is 8 years. Seems they have a copy of the AA trade study. They agree - the cost is as above - aka chickensh*t, in the scheme of things.

so what? there are DSTO staff in Kinetic Energy Weapons Div who think that its a waste of time. Do I trust DSTO? I reckon so - I've yet to have had any conversations with them which make me want to challenge their motives.

Ergo - the rocket motors are not the show stopper as claimed by senior defence officials at the hearing on the 31st of March last. Another fine piece of, what did you call it - "bullschitt"?

see above. its all relative. You and your cohort are obviously enthusiastic believers. So be it.

Hey, if you can be that easily bamboozzled, I know of a bridge you might be interested in purchasing.

:dance

and the point of resorting to being ignorant in public again serves what purpose?

I'm sure I can find some people who'd love to keep the Pigs flying at a fixed immovable bargain price as well. I'm sure I can find people who could rebuild Bloodhound missiles as well - after all, the Iraqis modified the seekers on some crappy russian SAMs during 1999. I'm sure we could employ them for technical expertise. I'm sure we could re-engine caribous with new turbo props etc etc....

perhaps if the Govts submission is based on a farago of lies (which seems to be your forceful mantra) then you're talking to the wrong people to get it fixed?

I'll give you a free tip though from all my years of exp dealing and working in Canberra, (and thats having dealt with 6 DefMins) - going to the Opposition ShadMin for Defence issues, going to tame journo's from the chattering masses press, giving ShadMinDef information which he doesn't comprehend (eg "Battle tested F-22's") is getting nowhere fast.

I'd love to see F-22's in RAAF roundels - but I've yet to see anyone define a business and tactical case that hasn't been coloured by self involved/immersed hysteria - and one that written against a coherent threat definition for our region. (and please don't trot out the Bear, Badger, Blackjack, Su-27/30 threat) Indonesia can't afford to arm her existings, can't maintain her F-16's, can't maintain her tacair, and is asking aust for help in rebuilding her navy. India? India is about as much a threat to our region as Indonesia is to Thailand.

 

[tntsas]

Admin: Text deleted as it breached forum rules.

Stay on topic and avoid inane one liner comments. Please pay attemtion to the Forum Rules.

Please read them before responding to any other posts.