F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped

[Big-E]

Big-E, I don't suppose you could enlighten us about some of the aspects of using the SDB, could you? I'm wondering about things like what the max speed it can be dropped/deployed at, what the average time it takes an SPD to reach a target 60 n miles away, that sort of thing. It has to do with the viability of the F-22 as an SDB deploying platform.

Thanks!

I have little internal knowledge of the SDB but I can tell you about glide bombs. Obviously the higher you release it the further it will travel. We have a GPS designator that boxes the target on the HUD and when we reach a launch point the designator flashes red. If you want max range you fly 5k below max alititude, whatever aircraft, and launch from 400knts. By the time any glide bomb bleeds off speed she generally falls around 160 knts without stalling but I understand the SDB has an even flatter trajectory which means an even slower fall.

Since the F-22 will have to fly at ridiculously high altitudes to launch the SDB to get 60nm she will be an easier target to find. She can only carry 8 SDBs which only carry 50 pounds of effective explosives. While they have an impressive penetration rate most targets require more for a kill.

 

[Todjaeger]

I have little internal knowledge of the SDB but I can tell you about glide bombs. Obviously the higher you release it the further it will travel. We have a GPS designator that boxes the target on the HUD and when we reach a launch point the designator flashes red. If you want max range you fly 5k below max alititude, whatever aircraft, and launch from 400knts. By the time any glide bomb bleeds off speed she generally falls around 160 knts without stalling but I understand the SDB has an even flatter trajectory which means an even slower fall.

Since the F-22 will have to fly at ridiculously high altitudes to launch the SDB to get 60nm she will be an easier target to find. She can only carry 8 SDBs which only carry 50 pounds of effective explosives. While they have an impressive penetration rate most targets require more for a kill.

Thanks very much Big-E, you pretty much covered the question I was most interested in. I'd estimated that a SDB with the wing-kit would go around 300 km/h, which is just about 160 kts. The other figure that had been mentioned was around 600 km/h which is about 60% of the speed of the Harpoon. It didn't sound right so I wanted to check.

Also, if the launch speed is 400 kts, that would have a distinct impact on some of the scenarios that had been suggested.

Thanks!

 

[swerve]

If the F-35 would outcost the F-22 then why would Canada buy it?

As Aussie Digger says.

The F-22 fanatics who fantasise about the F-35 costing more take the predicted system price of the F-35 (i.e. including development, & inflation which is forecast between now & when the last F-35 is built), & compare it with the current production cost of a bare F-22 (i.e. excluding development & all other associated costs). They then say that it only takes a small increase in F-35 costs to take the unit price above the F-22 price, which is true. But it would take a huge increase in F-35 costs to take the unit price above what the USAF pays for each F-22 it is buying, in comparable prices (i.e. without that forecast inflation).

 

[Grand Danois]

Not to mention that the currently projected figure is an average for all three types of the F-35, not the cheapest - the 'A' - which is the relevant figure for most partners.

Btw, the highest number on the F-35 out there is from the Dutch audit report, which IIRC includes 30 years of operation plus upgrades. This has caused significant confusion in (my) the local press.

 

[swerve]

Not to mention that the currently projected figure is an average for all three types of the F-35, not the cheapest - the 'A' - which is the relevant figure for most partners.

Btw, the highest number on the F-35 out there is from the Dutch audit report, which IIRC includes 30 years of operation plus upgrades. This has caused significant confusion in (my) the local press.

This sort of mix-up is routine. I've seen someone compare the predicted price of a bare F-35 in 2002$ with the actual system price (including interest charges on the purchase price, training, support equipment, etc., etc) paid by the Austrians for Typhoon . . .

BTW, there are separate predicted prices for the three versions available, & Lockheed routinely quotes the lowest, the A prediction. $47mn flyaway in 2002 prices - ca $60mn for B & C. The average is predicted at ca $50mn for the USA, but that depends on how many of each are bought. Cut the numbers of A & the average goes up.

But nobody really knows what F-35 will cost. The prototype has significant structural differences from the planned production aircraft, & most of the development money hasn't been spent yet.

 

[Aussie Digger]

This sort of mix-up is routine. I've seen someone compare the predicted price of a bare F-35 in 2002$ with the actual system price (including interest charges on the purchase price, training, support equipment, etc., etc) paid by the Austrians for Typhoon . . .

BTW, there are separate predicted prices for the three versions available, & Lockheed routinely quotes the lowest, the A prediction. $47mn flyaway in 2002 prices - ca $60mn for B & C. The average is predicted at ca $50mn for the USA, but that depends on how many of each are bought. Cut the numbers of A & the average goes up.

But nobody really knows what F-35 will cost. The prototype has significant structural differences from the planned production aircraft, & most of the development money hasn't been spent yet.

Even Airpower Australia (probably the MOST ardent F-22 admirers on Earth) acknowledge in submissions to the Australian Senate's "Joint Standing Committee on Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade" enquiry into Australia's future air combat capability found here:

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

That the Congressional Research Service (CRS), is costing the F-35 series at an average of $94 million per aircraft in current ie: 2006 dollars. This is a broad average based on program cost, divided by the number of aircraft to be purchased. It does not differentiate between the particular models of the aircraft (the "A" model, which Australia wants will be the cheapest of the 3 variants) nor does it attempt to factor in ACTUAL purchase numbers as it is far too early in the program to decide that. However this figure is based on the expected purchase of around 2500 aircraft.

The CRS is currently costing the F-22A, which has a KNOWN (and Congressionally capped) acquisition of 183 aircraft at $175m per aircraft in 2006 dollars.

What's that old saying, "it's cheap at half the price"?

 

[Big-E]

I think economics of the USD might play into this into the future. The current administration has undervalued the USD by 12-13% for free trade purposes. If another president is elected who doesn't buy this political philosophy and the USD is brought back to value levels it will raise the price of JSF or F-18s unless they adjust sales for exchange rates.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think economics of the USD might play into this into the future. The current administration has undervalued the USD by 12-13% for free trade purposes. If another president is elected who doesn't buy this political philosophy and the USD is brought back to value levels it will raise the price of JSF or F-18s unless they adjust sales for exchange rates.

That would ALSO raise the price of F-22A's as well. Even if they WERE allowed to be sold to foreign allies...

 

[Big-E]

That would ALSO raise the price of F-22A's as well. Even if they WERE allowed to be sold to foreign allies...

If it happens will Oz cut their orders or MUST they have exactly 100 planes?

 

[swerve]

Even Airpower Australia (probably the MOST ardent F-22 admirers on Earth) acknowledge in submissions to the Australian Senate's "Joint Standing Committee on Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade" enquiry into Australia's future air combat capability found here:

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

That the Congressional Research Service (CRS), is costing the F-35 series at an average of $94 million per aircraft in current ie: 2006 dollars. This is a broad average based on program cost, divided by the number of aircraft to be purchased. It does not differentiate between the particular models of the aircraft (the "A" model, which Australia wants will be the cheapest of the 3 variants) nor does it attempt to factor in ACTUAL purchase numbers as it is far too early in the program to decide that. However this figure is based on the expected purchase of around 2500 aircraft.

The CRS is currently costing the F-22A, which has a KNOWN (and Congressionally capped) acquisition of 183 aircraft at $175m per aircraft in 2006 dollars.

What's that old saying, "it's cheap at half the price"?

You've just demonstrated what I said, by quoting prices with different bases. The F-35 figure you quote is, as it says, the programme cost, including development, called the PUAC in US documents. The F-22 figure is the price excluding development & other fixed costs, called the APUC.

For the F-35, the prices forecast on 31-12-2005, translated from 2002$ to 2006$, were -
PUAC $92.1mn
APUC $77.8mn

So that $94mn should be reduced to just below $80mn to put it on the same basis as the F-22 figure.

 

[Aussie Digger]

If it happens will Oz cut their orders or MUST they have exactly 100 planes?

We don't need 100 aircraft. What RAAF wants is 4 operational Squadrons, plus an Operational Conversion unit and attrition and research and development aircraft for ARDU (Australian Research and Development Unit).

These requirements are what set the 100 aircraft benchmark and the numbers were based on existing sized Squadrons. If the follow-on aircraft (most likely F-35A) proves capable enough in the extended wargaming and simulation exercises, leading up to it's purchase then smaller numbers of aircraft might be purchased to equip this basic structure.

At best however even a MUCH more capable aircraft, could only reduce the requirment by 10 or so aircraft across the Squadrons.

There's no guarantee that the 100 aircraft will be entirely F-35A though. The AIR-6000 plan is to purchase 3 tranches of aircraft to replace the existing capability, with the first 2 tranches acquiring 75 aircraft.

If sufficiently developed, it is possible that the remaining tranche of 25 aircraft, may acquire UCAV's for deep strike/SEAD/DEAD/RECON missions. It's a pretty big IF in my opinion though given ADF's procrastination over even a Global Hawk purchase and the delay in the acquisition of a Tactical UAV for Army (I-View finally chosen, but a contract for the aircraft has STILL to be signed) has been nothing short of disgraceful.

Hence people rabidly talking up the prospects of a UCAV buy for RAAF to replace a manned fighter, would do well to take these examples into consideration, before "shooting their mouths off". ADF is an organisation that is HIGHLY resistant to change, and a UCAV seems about as radical a change as is possible...

 

[Aussie Digger]

You've just demonstrated what I said, by quoting prices with different bases. The F-35 figure you quote is, as it says, the programme cost, including development, called the PUAC in US documents. The F-22 figure is the price excluding development & other fixed costs, called the APUC.

For the F-35, the prices forecast on 31-12-2005, translated from 2002$ to 2006$, were -
PUAC $92.1mn
APUC $77.8mn

So that $94mn should be reduced to just below $80mn to put it on the same basis as the F-22 figure.

That wasn't MY figure. It was taken straight from Airpower Australia's (APA) submission to the enquiry named above.

I am aware they (APA) are "conveniently" overlooking the fact that our contribution to the SDD phase exempts us from paying for development costs of the JSF. Something we will NOT benefit from with any F-22 purchase.

 

[Big-E]

That would ALSO raise the price of F-22A's as well. Even if they WERE allowed to be sold to foreign allies...

Now that I think about basic micro econ... if our currency goes up the list price in USD for JSF will drop... not for you but for us. Good news is it should balance out for Oz. The AUD would do well to surge right before purchase to get more bang for your buck. I wonder if this couldn't be orchestrated before the largest defense purchase in history.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Now that I think about basic econ... if our currency goes up the list price in USD for JSF will drop... not for you but for us. Good news is it should balance out for Oz. The AUD would do well to surge right before purchase to get more bang for your buck. I wonder if this couldn't be orchestrated before the largest defense purchase in history.

We actually include quite a bit of "margin' in our defence contracts nowadays for such things as currency fluctuations, so whilst I agree signing a contract at a price where the AUD is highest would be preferrable, at least we won't be hurt to badly in any case...

This already IS our biggest defence purchase...

 

[swerve]

That wasn't MY figure. It was taken straight from Airpower Australia's (APA) submission to the enquiry named above.

I realise that, & didn't mean to imply it was yours. But it was too good an illustration of what I'd mentioned to pass over without comment. In a submission to the Australian Senate, no less. Dear oh dear oh dear.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I realise that, & didn't mean to imply it was yours. But it was too good an illustration of what I'd mentioned to pass over without comment. In a submission to the Australian Senate, no less. Dear oh dear oh dear.

Yes,

you can see why they are ridiculed in some places. They seem to think that having the biggest flashiest power-point presentations, gives them some special insight into defence matters.

Some of the material they have submitted or given in oral evidence to the Comittee is (or should be) down right, embarrassing...

 

[alexsa]

Yes,

you can see why they are ridiculed in some places. They seem to think that having the biggest flashiest power-point presentations, gives them some special insight into defence matters.

Some of the material they have submitted or given in oral evidence to the Comittee is (or should be) down right, embarrassing...

Ah, but as has been shown in many situations, zealots tend to be blinded to facts by the glory of their own visions.

..... and to be bluntly and tragically honest many of the Public servants i have met would be pretty impressed by a flashy power point display.

 

[Magoo]

This wouldn't be part of the "just in case" back up plan would it?

Maybe Magoo has heard something, if he's lurking about the place?

Sorry AD, been off air with work commitments.

I'd heard whispers about this proposal about a month ago, and since then Occum and others have kindly filled in some gaps for me.

I've since asked some questions of people in the know and there appears to be much to Boeing's Super Hornet proposal which would see the F-111s retired in the 09/10 timeframe, 24 to 36 E/F/Gs acquired, a few more centre-barrels done on the 'classic' Hornets, and the F-35 enter service a few years later than planned (c.2017/18). Boeing would no doubt hope for further slippages in the F-35 so it can sell more Super Hornets to the RAAF (and USN).

However, it should be pointed out that the "project office" or the Air Combat Transition Office (ACTO) that Occum mentioned is looking at other options as well. Interestingly, it appears the F-22 may be back on the radar, figuratively speaking of course, although the Super Hornet has always been the "Plan B" option! There is much work to be done to get an F-22 into a foreign air force though.

If the RAAF does end up with a bridging option, the go/no-go decision timeframe is likely to be late 07/early 08, and it will form a two-tiered capability with the F-35 when that eventually gets here, F-22 being the 'hi' tier, or F/A-18E/F/G being the 'lo' tier. Either way, we would end up with a flexible high-end capability which would be fully interoperable with the USAF or USN, although local industry opportunities would be limited.

BTW - first flight of the F-35 is currently set down for Monday lunchtime (very early Tuesday morning AEST time), the day before Dr Nelson is due to sign the PSFD MoU. It's not a commitment for the jet yet, but will see another US$150m handed over to remain at the coal face of the program.

Interesting times...

Magoo

 

[Aussie Digger]

Sorry AD, been off air with work commitments.

I'd heard whispers about this proposal about a month ago, and since then Occum and others have kindly filled in some gaps for me.

I've since asked some questions of people in the know and there appears to be much to Boeing's Super Hornet proposal which would see the F-111s retired in the 09/10 timeframe, 24 to 36 E/F/Gs acquired, a few more centre-barrels done on the 'classic' Hornets, and the F-35 enter service a few years later than planned (c.2017/18). Boeing would no doubt hope for further slippages in the F-35 so it can sell more Super Hornets to the RAAF (and USN).

However, it should be pointed out that the "project office" or the Air Combat Transition Office (ACTO) that Occum mentioned is looking at other options as well. Interestingly, it appears the F-22 may be back on the radar, figuratively speaking of course, although the Super Hornet has always been the "Plan B" option! There is much work to be done to get an F-22 into a foreign air force though.

If the RAAF does end up with a bridging option, the go/no-go decision timeframe is likely to be late 07/early 08, and it will form a two-tiered capability with the F-35 when that eventually gets here, F-22 being the 'hi' tier, or F/A-18E/F/G being the 'lo' tier. Either way, we would end up with a flexible high-end capability which would be fully interoperable with the USAF or USN, although local industry opportunities would be limited.

BTW - first flight of the F-35 is currently set down for Monday lunchtime (very early Tuesday morning AEST time), the day before Dr Nelson is due to sign the PSFD MoU. It's not a commitment for the jet yet, but will see another US$150m handed over to remain at the coal face of the program.

Interesting times...

Magoo

Very interesting. A dual F-22/F-35 fleet would be fine by me as I've always said, I just don't understand how we could afford it, with what Government's willing to spend.

At least it'd HAVE to get bi-partisan support in Government given labour's crowing about the F-22 in recent times. (Though that too may have changed with Bomber getting ousted)...

Any speculation on numbers for these fleets???

 

[Magoo]

Any speculation on numbers for these fleets???

No, it's way too early for that kind of detail yet, although one would suspect we'd need a minimum of 24 and preferably 36 of any one type (i.e. F-22) to support two squadrons, an OCU component and allow for maintenance etc.

Just plucking numbers out of my ar$e, let's say...

36 F-22s @ ~A$220m* each (~A$7.92bn) and
48 F-35s @ ~A$120m each (~A$5.8bn),
this comes up to around ~A$13.7bn

Add to that new infrastructure, training facilities and other fleet establishment costs and expenses, that'd pretty much cover the $16bn budgeted.

* This number is pre-supposed that unit prices would not significantly rise for an Australian acquisition, however, much IP and software/hardware locking off work would be required to make the aircraft releasable for international sale.

Looking at the Super Hornet then F-35 option...

28 F/A-18E/Fs @ ~A$100m each (~A$2.8bn),
8 x EF-18Gs @ ~A$150m each (~A$1.2bn) and
60 F-35s @ ~A$120m each (~A$7.2bn)
adds up to ~A$11.2bn

So, for an extra ~A$2.5bn we could theoretically go for the F-22 over the Super, a veritable bargain in my books, although I would not be unhappy with option B if the F-22 road proved too rocky, costly and long! The Super Hornet option, by virtue of that aircraft's earlier availability and ease of transition from a 'classic' fleet, would allow the F-111s and some classic Hornets to be retired a little earlier, perhaps realising savings on its service introduction, those types's operating costs, and maybe even some centre-barrels in the region of, say, ~A$2.5bn?

Also, the JHMCS, ALR-67(v)3, Litening AT, Link-16/MIDS, JASSM and JDAM and AIM-120C stocks, and other hardware and integration elements of the HUG program could be transferred across to the Super, thus reducing 'supplemental items' spending.

Another major advantage of going Super sooner, and then F-35 later would see the ADF wade into the world of 5th gen combat aircraft more cautiously, rather than jumping in at the deep end as we would with the F-22/F-35 option.


Cheers

Magoo