EA/18G Growler

[alexsa]

Merging into a single squadron would see them operational well into the 2020's. This would link nicely with AIR 6000 Phase 3 which could see a UCAV purchase which would then replace the remaining Classic Hornets instead of Phase 1 & 2.

That is assuming the current prototype developemntal UCAV's are actually ready by 2020. If you look at the development cycle of the F-22, EF and F-35 this could be a serious stretch. As to that it gives more time for some smart individual to work out how to trash their comm links.

 

[Todjaeger]

That is assuming the current prototype developemntal UCAV's are actually ready by 2020. If you look at the development cycle of the F-22, EF and F-35 this could be a serious stretch. As to that it gives more time for some smart individual to work out how to trash their comm links.

Agreed. A relative of mine did some initial avionics work on the F-22 circa 1982-1983. The aircraft just reached IOC this year, about 24 years later. At this point in time, the design cycle for US military kit seems to be about 20 years from start of project to start of deployment. I find it somewhat ironic, that the time difference in aircraft generations can now be measured in, well, generations.

While the concerns about pilot survivability don't exist in a UCAV, at the same time it becomes more vulnerable to disruption of it's datalink. And IMV, before the RAAF should start planning for an unmanned UCAV force, a great deal more work needs to be done. Both to ensure the effectiveness of a UCAV in combat and the integrity of communications with it.

-Cheers

 

[sgrams]

Gentlemen, thanks for the insights into the F-18/F-111 replacement issues for the RAAF. Certainly useful to cut through the sensationalist crap from the usual suspects in the Aust media. I believe a response to Carlo Kopp's piece in today's Age is in order. He continues to espouse maintenance of the outdated F-111 airframe, & ignores the real short term issues of the rapidly ageing F-18 fleet. His raison d'etre is to have flown the SuperBug...

 

[Magoo]

Gentlemen, thanks for the insights into the F-18/F-111 replacement issues for the RAAF. Certainly useful to cut through the sensationalist crap from the usual suspects in the Aust media. I believe a response to Carlo Kopp's piece in today's Age is in order. He continues to espouse maintenance of the outdated F-111 airframe, & ignores the real short term issues of the rapidly ageing F-18 fleet. His raison d'etre is to have flown the SuperBug...

Let's give Dr Kopp his dues - he has flown it (albeit an early development version in 2000), and what he doesn't know about radars and avionics systems isn't really worth knowing. Plus, he didn't use a claim to have flown it in the article as his "raison d'etre" at all - I'll bet anything a sub-editor added that bit in to add weight to the article, which, if read in the right context, it does.

Unfortunately, the more rhetorical language he uses in articles such...

...sorry saga...

and...

Claims by Defence that the F-111s will become dangerous to fly after 2010 are absurd

and...

Defence has repeatedly inflated the cost of operating and upgrading the F-111 in evidence to Parliament, and made factually incorrect claims on a wide range of technical issues...

...the more he is going to be shunned and the less he's going to be listened to by Defence.

Whilst I don't necessarily subscribe to their points of view re the F-111, I do see much merit in the argument to pursue an F-22 acquisition. It isn't the answer to all of the RAAF's air combat needs, but boy, what a deterrent and air dominance asset it would be if bought in the right numbers and fielded appropriately.

Unfortunately, Dr Kopp and Mr Goon, as much as you have to admire their tenacity, passion and staying power, have effectively been disengaged by Defence. I feel they need to do all possible to re-engage themselves in the fight.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Occum]

Welcome Aboard

Gentlemen, thanks for the insights into the F-18/F-111 replacement issues for the RAAF. Certainly useful to cut through the sensationalist crap from the usual suspects in the Aust media. I believe a response to Carlo Kopp's piece in today's Age is in order. He continues to espouse maintenance of the outdated F-111 airframe, & ignores the real short term issues of the rapidly ageing F-18 fleet. His raison d'etre is to have flown the SuperBug...

Welcome aboard, Sgrams.

Defence are the ones who are pushing the F-111 as being outdated. They are the ones who have stopped the upgrades that the strategic guidance in the Defence 2000 White Paper directed be carried out. In terms of the measure of airframe life (flying hours), the F-111 is a lot younger than the F/A-18s. The F-111 is about 60% into its original design life (10,000 hours).

As you rightly point out, there is (and always has been) a real problem with "the rapidly ageing F/A-18 fleet".

Members of the Australian Defence Industry, including Dr Kopp, Mr Goon et al, pointed this out to Defence back in 2001 in their response to the Air6000 Force Mix Option Market Survey Request for Proposals. This advice was ignored. It was pointed out again in 2003, 2004 and, more recently, to the JSCFADT inquiry (see Submissions 20 and 29).

Therefore, your claim that Dr Kopp "continues .... ignores the real short term issues of the rapidly ageing F-18 fleet" is very much in error. If you would care to take the time to read the submissions, you will see how serious these issues really are and how parlous the air combat capability plans of our Department of Defence also are.

However, if you are not prepared to look at these issues objectively then likely your agenda is other than in the national interest. Some of your fellow contributors to this forum wait to see.

 

[PETER671BT]

Looking at what has written,f-18 has it's merit's as aproven work horse in all areas of combat in us navy.But in Australia we have more land and assets to defend.could we order on the back of the f-22 program at 2 planes a month,at 24 month time preiod with total block of 40.This country needs a format of interceptor and medium multirole fighter,and stol.

 

[Occum]

An Interesting Idea

Looking at what has written,f-18 has it's merit's as aproven work horse in all areas of combat in us navy.But in Australia we have more land and assets to defend.could we order on the back of the f-22 program at 2 planes a month,at 24 month time preiod with total block of 40.This country needs a format of interceptor and medium multirole fighter,and stol.

Increase this to 50 plus 5 attrition aircraft, and it starts to make a lot of sense, particularly at USD$116 million per unit or, better still, a lease/buy, with the purchase dollars spent in Australia!

As for STOL or STOVL, this is a feature Australia does not need in our air combat capability since it is contrary to Australia's fundamental strategic needs of persistance, range and speed, with systems being a given, since they come with new or can be readily achieved through upgrades and other technology insertion programs. The latter is something some Defence folks are scared of because of their cultural cringe and aversity to managing risks (or, as folks in Industry say, doing the work).

 

[Simon9]

To me the most interesting parts of Kopp's article there aren't his claims on the viability of F-111, F-22 and F-35 but his analysis of the Super Hornet vs Flanker and F-15.

Is the Su-30MK really that superior, given Russian propensity for exaggerating the capabilities of their equipment?

If what he's written about the potential inferiority of the Super Hornet in the region is largely accurate, then it really doesn't matter how people shoot down (pardon the pun) his other ideas for the RAAF and his conspiracy theories about Defence and the F-111.

In fact, if he's right, I figure the first thing we have to do is accept that the Super Hornet is not an option. THEN start looking at the situation afresh.

So, what do people make of his Super Hornet vs Flanker/F-15 claims? I've heard plenty about Super Hornet vs Hornet but few direct comparisons with the others.

 

[Grand Danois]

Increase this to 50 plus 5 attrition aircraft, and it starts to make a lot of sense, particularly at USD$116 million per unit or, better still, a lease/buy, with the purchase dollars spent in Australia!

That would be the URFC? Anyhow, I thought any US exports of the F-22 would be exports, ie all work is to be done in the US, as the aim of selling the F-22 is to recoup the R&D cost. In other words: a purely imported product.

As for STOL or STOVL, this is a feature Australia does not need in our air combat capability since it is contrary to Australia's fundamental strategic needs of persistance, range and speed, with systems being a given, since they come with new or can be readily achieved through upgrades and other technology insertion programs. The latter is something some Defence folks are scared of because of their cultural cringe and aversity to managing risks (or, as folks in Industry say, doing the work).

So if F-22 URFC is 116 million USD and UPC will flatten out at 165 million USD - to the US taxpayer - it would need some upgrades to make a decent striker out of it. Let's say the R&D is sunk in the F-35 programme, but it would still add something like 10-15 million USD to the URFC and perhaps increasing UPC to 185 million USD. The US forfeits the recouperation of the R&D and settles on the FMS fee of 3.75%, which makes the F-22 a 192 million USD pure import.

Besides pulling the upgrade costs out of my ..., is this a reasonable calculation?



Edit: Allright. Just realised it is not the topic here, but will leave the post here anyway.

 

[PETER671BT]

Stovl would be a an asset to our future amphibious fleet,if we are to get carriers.And we can't rely on ship defence alone.Plus we need to able to back
troops up in operations.Combat choppers can't take on fully armed multirole
fighters.Even though they can carry short range air to air missiles such as sparrow.THE bottom line is that most asian counrties are seeing excellent fighters out of russia such as su-27 and 30 series.These planes can be aircarrier capable.China and Russia are talking on joint carrier operations for the pacific ocean in years to come.
And the latest subs and mig programs are looking promising for close western style technology in the cockpit.If Australia doesn't start increase it's force,it's going to be at a too late problem.I talk with the highest defence offficals in this counrty on regular bases and the defence wants to increase,
it's politians that hold this counrty back.

 

[Occum]

That would be the URFC?
......................................................
Besides pulling the upgrade costs out of my ..., is this a reasonable calculation?



Edit: Allright. Just realised it is not the topic here, but will leave the post here anyway.

Actually, this is UFC, not the misleading URFC that John Harvey and others use when talking about the JSF. See attached.


Both UFC and UPC would be subject to how well Australia is able to negotiate. Given the paucity of commercial acumen in Defence today (due to the deskilling of the past 10 years), the best outcome would be for any negotiation to be undertaken with Industry's help.

As for the difference between UFC and UPC, a figure of 19% (source LM/USAF) would be a fair (if not conservative) budgetary estimate and margin for negotiation.

 

[Grand Danois]

Actually, this is UFC, not the misleading URFC that John Harvey and others use when talking about the JSF. See attached.


Both UFC and UPC would be subject to how well Australia is able to negotiate. Given the paucity of commercial acumen in Defence today (due to the deskilling of the past 10 years), the best outcome would be for any negotiation to be undertaken with Industry's help.

As for the difference between UFC and UPC, a figure of 19% (source LM/USAF) would be a fair (if not conservative) budgetary estimate and margin for negotiation.

OK. So when 48 million USD and 78 million USD, projected, is quoted for the F-35A, it is UFC and UPC respectively?

Best wishes with the negotiations if you choose to go for the F-22A. Have my doubts to how much can be pried from the Americans.

 

[Occum]

Colored Gentlemen In The Timber Industry

Stovl would be a an asset to our future amphibious fleet,if we are to get carriers.And we can't rely on ship defence alone.Plus we need to able to back
troops up in operations.Combat choppers can't take on fully armed multirole
fighters.Even though they can carry short range air to air missiles such as sparrow.THE bottom line is that most asian counrties are seeing excellent fighters out of russia such as su-27 and 30 series.These planes can be aircarrier capable.China and Russia are talking on joint carrier operations for the pacific ocean in years to come.
And the latest subs and mig programs are looking promising for close western style technology in the cockpit.If Australia doesn't start increase it's force,it's going to be at a too late problem.I talk with the highest defence offficals in this counrty on regular bases and the defence wants to increase,
it's politians that hold this counrty back.

Even the most cursory of investigation into these matters shows that the real 'colored gentlemen in the timber industry' are the unelected officials, like the Minister for Defence's aerospace adviser, Mr Denis Hughes, who says his extent of aeronautical experience was his involvement in the Super Sea Sprite Program when he worked in DAO/DMO. The other person who will have had a hand in all of this is the other senior Ministerial adviser who happens to be a politics major with no technical or operational experience or background.

The nameless/faceless ones who influence the Minister - because they can! What a screwed up system!!


nfloorl:

 

[Aussie Digger]

Increase this to 50 plus 5 attrition aircraft, and it starts to make a lot of sense, particularly at USD$116 million per unit or, better still, a lease/buy, with the purchase dollars spent in Australia!

As for STOL or STOVL, this is a feature Australia does not need in our air combat capability since it is contrary to Australia's fundamental strategic needs of persistance, range and speed, with systems being a given, since they come with new or can be readily achieved through upgrades and other technology insertion programs. The latter is something some Defence folks are scared of because of their cultural cringe and aversity to managing risks (or, as folks in Industry say, doing the work).

Sorry but this price that APA keeps wheeling out for the F-22A is simply ridiculous and un-true. The Congressional Research Service, (that APA loves to selectively quote) LATE this year, priced the cost of the F-22A to the USAF at US$175m in 2006 dollars, EACH.

Add in the upgrades necessary to make the jet suitable to conduct the range of operations RAAF is required to undertake (which would currently have to be funded COMPLETELY by us) and the cost blows out to simply outrageous proportions.

That is of course IF the USA would even allow us to acquire it. Which is un-certain at best. Given the trouble we've had with the technology transfer and obtaining indigenous LO maintenance capabilities for the "international" JSF, anyone who that such a problem will not occur with the admittedly stealthier and more advanced (in some areas) F-22A is either deliberately turning a blind eye to the issue or suffering from a near fatal case of "wishful thinking".

We live in the real world people, with limited budgets. Perhaps some of us should consider that...

 

[Occum]

OK. So when 48 million USD and 78 million USD, projected, is quoted for the F-35A, it is UFC and UPC respectively?

Best wishes with the negotiations if you choose to go for the F-22A. Have my doubts to how much can be pried from the Americans.

Sadly, no - the RAAF folks go out of their way to cite the figures they are quoting as the Average Unit RECURRING Flyaway Costs, firstly in FY02 dollars and then in FY06 dollars. However, they are not prepared to quote what price they are budgeting. Seem to prefer double talk.

Since the aircraft will not, at present, be available till sometime after 2013 with a high probability that this will slip and the numbers will also come down, standard risk analysis shows there is a high probability that the actual price will increase, and markedly so.

 

[Aussie Digger]

To me the most interesting parts of Kopp's article there aren't his claims on the viability of F-111, F-22 and F-35 but his analysis of the Super Hornet vs Flanker and F-15.

Is the Su-30MK really that superior, given Russian propensity for exaggerating the capabilities of their equipment?

If what he's written about the potential inferiority of the Super Hornet in the region is largely accurate, then it really doesn't matter how people shoot down (pardon the pun) his other ideas for the RAAF and his conspiracy theories about Defence and the F-111.

In fact, if he's right, I figure the first thing we have to do is accept that the Super Hornet is not an option. THEN start looking at the situation afresh.

So, what do people make of his Super Hornet vs Flanker/F-15 claims? I've heard plenty about Super Hornet vs Hornet but few direct comparisons with the others.

Apparently the Super Hornet is SO inferior that current and future SU-30 users, India and Malaysia are both seriously looking at acquiring the Rhino.

Seems a bit incongrous doesn't it?

Boeing manufactures both the F-15 and F/A-18E/F. Seems to me like they'd have a pretty fair understanding on the capabilities of both, yet they're aggresively pushing SH as compared to F-15. I wonder why that could be?

Interesting how he wrote that the SH "should prove capable" against the SU series, when Dr Kopp got a free ride in one in 2000, but now that he's on his "F-22" crusade (though if one were mean-spirited you could be forgiven for thinking "obsession" is closer to the mark) it has become "hopelessly outclassed"...

Very interesting indeed to my mind...

 

[Sea Toby]

I don't think Occum understands the difference between an American dollar and an Australian dollar. The Republicans ended production of the F-22 this year, there is no way the Democrats will continue production next year after te Republicans have already killed production. These last F-22s cost in US dollars 175 million each, period. Upgrading these alone will easily bring the cost of each for Australia to US dollars over $200 million each or AUSTRALIAN dollars to over $300 million each.

50 F-22s at $300 million is $15 billion AUSTRALIAN dollars, this total easily consumes the entire program buget. Do you want an air force of 100 aircraft or 50?

Keep in mind while many foreign nations buy American fighters with the spare parts/support package included, rarely does the USAF, which supports its aircraft via another financial package. Anyone with any common sense would realize that it will be more expensive for Australia or any other state to buy F-22s, yes more expensive than the US $175 million, not cheaper.

For example, the Super Hornets are using the same formula costing America's Navy this year US $56 million each. By the time the Australians figure in their dollar exchange and the added support package, its running Australia up to $100 million in Australian dollars.

Which aircraft is more affordable, in Australian dollars, the $300 million Raptor or the $100 milliion Super Hornet?

 

[Grand Danois]

Sadly, no - the RAAF folks go out of their way to cite the figures they are quoting as the Average Unit RECURRING Flyaway Costs, firstly in FY02 dollars and then in FY06 dollars. However, they are not prepared to quote what price they are budgeting. Seem to prefer double talk.

Since the aircraft will not, at present, be available till sometime after 2013 with a high probability that this will slip and the numbers will also come down, standard risk analysis shows there is a high probability that the actual price will increase, and markedly so.

So if the average URFC for the F-35 in the Australian buy is 59 million USD, so what would the average URFC for the F-22 be?

Ah! Doing the numbers I realise the 48 million USD URFC is a couple of lots into the F-35 run. Wouldn't the SH purchase have shifted the delivery of the first F-35 to the right?

 

[Aussie Digger]

I don't think Occum understands the difference between an American dollar and an Australian dollar. The Republicans ended production of the F-22 this year, there is no way the Democrats will continue production next year after te Republicans have already killed production. These last F-22s cost in US dollars 175 million each, period. Upgrading these alone will easily bring the cost of each for Australia to US dollars over $200 million each or AUSTRALIAN dollars to over $300 million each.

50 F-22s at $300 million is $15 billion AUSTRALIAN dollars, this total easily consumes the entire program buget. Do you want an air force of 100 aircraft or 50?

Keep in mind while many foreign nations buy American fighters with the spare parts/support package included, rarely does the USAF, which supports its aircraft via another financial package. Anyone with any common sense would realize that it will be more expensive for Australia or any other state to buy F-22s, yes more expensive than the US $175 million, not cheaper.

Of course it will, but stating such things openly will hardly "help" the "Goon and Kopp" cause will it?

They have started to reveal their "true" colours recently though, with a suggestion that Defence doesn't possess the necessary "nous" to negotiate with the US over the purchase price of these aircraft and that "all will fail" unless Defence Industry (Flight Test Services perhaps?) Be brought into negotiate on Defence's behalf...

What next? The F-111S proposal and Caribou re-engining proposal went nowhere. Perhaps they could offer to refurbish" the B-707's too and put the money saved from the KC-30B into more F-22A's... nfloorl:

 

[Grand Danois]

Hummm,

I am arriving at that the F-35A will be less than 100m USD AUPC - even with a 20% increase in price tag.

And this with a work and R&D for the Aust industry.

The F-22A will never be sold (exported) for less than 200 million USD UPC. An that is the most optimistic estimate I can do for it. It will probably be in the 250+ million USD range.

And that almost without Aust industry participation.