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

[swerve]

I personally think that Japan could help keep the JSF program afloat by placing a big order.

JSF is going to struggle unless it can get some big international orders.
....

You mean, like 138 for the RAF, 130 or so for Italy, 85 for the Netherlands, maybe 48 each for Norway & Denmark, some for Turkey, Canada, Australia, Israel . . . ?

Y'know, mate, this thing has more countries expressing an interest before it's actually built than anything else in history. As long as 1) the US doesn't drop it & 2) its price doesn't go through the roof, it's virtually guaranteed to float - or even fly. What's all this stuff about struggling?

 

[Dr Phobus]

There can be the F-35 will do extremely well, however, do not count your eggs before they are in the pudding. Norway and Denmark are far from certain and the issues you raise, mainly the cost factor is going to be singificant with that plus the delay factor. Look what delays can do to a product, think of A380, A400, or the F18E option for the RAAF (not a good thing all in all)..Countires often need to buy at a certain time..Cost will increase with delay and delay can lead to lost orders. And, the competition lurks...

I am not saying F-35 will not be a big success, it will be, but it will not rule the world IMO.

 

[Grand Danois]

As far as Denmark and Norway is concerned, they will in all probability be chosing the F-35A. The first F-16 replacements will be needed 2015-ish. That is 8 years away. Both countries have the required finances.

The competition in Norway is between the Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen. Eurofighter is equally expensive, offers some industrial offsets, but is a developed fighter in production. Did Rafale withdraw this year? Gripen offers the best offsets, but is the inferior fighter.

In Denmark Dassault didn't go beyond the RFI, as they considered the requirements to be written towards the F-35A. The Eurofighter is hampered industrially by being a developed fighter in production. Gripen has the most lucrative offset potential but is the least attractive fighter.

Looks like F-35A has the best chances and will have to be cancelled by the US in order not to be chosen.

Anyhow, F-35's aren't really exported to partner nations.

 

[Dr Phobus]

No way will F-35 be cancelled, i just do not see it as being unvierally successful. As for japan, they should buy it, its a good platform for them, and buy it in numbers. Like italy and the RAF, i think there is a lot to gain from a mix F-35/Typhoon fleet. But, more than likely it will be a F-18/F-35 mix.

 

[PETER671BT]

Bottom line that japan has an open contract on any military hardware from usa,to copy like f-16 and cargo planes for example,don't know if this willbe the case with JSF OR F-22.Because of classification on the planes.typhoon I don't really see it do a contract agreement on all side might be hard.I don't think euro will allow them to make there own copies.

 

[Dr Phobus]

Bottom line that japan has an open contract on any military hardware from usa,to copy like f-16 and cargo planes for example,don't know if this willbe the case with JSF OR F-22.Because of classification on the planes.typhoon I don't really see it do a contract agreement on all side might be hard.I don't think euro will allow them to make there own copies.

Ok, interesting point here, so since i think your saying they want to build them themselves, and none of the 3 will let that happen. F-22 just will not happen, the american not allow it, also, the low numbers bought will nto make it viable. The F-35, well, there are 2 production lines euro/usa (i tihnk).. will japan have one all to themseleves ?

If a typhoon or F-35 buy was big enough maybe they coulds assessmble there own plans from kits.

Thoughts please

 

[PETER671BT]

Ok, interesting point here, so since i think your saying they want to build them themselves, and none of the 3 will let that happen. F-22 just will not happen, the american not allow it, also, the low numbers bought will nto make it viable. The F-35, well, there are 2 production lines euro/usa (i tihnk).. will japan have one all to themseleves ?

If a typhoon or F-35 buy was big enough maybe they coulds assessmble there own plans from kits.

Thoughts please

Typhoon is a great plane,but to get kits aproved would probably have to be looked at by the european countries envolved.But could be possible.

 

[Dr Phobus]

The eurofigther constorium, the british are responsibilie to potentual markets in japan. Japan is considered a serious prospect. However, i feel japanese bias, will have them buy all american (F-18E/F) then (F-35A/B). But eurofigther would work hard and fast to try to capture any possbilitiy of selling to the japanese.

 

[Occum]

Request To Moderators

Aussie Digger, umair, gf0012-aust, tphuang, pshamim, Pathfinder-X -

You folks seem to be well connected in the Department of Defence.

How about asking John Harvey et al to fill in the table in post 250 above so that, for once and for all, the veil of secrecy on JSF pricing can be lifted thus allowing John et al to finally be able to tell the real story.

To make things a little easier, the table is attached to this post as a PDF along with the cost/price definitions.

 

[Magoo]

Aussie Digger, umair, gf0012-aust, tphuang, pshamim, Pathfinder-X -

You folks seem to be well connected in the Department of Defence.

How about asking John Harvey et al to fill in the table in post 250 above so that, for once and for all, the veil of secrecy on JSF pricing can be lifted thus allowing John et al to finally be able to tell the real story.

To make things a little easier, the table is attached to this post as a PDF along with the cost/price definitions.

Might be an interesting interview... :shudder

I'd be interested to see your estimations for F-35, F-22 and perhaps an F/A-18F and F-35 force mix in that matrix as well. Any chance you could do that and attach?

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Occum]

Magoo,

More than happy to but let's see what those who are getting handsomely paid to do this work can come up with by filling in the table on JSF pricing.

As you say, such a table completed by the RAAF will make interesting reading. Let's see if they are willing to take up the opportunity of their own volition.

Happy New Year ....


Occum and Friends

 

[Occum]

Busy Shutting Down Threads

Magoo,

Further to your request, I figure you have likely seen this public domain commentry on the Raptor:

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123022371

Attempted to attach a PDF copy but seems quota has been exceeded.

:unknown

The figures cited here suggest US$116 million (AUFC) plus 19% for that stuff that makes up the difference between UFC and Unit Procurement Costs (UPC) would result in a first cut on budget for 50 fleet + 5 attrition birds of around US$7,592.20 million. This is a tad conservative as the 19% UPC on-cost figure has also been applied to the attrition aircraft (US$110.2 million).

At a risk hedged exchange rate of 0.7500, this would equate to A$10,122.94 million. Of course this is in 'current year' dollars (as determined from the SARs) or, putting this in plain speak, the dollars at the time of purchase (aka. 'then year dollars' in the vernacular used down in Australia). Not that this makes a hell of a difference, since the base dollar value of the F-22 price/cost is now fairly stable as it is in full rate production. With increased numbers, one can expect the cost to come down which is the case when the program is in the front side of the risk and learning curves.

Will be interesting to see what the nay sayers project at this.

Hopefully, intellectually rigorous criticism supported by facts and, where predictive, by appropriate analysis. Should be enlightening.



By the way, have you heard from any of the Mods as to whether they are going to take up the suggestion for getting the Price/Cost table provided above filled in?



Also, what is the RAAF definition of 'air dominance'?

Have got RAAF versions of definitions on 'air superiority', 'air supremacy' and 'air parity' but not able to find anything on 'air dominance' (except, of course, the claim in the last section of the APDC APM that Australia is losing it - watch the ferrals pounce on this one!)

Can anyone oblige? ......preferably with a citation, if there is one. Thanks.

 

[Magoo]

Magoo,

Further to your request, I figure you have likely seen this public domain commentry on the Raptor:

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123022371

Attempted to attach a PDF copy but seems quota has been exceeded

The figures cited here suggest US$116 million (AUFC) plus 19% for that stuff that makes up the difference between UFC and Unit Procurement Costs (UPC) would result in a first cut on budget for 50 fleet + 5 attrition birds of around US$7,592.20 million. This is a tad conservative as the 19% UPC on-cost figure has also been applied to the attrition aircraft (US$110.2 million)..

At a risk hedged exchange rate of 0.7500, this would equate to A$10,122.94 million. Of course this is in 'current year' dollars (as determined from the SARs) or, putting this in plain speak, the dollars at the time of purchase (aka. 'then year dollars' in the vernacular used down in Australia). Not that this makes a hell of a difference, since the base dollar value of the F-22 price/cost is now fairly stable as it is in full rate production. With increased numbers, one can expect the cost to come down which is the case when the program is in the front side of the risk and learning curves.

Impressive indeed, and although I have no doubts the performance and cost numbers are correct, they must be tempered by the sales job General Lewis is obviously trying to do. E.g., if they do end up getting the 381 jets they require (plus the 50-odd you say we require), I doubt there are no more configuration changes to come.

Will be interesting to see what the nay sayers project at this. Hopefully, intellectually rigorous criticism supported by facts and, where predictive, by appropriate analysis. Should be enlightening.

Indeed, I hope the debate is an intellectual one, rather than degenerating to one of name calling and further disengagement...

By the way, have you heard from any of the Mods as to whether they are going to take up the suggestion for getting the Price/Cost table provided above filled in?

Also, what is the RAAF definition of 'air dominance'?

Have got RAAF versions of definitions on 'air superiority', 'air supremacy' and 'air parity' but not able to find anything on 'air dominance' (except, of course, the claim in the last section of the APDC APM that Australia is losing it - watch the ferrals pounce on this one!)

No I haven't, but I intend to ask many of the questions you've raised along with others of those who should know at MY next opportunity. I'm not sure the mods are in a position to ask, certainly not in the time frame since you posted the question anyway.

Cheers

Magoo

 

[gf0012-aust]

No I haven't, but I intend to ask many of the questions you've raised along with others of those who should know at MY next opportunity. I'm not sure the mods are in a position to ask, certainly not in the time frame since you posted the question anyway.

Cheers

Magoo

well, considering the fact that only 2 of the 6 mods mentioned are australian - I doubt that umair, tphuang, pshamim and pathfinder want to bear the burden of asking for data from a foreign military....

and realistically speaking, no govt source is going to provide that detail unless its formal and "on notice". the wheels of red tape process don't change - and have become decidedly more managed under the current Govt. The best thing is for a FOI request - and I suspect that if a formal representative response is required, it will only be cleared under the basis of a FOI request.

Govt learned from the F-111 and Collins debacle that an ad-hoc response to questions undermined the process. The significant legacy that both platforms provided was media management. After all, I scored free media liaison traning under Labor as a legacy of fixing the Collins press mismanagement.

As I've stated before in here, the process of engaging the Govt and Defence re the Hornet replacement has been badly handled and IMV has done irreparable cause to a vehicle of calm and considered debate.

Appealing for change via the broadsheets didn't work for the F-111 or Collins - and as it turned out, both platforms have convincingly demonstrated that the shrill naysayers were wrong.

For both sides of Govt, the handling of Collins by the press is a classic benchmark of why they will not bow to what they see as whiteanting. The protected data on Collins was persistently good, and the data now shows that the continued investment was worth it - so for Govt and Defence they will see that pandering to broken record complaints is not going to happen.

In an australian context, Dr Kopp is seen by some in Govt and ADF as the David Scobie of all things to do with complaints about ADF and RAAF. Whether thats fair or not is irrelevant - its the perception, and perception ultimately can be regarded as truth.

My personal view is that the approach taken by APA and Dr Kopps supporters has already irretrievably damaged any opportunity that they thought existed to influence change.

 

[Sea Toby]

That low ball price is for America, not Australia. Australia will still have to buy the spares and support packages. With the Australian numbers so few, the spares and support packages could run up to 40 percent of the acquisition fly away costs. Then there is the quesion of whether America will sell the Raptor abroad, and if they surprise everyone and do, then there is the question of paying off a share of the development costs.

I don't see how Australia will be able to get Raptors for less than 175 million in American dollars, and here we go again, some 250 million in Australian dollars.

Keep in mind again, the Americans don't buy spares and support packages with the aircraft. They have another avenue of spending to acquire these items.

Lower your dream a bit. Australia isn't interested in buying Raptors, they are too expensive. Anyone trying to sell me a bill of goods claiming their aircraft is twice as effective, thereby I could do with half my current fleet, is someone I wouldn't trust, even if it were true.

Plus the Raptor doesn't have the better strike systems of the Lightning II. Adding this would increse the price up further.

Obviously you will not think on your own. Quoting an American general on the price of a Raptor is believing the snake-oil salesman.

 

[rjmaz1]

Lower your dream a bit. Australia isn't interested in buying Raptors, they are too expensive. Anyone trying to sell me a bill of goods claiming their aircraft is twice as effective, thereby I could do with half my current fleet, is someone I wouldn't trust, even if it were true.

This exact same thing could be said about the JSF to an extent when compared to the Super Hornet. The JSF most likely will cost more than the superbug and require a much larger initial startup cost.

Howevering going with the Super Hornet doesn't require us to lower its dreams. The Super Hornet is actually superior to the JSF in many ways:

• Twin seat
• Cheaper
• Available now
• Will allow for a single Australian fleet
• All aircraft have the wiring to be converted to G models.
• Future UCAV controlling capability guranteed.
• Can use US Navy carriers if required, the F-35A's wont be able to do this.

The JSF has a few advantages as well

• Stealthier
• Longer Range
• Australian industry can help make parts.
• Sensor fusion, however the best sensor fusion cannot beat having two pilots.

 

[scraw]

• Can use US Navy carriers if required, the F-35A's wont be able to do this.

I'm reasonably sure you can't just turn up and ask to borrow a space on deck, even if you were carrier qualified to begin with.

 

[PETER671BT]

Is this true? When Aussie JSFs come into production after 700-900 builds will their JSFs cost more than a final build F-22. Why would US DoD continue the program if this were true? Are these numbers skewed to compare the most expensive JSF build to the cheapest F-22? I can't believe this at this point. Someone shed some light.:shudder

I also read that Australian jsf may not delivered until 2015,and could only afford around 50 planes.A BIG HEY.

 

[ripper]

Is this true? When Aussie JSFs come into production after 700-900 builds will their JSFs cost more than a final build F-22. Why would US DoD continue the program if this were true? Are these numbers skewed to compare the most expensive JSF build to the cheapest F-22? I can't believe this at this point. Someone shed some light.:shudder

Depends on the final #'s of the F-35 (all versions)... If the program faces cuts, all bets are off.

 

[Magoo]

Howevering going with the Super Hornet doesn't require us to lower its dreams. The Super Hornet is actually superior to the JSF in many ways:

"Howevering"??

The Super is not superior to JSF in any ways, except maybe its availability timeframe!

Twin seat

Wont be an issue with the JSF's data fusion, DAS and systems integration.

Cheaper

Maybe, maybe not. However, you gets what you pay for.

Available now

Available from mid 2009.

Will allow for a single Australian fleet

So will JSF!

All aircraft have the wiring to be converted to G models.

No, PLUMBED for G model conversion, not wired. The wiring, ALQ-99 and ALQ-218 pods would need to be acquired, the gun removed, and radar and cockpit displays likely upgraded.

Future UCAV controlling capability guranteed.

Sources? The JSF has far more NCW potential than the Super, FAR FAR more.

Can use US Navy carriers if required, the F-35A's wont be able to do this.

And what possible tactical application will this have for the RAAF??? Only one or two current RAAF pilots have done their CQs on Classics, not Supers, and unless they've JUST returned from exchange, they won't be current, so NO RAAF HORNETS (regardless of whether they have a tailhook or not) CAN USE A CARRIER.

Maybe Big E would like to elaborate on just what's involved in becoming CQ'd and then remaining current???

Magoo