EA/18G Growler
- Thread starter Malayali
- Start date
-
- Tags
- boeing northrop grumman
same problem as the F111 they arn't being bulit and the rest are at mothmans[is that correct]
boneyard or being referbed to keep the rest of the US fleet flying and i last herd that it has losy mission avaliblity around 20% and it cost the eath to run:vamp
PETER671BT
New Member
The total australian budget according to AL DO BORBU from the defence force advisory is total of 6.2 billon for jsf,plus 4.3billon for gap tempory fighters.
B-1B prodution ended in 1989.same problem as the F111 they arn't being bulit and the rest are at mothmans[is that correct]
and i last herd that it has losy mission avaliblity around 20% and it cost the eath to run:vamp
The BONE would be a nightmare for the RAAF or any other air arm without the resources of the USAF to run. It has numerous servicability issues, so bad it was almost retired a few years ago, only being saved by 9/11 and the subsequent war on terror.
Twenty or so B-1Bs made it to AMARC before most of them were re-generated in 2004/05 at a cost of about US$80m each!!!
Cheers
Magoo
It's AMARC/Davis-Monthan AFBrest are at mothmans[is that correct]
PETER671BT
New Member
The B1B 'S aren't been built as far as I know,and now same situation as the f-111,where they use spares from other planes.
The Australian national cost of running fighters is around 18 billon dollars US for 20 years.The defence then starts to look at new fighters.This costs should of adjusted as prices of planes have gone considerably in last 15 years.F-111 and f/18 have already exceeded this amount of operation cost per unit.
So theoretically there are B1Bs available if we could be bothered with all the problems and expense of maintaining them?
The consensus is that these Aircraft would be to troublesome and expensive for the RAAF however would it not be wise to replace our strategic strike Aircraft with another?
The B1B would be an very large if expensive stick to wield and having the ability to strike targets from Afghanistan to mainland China and anything that sits or floats in between would be highly usefull and a massive force multiplier.
It seems a shame to lose the capability the F111 provided us when all the other systems we are upgrading to are step ups the F35 seems a step down as far as Strategic strike is concerned.
The consensus is that these Aircraft would be to troublesome and expensive for the RAAF however would it not be wise to replace our strategic strike Aircraft with another?
The B1B would be an very large if expensive stick to wield and having the ability to strike targets from Afghanistan to mainland China and anything that sits or floats in between would be highly usefull and a massive force multiplier.
It seems a shame to lose the capability the F111 provided us when all the other systems we are upgrading to are step ups the F35 seems a step down as far as Strategic strike is concerned.
PETER671BT
New Member
Why do you think Usa is using jsf and f-22 together in future major operations,each plane has to work in conjunction to each mission,aswell over layed in defenive and some attack roles. The jsf fighter will be a good plane and some more improved hitech than f-22,but meet the speed or punching power,movablitily of f-22 it will fall some what short.But in slower and operations closer to the ground the jsf will rule.
What do people think about the increased costs associated with having a 2 warplane fleet, training, logistics, simulators, etc Especially when the airforce is of a more modest size like that of the RAAF ? The F-35 is, will be, an exspensive warplane that will more than likely just become more exspensive, surely the one plane airforce was going to bring some real cost savings, and now that will surely evaporate.
Thoughts please.
Thoughts please.
We've already got a two-type fleet, so it's nothing new. I doubt the F-35 will be more expensive to operate than the current jets - sure the continuous software updates will cost, but that's going to be the same for any 5th gen fighter. The day-to-day costs will probably be quite low.
2 hours to midnight here...happy new year all!!!!
Magoo
Magoo, let me ask you this, what you think to see 25% plus of the airforce be the F-18E/F rather an F-35 because the project is behind ? The F-18E/F does have some good qualities for sure, and its no lemon at all, lets face it its the plane of choise for the USN ( the worlds 4th largest airforce).
My point was also, long term training and logistical costs would be reduced with one plane which would help to off set the high up front costs of F-35A
My point was also, long term training and logistical costs would be reduced with one plane which would help to off set the high up front costs of F-35A
As I have mentioned elsewhere, IMHO the urgent requirement for the procurement of the F-18E/F aircraft is not for the immediate replacement of the F-11C, but to provide cover for the F-18A/B during the CBR program, do to the aircraft running out of flying hours. Once this is well under way then the F-111C will be retired. The only alternative would be to drastically reduce the flying rate of the F-18A/B fleet. In my opinion the RAAF should talk nicely to the USN and obtain early delivery slots in 2008.
Either way the RAAF will have to operate a two-fighter fleet. A single fight fleet is no longer possible. Neither the F-111C nor the F-18A/B fleet can be supported without the infusing of new wings. The F/A-18E/F can support both fleets until the introduction of the F-35A. Other platforms would not be able to provide such support in a cost effective manner.
I would like to see the RAAF get another 12 F/A-18E/F obtained from USN delivery slots in 2008.
I am worried that if the RAAF are flying the F-18A/B near the planned flying rate (200hrs per year) that the CBR program (and the other modification programs HUG 1 & HUG 2) will result in drastic reductions in the operational capability.
Chris
Interim unofficial discussions have already generated a committment by the USN to break their own delivery cycle so as to allow RAAF to get platforms.
At the ASC ship lift launch in adelaide a few weeks ago, it was unofficially indicated by some of the vendors people that if push came to shove, we could realise platforms as early as end 2007. Magoo has provided other dates which are more realistic, but it shows that the idle chatter is more than just "idle chatter".
Dr P
Scroll back through this, the F-35 vs F-22 and the F-111 2020 threads, and you'll see this has been answered before in detail.
However, in brief, I don't believe we should place all our eggs in one basket. I believe a two-tiered combat force (and NOT necessarily one tier more capable than the other) provides inherent flexibility that a single type cannot provide. Sure, it might be cheaper to operate a single type...until that type has to be grounded for any significant period of time due to a design or maintenance issue. Plus, these days air forces don't stock-pile huge warehouses full of spare parts 'in case' they are needed. If a jet breaks, it will transmit exactly what's wrong back to its home base before it lands, the flight line engineers will have a new part ordered online, and it will arrive via FedEx within 24 to 48-hours. Only commonly used or really high value spares (e.g engines) will be kept as spares.
I have a lot of time for the Super Hornet's capabilities. Although I would agree with Occum that it is not a ball-tearing dogfighter, it's radar, its integrated sensors, its datalinking ability and potential, its advanced cockpit displays and avionics, its growth potential and its weapons spread are pretty impressive, and there's more to come. Many of these systems while, not being the equivalent of those in the 5th generation jets, are more advanced than anything we have now and thus would provide the RAAF with a flatter learning curve before the 5th gen arrives.
The RAAF is already familiar with the Hornet. Although the jets only share 25% of their parts (I thought it was less actually), they are essentially cast from the same mould and therefore engineers will essentially be familiar with how the thing comes together. Aircrews will also be comfortable jumping from the Classic into the Super (Boeing says it takes 5 rides to convert from Classic to Super, "which is 4 more than necessary!"). The RAAF already has support agreements and infrastructure in place with the USN and with Boeing, and these can easily be rolled over to the Super.
I do, however, have one problem with the Super buy. If it goes ahead which is highly probable, it means the any chance of an F-22 acquisition will likely be gone due to the timing. If we want to get into F-22s, time is running out and we need to start making the right noises in Washington very soon to make that happen. USAF production, if it stays at 183, is currently scheduled to run dry in 2010, so we would need to have placed an order by I would guess early 2008 at the very latest for deliveries to start from 2011, just a year or two after the Supers start arriving. The RAAF is not going to have the "head space" nor the resources to induct two new combat types in such a short period of time. In fact, I'd be interested in Occum's opinion on this.
Cheers
Magoo
Depends on three things really...
1) Whether some INTELLIGENT debate on the issue can be generated.
B) Who's in government - Labor has said we should get it, but then again, they're in opposition at the moment and they'll say anything to get elected...
and...
iii) Whether they really cost $190m each or not. I suspect if the timing is right and the USAF buys more, this may be more like A$150m each which isn't too much more than an LRIP F-35.
The F-22 is not barred from foreign sale; the Obey Ammendment ONLY prevents the Pentagon from supporting FMS sales activity using US taxpayers' money. I'm sure Occum can elaborate, but if a trusted ally like Australia or the Uk or Japan were to ask for the jet, I'm confident it could be made available.
Magoo
A single fleet of Super Hornets is definitely possible.
When spending 16 billion on a new fleet of aircraft the money we have invested in the JSF is pocket money. We could simply cut our losses
If we get the Super Hornets and they perform well then their is a some chance we might buy more.
If the JSF price is significantly greater than the Super Hornets then their is incentive to just buy more Super Hornets.
If the JSF only cost 10% more then we would go with the JSF. However, if the JSF cost 3 times as much as the Hornet, then we would definitely buy more hornets, anyone who thinks we will go with the JSF no matter what the price is has rocks in their head. The price of the JSF though i cant see reaching 50% higher than a Super Hornet, but i cant see it being cheaper.
The price point where we go with one or the other is not for me to decide. The capabilities, cost of running two fleet and future UCAV support will all have to be taken into consideration.
That said. If we go with the two tiered fleet i would rather see a squadron of F-22's and the rest being super Hornets.
24 F-22's.
48 Super Hornets
You buy the low aircraft in greater numbers.
Last edited:
I am really pleased to hear this news, currently I’m not on the “inside track” for RAAF data, but it was obvious from public data that new wings were required A.S.A.P.
Happy New Year.
Chris
Certainly the F-18E/F series would be a good buy for RAAF and it certainly will be upgraded for a rather long time too come, since its the USN principle combat plane, the F-35 will always be in a significant minority on the decks of a US carrier (on average one squardon per carrier wing). I read with interest the attention paid to the possbile purcahse of the F-22, ultimatly time will tell.
Whether or not the RAAF ends up with an all F35 fleet, a combination of the F35 and FA18F or a combination of the FA18F and F22, there seems no doubt that an initial purchase of FA18Fs will provide time to see what finally evolves with the JSF project. From what many have written it seems that UCAVs are a long way from being ready to meet Australian requirements in the desired timeframe.
If all goes well with the F35 then a scenario might comprise approx:
72 F35 (some F35Bs for the LHDs would be nice but I'm not holding my breath)
24 FA18F
or
48 F35
48 FA18F
If the F35 fails to meet specs or fails to be ordered in sufficient numbers (thus forcing up the price) then it seems an alternative could be:
24/36 F22
48/72 FA18F
This presumes that the US will supply F22s to Australia but Magoo and others suggest this is possible.
I think an all SH solution looks risky as it would not provide an aircraft to meet the high end needs that the air combat force might face at some time in the future.
It would also seem unlikely that an all F35 fleet would eventuate if FA18Fs are purchased now unless they can be passed on to another force without too much loss to the RAAF.
Whether an initial FA18F order would replace Hornets or F111s is a moot point and arguments have been presented that support both options.
Whatever may happen in the future an early procurement of FA18Fs seems a sensible idea IMHO.