F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped
- Thread starter LancerMc
- Start date
Scardy cats .... sorry it is not fear I just don't see the point in taking a high risk approach to modify a very old air frame that will cost a great deal to maintain if only because there are so fuew in service. And I don't see it as responsilbe management to potentailly flush a large part of the budget downt he drain to do it.Amazing.
How is it that the Maritime Community in Australia is able to successfully operate, maintain and upgrade assets which, by the definitions applied by some members of the Aerospace Community, are 'orphans' yet supposed aviation professionals and aviation enthusiasts alike cringe at the thought when it comes to their chosen domain.
Remember, the current CDF (along with most RAAF senior officers) are on record as stating there is nothing that can replace the F-111.
Roll on the eradication of the cultural cringe and the scardy cats who are holding back and, in some cases, hell bent on killing off the Australia Aerospace Industry.
If an interim is requried and then the Rhino is a great option at your predicted cost for the evolved F-111. However I doubt your figures will hold if we were to go down this track .... remind me how long did the 142 intergration take? I suspect we wouel end up 10 years down the track having spent a bucket laod of money and not yet having a aircraft wiht the systems capabilty of the F-18F.
The Seasprite is a prime example of a one off upgrade of an old airframe. I cannot say theat has been a thunderosu sucess.
PETER671BT
New Member
The cost of a future frame swap for f-111 is just an idea,The US have done this with f-15,f-18 and so on.What they do is build aframe usaully without the cockpit,then they,ll take everything out of the old model and reinsert it into the new frame.That frame might be not exactly the same as the old frame.But is still design for all aspect of that plane,what I suggested is this for the f-111 as life extension until jsf are in. The cost by defence department was around for first three planes at three millon us or 380 millon aus.The major problem was tendering contract facilities to this.
The F-111 as a bomber doesn't need to be directly replaced IMO
Putting AMRAAM and AESA on an F-111 is turning it into a long range interceptor.
If we desperately needed a long range and fast interceptor we would buy the F-22 as the F-22 has a huge list of advantages and wouldn't cost much more.
Dividing even 2 billion dollars development costs over 30 aircraft is 66 million per aircraft. The actually parts and labour would most likely hit 100 million per aircraft BEST CASE!!!! Thats already more expensive than the JSF and Super Hornet, you cannot argue about that.
Worst case problems appear and the cost of development WILL rise. Look at every jet fighter program in history, none of them were under budget. Its possible that the development cost could double to 4 billion. Anything is possible. If the development cost did rise to 4 billion that will see the evolved F-111 costing over 150million per air frame.
Also if we made only 20 evolved F-111 aircraft that would put the price up towards 200 million. The evolved F-111 did not even mention F119 engines or reduced radar cross section. This would blow the costs out further and also to the point of 200 million per airframe.
It is good but it is not cost effective.
The most cost effectice options are always off the shelf items. Usually the best off the shelf items have a premium price tags that is usually overpriced for what you get. This also applies to cars, the premium models often have similar performance but a large price tag attached The higher price tank keeps it unique and often helps resale value.
This premium model would be the F-22 its the best but not as good as the price suggests. The most expensive item rarely is the most cost effective one.
If you go a rank or two down with the JSF and Super Hornet respectively you have now reached the most cost effective aircraft. These are the aircraft Australia should be buying as its budget is fairly limited.
Also saying those that are against the evolved F-111 scardy cats and that we dont support the Austatralia aerospace industry is incorrect. Australian Industry will benifit from the JSF, and it will also with the Super Hornet.
People say the Super Hornet or JSF will not be good for air superiority as they are designed for strike. Well i'd just like to remind you that Australia's air superiority fighter for the last 20 years has been a strike aircraft known as the F/A-18
People are really clutching at straws to get the F-22 and Evolved F-111.
Putting AMRAAM and AESA on an F-111 is turning it into a long range interceptor.
If we desperately needed a long range and fast interceptor we would buy the F-22 as the F-22 has a huge list of advantages and wouldn't cost much more.
Dividing even 2 billion dollars development costs over 30 aircraft is 66 million per aircraft. The actually parts and labour would most likely hit 100 million per aircraft BEST CASE!!!! Thats already more expensive than the JSF and Super Hornet, you cannot argue about that.
Worst case problems appear and the cost of development WILL rise. Look at every jet fighter program in history, none of them were under budget. Its possible that the development cost could double to 4 billion. Anything is possible. If the development cost did rise to 4 billion that will see the evolved F-111 costing over 150million per air frame.
Also if we made only 20 evolved F-111 aircraft that would put the price up towards 200 million. The evolved F-111 did not even mention F119 engines or reduced radar cross section. This would blow the costs out further and also to the point of 200 million per airframe.
It is good but it is not cost effective.
The most cost effectice options are always off the shelf items. Usually the best off the shelf items have a premium price tags that is usually overpriced for what you get. This also applies to cars, the premium models often have similar performance but a large price tag attached The higher price tank keeps it unique and often helps resale value.
This premium model would be the F-22 its the best but not as good as the price suggests. The most expensive item rarely is the most cost effective one.
If you go a rank or two down with the JSF and Super Hornet respectively you have now reached the most cost effective aircraft. These are the aircraft Australia should be buying as its budget is fairly limited.
Also saying those that are against the evolved F-111 scardy cats and that we dont support the Austatralia aerospace industry is incorrect. Australian Industry will benifit from the JSF, and it will also with the Super Hornet.
People say the Super Hornet or JSF will not be good for air superiority as they are designed for strike. Well i'd just like to remind you that Australia's air superiority fighter for the last 20 years has been a strike aircraft known as the F/A-18
People are really clutching at straws to get the F-22 and Evolved F-111.
Last edited:
PETER671BT
New Member
Sorry GUYS I mean't 300 millon.
I presume you're talking about the 'Collins' class SSKs, the 'Armidale' class patrol boats and the Seasprite helicopter. The 'Anzac' class is a development of the 'Meko' class, versions of which serve with a number of navies, so IMO, these ships are not orphans.Amazing.
How is it that the Maritime Community in Australia is able to successfully operate, maintain and upgrade assets which, by the definitions applied by some members of the Aerospace Community, are 'orphans' yet supposed aviation professionals and aviation enthusiasts alike cringe at the thought when it comes to their chosen domain.
Remember, the current CDF (along with most RAAF senior officers) are on record as stating there is nothing that can replace the F-111.
Roll on the eradication of the cultural cringe and the scardy cats who are holding back and, in some cases, hell bent on killing off the Australia Aerospace Industry.
The 'Collins' seem to have developed into fine submarines but everyone is aware of the lengthy and costly development program these submarines had to go through. My understanding is that Australia had few choices other than to go it alone with the SSK program as the USN had stopped building them, the UK was heading in the same direction with its last SSKs being sold to Canada, and European designs actually under construction were too small to meet Australian requirements.
The 'Armidales' seem to be a successful design but they are fairly basic vessels. I have no problem with this program and Australia has a proven record of being able to design and build successful patrol boats.
The Seasprite program has IMO been an unmitigated disaster and we would have been far better off with an 'off the shelf' purchase rather than attempting to rebuild old airframes and install a brand new electronics and computer package. I believe this program clearly demonstrates the potential perils of Australia going it alone with aviation projects, especially when small numbers are involved. For example the Wedgetail project has also now run into difficulty and I think the small production run (6) may have resulted in the RAAF perhaps having too little 'clout' with the manufacturer (let's hope they do solve the problems soon).
An Evolved F111 which may involve less than 30 aircraft looks dangerously close to the Seasprite scenario to me.
I see no realistic alternative to Australia joining with other countries (as with the JSF program) and acquiring the best 'off the shelf' aircraft that it can get. Whether this should be the F35, FA18F, F22, another aircraft or a combination of aircraft, I would be guided by what the ADF wants. We know at the moment that that is the F35.
Cheers
PETER671BT
New Member
I agree our industry has to improve,but with low numbers it probably not workable,we have too buy off the shelf.
contedicavour
New Member
Scorpion82
New Member
Thats wrong. The Raptor can be used for precision attacks already NOW. It can carry 2 GBU-32 JDAM internally and 4 externally. In future the USAF will integrate further weapons and upgraded avionics to make the Raptor an even better strike capable aircraft than now. However it would be possible to exclude the neccessary provisions for AG munitions and the JASDF has not much AG munitions at all, primarily ASMs for defence.
@Ths,
ever modern fighter today is basically multirole capable, so Japan would have strike capabilities with every kind of fighter in theory. The F-35 offers a similar combat radius to the F-22 with internal fuel alone, so it would provide a deep strike capability as well. I see no reason why the JASDF shouldn't select the F-22 when it would get the permission to be exported. Except other offers seem more suitable for them.
I'm not sure if Japan will be allowed to assemble there own F-35 or to integrate all their own stuff. Israels potential request to do so was denied by the US. Additionally the F-35 is currently not considered for the JASDF requirement. Other contenders are F-15FX, F/A-18E/F, Eurofighter and Rafale. All are strike capable, but you can't fly strike missions without the neccessary armament. And JASDF hasn't expressed interest in additional AG munitions AFAIK.
A Fine Example of the Very Point Being Made!
Risks that are properly managed equal opportunities. There is no gain without pain, no advance without risk.
:vamp
In today's day and age, the numbers of aircraft we are talking about are not 'low', relatively speaking, which is where the advantages for Australia reside, if people are prepared to excise the cultural cringe and risk aversity that pervades Defence today.
Risks that are properly managed equal opportunities. There is no gain without pain, no advance without risk.
:vamp
I find myself agreeing with you re this comment but at the same time I am scared that the RAAF will be left in a hole, like the navy with its Seasprites, if it relies too heavily on self sufficiency. I don't regard this as 'cultural cringe' but perhaps I am guilty of being adverse to risk, particularly what I regard as undue risk.
We do need to strike a balance. IMO we need to get as much high tech work done in Australia as possible but we also need to ensure that our airmen have the best possible equipment when they need it.
Cheers
as an example, its highly likely that the next Collins will be locally built again. The expertise now available for critical components is available locally - and is in fact now finessed to an export capability. None of that capability existed before, we had to develop it to fix up the Swedish stuff ups.
It may be 6-8 subs as a small build run, but its still worthwhile. The lesson for Collins are manifold:
- deal with the service white ants
- ensure the press is educated in advance and continuously
- short sheet the politicians at the state level so that they remember that national interests over ride state bragging rights (eg Bracks comments over the AWD were atrocious and mischievous and cavalier with the truth)
- manage the vendor
- validate grey technical areas with like minded and neutral technical partners.
To be fair to industry, Seasprite is an extreme example, and one in which Australian industry played a minimal part. With the benefit of 20:20 hindsight, the project was doomed to fail from the start due to Defence's insistence in going with cheaper refurbished 15 to 35 year old airframes, then the contractor tasked with integrating the combat system going belly up, then having to start the combat system integration from scratch, and all the while the project not being managed properly by both Defence and Kaman. Now you have to be shorter than 5'6" to fly the thing, and then only in daylight, clear weather, and with one eye on the pitch control lever!
As an aside, look for an announcement any day now of 6-8 ex-USN SH-60B airframes being acquired as training airframes, with the Navy's recently upgraded (and still in good nick) S-70B(A)s being reserved principally for operational use aboard the FFGs and Anzacs.
Anyway, I doubt we'll ever have the 'perfect storm' which was the Seasprite debacle ever again, and there will be many, MANY lessons learned from that one!
Re the FTS/APA F-111S (or Enhanced) proposal, which I guess is the original reason why we're all discussing risk here, if we had 40 or 50 C-model airframes from which to form a force of 36 upgraded operational jets, I would probably me more supportive of the concept. Whereas, if I read it properly, the proposal involves using C, F and G model airframes, all with their own little idiosyncracies, build dates, varying quality and amounts of 'boneyard time', and different systems. To essentially baseline three different types, then zero time critical components, and then re-engine and then substantially upgrade them, however attractive the prospect of the Pigs serving for another couple of decades may seem, looks to me like a potentially massive headache and a long drawn out process.
I can't help but think that Shep's "we don't know what we don't know" comment, when used in the F-111 upgrade context in which it was originally intended, is entirely apt in this case.
Cheers
Magoo
Not wanting to drift too far O/T here, but I couldn't agree with you more gf.
About two years ago I attended a media thing at the Randwick Barracks where DefMin Hill announced the Army's 171SQN would be moved to Holsworthy sooner rather than later to support the anti-terror ops of 4RAR, FedPol and visiting SAS units etc.
After he made his usual little speech and asked for questions, the local Channel 7 hack chimed in and started asking all about Collins. I can't remember if it coincided with anything going wrong with the program at the time (was it shortly after we almost lost a sub off Perth?), but it was about as far removed as one could get whilst remaining within the portfolio of why we, the aviation media, were there. Most of us just told him to STFU and save the O/T questions till after we were done with the subject at hand.
Cheers
Magoo
I well remember the vilification of the F111C from when it was ordered in 1963 right up until comparatively recent times. Even now sections of the media go 'feral' whenever a hint of a mishap occurs with this aircraft. In spite of this the 'Pig' is generally loved by the Oz public and is still sensational at airshows. It has also, IMHO, been one of the best purchases ever made by the ADF.
The problem is that its not only the broadsheet press that cause problems.
18 months ago when the kerfuffle over who would build the AWD's was peaking, there was a spray delivered about ASC and the Collins by Bracks. I ended up sending him a 2 page barrage about the need for Premiers to stick to state issues of substance and to distance themselves from commenting about things that they obviously either knew nothing about - or where their advice was obviously flawed if not faulty. I then listed all the tactical things that Collins had achieved since 2001 with a few USN opinions thrown in as well. I then pointed out the glorious track record of some Victorian SME and MME's and why it would be appropriate not to draw too much attention to issues of capability in Vic.
I took some joy in the fact that he didn't reply, and that he and members of his cabinet have never bagged Collins since.
The management of broadsheet press is one of the stellar objects of issue that has come out of Collins and the F-111. Hence my strong and firm belief that "accountability and capability" wars run in the general media will come to nought as they are firm in their resolve never to be held victim again. (and thats really the belief for both major parties). Labour are more than aware of this due to Collins.
The original risk assessment document of our current fleet came out of DSTO melbourne which came to the conclusion that the Super Hornets are needed. The defence minister obviously is acting on this information. DSTO know the life expectency of our aircraft better than anyone on here.
Based on discussion with one of the authors of that risk document the F-111 and Hornet fleet is fairly shagged. This person knows the situation better than anyone on here as well as Carlo Kopp. If the F-111's were in better condition then the evolved F-111 could be on the table. Australia would most likely have to get 30+ C model F-111's from the boneyard and use them like Magoo suggested.
If we are going to buy F111 aircraft from the boneyard and not even use our fleet, there are also some B1b bombers in the boneyard. It would be wiser to buy these, restore them and update them to the same standard of the operational aircraft. No risk with this option and fairly low cost. The USAF B1b have all the upgrades and data links needed and can carry all its weapons internally. Everything needed is available off the shelf. No risk and all the upgrades and fitting can be done by Australian Industry without the risk.
The B1b can travel the entire way to the target above Mach 1 and hit targets further away than any F-111. Its radar cross section is significantly smaller than the F-111. Its only downside is the ability to sprint at Mach 2 over short distances, but it can cruise over long distance at the same speed as the F-111.
The B1 aircraft have huge potentional for future growth, more than the F-111. Any upgrades the USAF adds to its fleet we can add to ours. It only costs US $20.3 million to bring the B-1s back from the boneyard to operational flight plus any upgrades needed. We could have 10 B1b aircraft purchased and completely operational with all USAF upgrades for LESS than the cost of the development only for the evolved F-111.
This idea is superior to the evolved F-111 idea, its cheaper and has less risk. Not only is the Super Hornets option better than the evolved F-111 but there are probably a dozen other options that Australian defence would consider before evolving the F-111.
10 B1b and 48 F-22 aircraft would be the ultimate mix. I could definitely sleep well at night with that mix
Now the B1b would scare any neighbour. So they could just sit on the ground with a 25% operational status to save money and keep the flight hours down. Its been proven with the B-2's that operational status was usually around 50% but during war time it is quickly raised to up to 90%.
If Australia needed 100 Super Hornets or JSF aircraft to cover every single mission from bombing to air to air combat then a B1b would equal 10 of these smaller aircraft when it comes to strike. This allows the B1b to drop all the bombs and significantly reduce the number of fighters required. Anti-ship features can be added and would offload the fighters even further.. The B1b would allow us to thin the fighter force to only three squadrons, and if the F-22 was used two squadrons would be more than enough.
Based on discussion with one of the authors of that risk document the F-111 and Hornet fleet is fairly shagged. This person knows the situation better than anyone on here as well as Carlo Kopp. If the F-111's were in better condition then the evolved F-111 could be on the table. Australia would most likely have to get 30+ C model F-111's from the boneyard and use them like Magoo suggested.
If we are going to buy F111 aircraft from the boneyard and not even use our fleet, there are also some B1b bombers in the boneyard. It would be wiser to buy these, restore them and update them to the same standard of the operational aircraft. No risk with this option and fairly low cost. The USAF B1b have all the upgrades and data links needed and can carry all its weapons internally. Everything needed is available off the shelf. No risk and all the upgrades and fitting can be done by Australian Industry without the risk.
The B1b can travel the entire way to the target above Mach 1 and hit targets further away than any F-111. Its radar cross section is significantly smaller than the F-111. Its only downside is the ability to sprint at Mach 2 over short distances, but it can cruise over long distance at the same speed as the F-111.
The B1 aircraft have huge potentional for future growth, more than the F-111. Any upgrades the USAF adds to its fleet we can add to ours. It only costs US $20.3 million to bring the B-1s back from the boneyard to operational flight plus any upgrades needed. We could have 10 B1b aircraft purchased and completely operational with all USAF upgrades for LESS than the cost of the development only for the evolved F-111.
This idea is superior to the evolved F-111 idea, its cheaper and has less risk. Not only is the Super Hornets option better than the evolved F-111 but there are probably a dozen other options that Australian defence would consider before evolving the F-111.
10 B1b and 48 F-22 aircraft would be the ultimate mix. I could definitely sleep well at night with that mix
Now the B1b would scare any neighbour. So they could just sit on the ground with a 25% operational status to save money and keep the flight hours down. Its been proven with the B-2's that operational status was usually around 50% but during war time it is quickly raised to up to 90%.
If Australia needed 100 Super Hornets or JSF aircraft to cover every single mission from bombing to air to air combat then a B1b would equal 10 of these smaller aircraft when it comes to strike. This allows the B1b to drop all the bombs and significantly reduce the number of fighters required. Anti-ship features can be added and would offload the fighters even further.. The B1b would allow us to thin the fighter force to only three squadrons, and if the F-22 was used two squadrons would be more than enough.
Last edited:
I'm not going to argue with differences between aircraft capabilities (B-1B + F-111C), but there are big issues with what you're suggesting rjmaz1 (and I'm also not necessarily saying we should take the evolved F-111 option either):
- pilot training, a big cost I imagine
- mechanical knowledge and training, also a massive downside to what you're suggesting
These who issues alone are BIG ones IMO, and in effect totally destroy the advantages of reviving an aircraft type altogether.
I'm curious to hear opinions however on if there is any advantages whatsoever in, when we receive some super hornets, keep a very small number of F-111s operational (and they should be able to stay operational for a long time if you halved the flying fleet). Or would such a small number not be advantageous enough given the support personnel and logistics required?
- pilot training, a big cost I imagine
- mechanical knowledge and training, also a massive downside to what you're suggesting
These who issues alone are BIG ones IMO, and in effect totally destroy the advantages of reviving an aircraft type altogether.
I'm curious to hear opinions however on if there is any advantages whatsoever in, when we receive some super hornets, keep a very small number of F-111s operational (and they should be able to stay operational for a long time if you halved the flying fleet). Or would such a small number not be advantageous enough given the support personnel and logistics required?
Would B1Bs be available for an Australian purchase?
10 aircraft seems a very small number, given that some would always be unavailable. If Australia went this way I believe at least 16 and preferably 20 would be needed. You have quoted $20.3 million to bring the aircraft up to date. What sort of price would Australia have to pay for their purchase? I presume the USAF wouldn't just give them away! Also what sort of manpower requirements would there be to operate and support a squadron of B1Bs and how would this compare with the requirements for a squadron of FA18Fs or F35As? What would be involved in terms of training and infrastructure to bring an aircraft of this type into service?
I agree that there are better options than evolving the F111 (much as I love it!).
10 B1b and 48 F-22 aircraft would be the ultimate mix. I could definitely sleep well at night with that mix
Make it 16 - 20 B1B and 48 F22 and I would be happier (I think I would also be dreaming!).
rjmaz, I found this an interesting alternative. Because of the stated preferences of the RAAF and what I expect would be a huge escalation of operating costs I can't see it happening, but a combination of say 1/2 squadrons of B1Bs and 2 of F22s (or 3 of FA18F/F35 etc) would certainly make a very potent force.
Cheers