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

[alexsa]

Why all this concentration on NK in the examples presented here?
NK is at least the most favorable country to catch a missile during the boost phase and even there you hav to be very fast.
Just look at contries like Iran, Pakistan, India, Russia onfloorl: ) and others.
Much much bigger.

So, now I'm out and leave you guys with the knowledge in aviation alone again.

Totally correct which is my problem with suggesting an F-22 with AMRAAM can do anything.

The attachment to my e-mail suggests that a system based on a missile with a 400 to 700km range, high speed and a hit to kill capability to resolve this issue.

Building something based on/evolved from PAC3 may do this. AMRAAM ......... forget it.

 

[Magoo]

Attached is a link to a very interesting transcript of a conversation with the Australian Defence Minister's aerospace advisor which just highlights the arrogance of some of these bureaucrats!!!

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Note-2007-1.html

Cheers

Magoo

 

[Tasman]

Attached is a link to a very interesting transcript of a conversation with the Australian Defence Minister's aerospace advisor which just highlights the arrogance of some of these bureaucrats!!!

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Note-2007-1.html

Cheers

Magoo

Good grief Magoo. It's a like a bad dream to think that the minister is getting advice of this quality! It makes you wonder about the capacity of the whole defence bureaucracy to provide well informed advice and make the best possible recommendations.

:shudder

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

Denis Hughes - No, the Minister will only look at it when the Committee brings down its findings. That is the way it works.

The fact that the DLO is out of his depth doesn't alter the fact that the Minister (any Minister) will not read findings until after debriefed by the team he selects as experts. Those experts will generally be selected under advisement by the peer user group (ie EAAF/RAN/Army etc....)

Insisting that the Minister breach convention and appropriate practice is a futile exercise and only serves to isolate the questioner/interviewer. Its outside of the purvue and competency of the Minister - and he/she certainly will not review submissions ahead of the review group.

Its a nonsense to think otherwise.

From that point on, the interviewer blew any chance of engaging at a meaningful level.

 

[Occum]

Why not tell us all a joke ... even a 'knock-knock' would be funnier.

GF,

Regarding your comments on the transcript of a meeting between Mr John Peake, concerned member of the public, and Mr Denis Hughes, Aerospace Adviser to the Minister for Defence -

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Note-2007-1.html

let me see if I have correctly understood what you are saying here.

From that point on, the interviewer blew any chance of engaging at a meaningful level.

Do you mean that if you don't agree with a system or process being advocated by the person you are talking with, then from that point on you should not expect to have any meaningful exchange? Notwithstanding the evidence in this whole air combat capability debate would suggest you are right, this is a pretty cynical way to look at things. If this really is the outcome of questioning a process (eg. a 'convention' or supposedly 'appropriate practice'), then how can continuous improvement practices be applied. A little bit moribund if not dysfunctional, don't you think?

As to this particular meeting, given the fairly open, free flowing discussion and candour that ensued between Mr Hughes and Mr Peake following said disagreement, as recorded in his transcript of the meeting, it looks like your observation (at least in this case) is somewhat off the mark (like, totally).

Insisting that the Minister breach convention and appropriate practice is a futile exercise and only serves to isolate the questioner/interviewer.

Reading submissions and Hansard is a "breach of convention"? Do you really believe this to be true or are you just having a bit of fun? The "appropriate practice" is not reading submissions nor Hansard? Again, really???

The fact that the DLO is out of his depth doesn't alter the fact that the Minister (any Minister) will not read findings until after debriefed by the team he selects as experts. Those experts will generally be selected under advisement by the peer user group (ie EAAF/RAN/Army etc....)

Don't you think this is a bit 'fox in the henhouse' or 'Dracula in charge of the blood bank'? Or, do you really believe this is how things should be done?

Where is the 'common sense test' in all of this and the 'testing of the evidence' which this particular Minister for Defence declared before the Australian people that he would do? How can getting both sides of an argument presented by only one side (in your vernacular 'by the peer user group') possibly be called "appropriate practice"?

Its outside of the purvue and competency of the Minister - and he/she certainly will not review submissions ahead of the review group.

This is a bit of a worry, particularly when, according to Mr Denis Hughes, "the Defence hierarchy are not experts!"

Also, I suggest the Prime Minister and the rest of the Parliament, along with most of Australia would disagree that these matters are outside "the purvue <sic>... of the Minister".

Its a nonsense to think otherwise.

You are right, this is a load of nonsense, even if it was for fun.

 

[scraw]

would the Minister please take 2 days off

John Peake - Why do you people always say that the F-111 is "old" when you've just bought the, what, 1960s vintage Super Seasprite - and I am not saying this is wrong, but ....

Denis Hughes - (He started talking about stress on the airframes and ended with)......The age of the airframes is not the issue with these helicopters. This is something I know about and these airframes are zero lifed.

John Peake - Yes, its like a bomber goes to its target, drops bombs and comes back - no stress when compared to a dog fighter like the F/A-18 that twists and turns, etc. and is under much greater stress and they are, what, 1980s vintage.

Denis Hughes - Yes. Look, the big fear in Defence is for who ever signs off that the aircraft is airworthy. Do you know that we can buy some components - exactly the same as what we want, which are much cheaper from a car dealer down the road but we don't because its not stamped 'Approved' (or similar wording).

John Peake - Why can't Defence answer the criticisms with submissions (to the inquiry)?

Denis Hughes - Look, we deliberately don't ... if we answer one question, they will say "But..." And ask another. It will never stop. It invites more questions.

John Peake - Why don't you ask the Air Power Australia people to come in to explain to them?

Denis Hughes - No, it's the same. They won't be satisfied. You know, John, some people have vested interests.

John Peake - Yeah, mine is my Grandchildren's security.

Honestly... what sort of standard is this?

 

[Occum]

Has anyone seen this 'big analysis and submission from Defence' that Mr Denis Hughes referred to in this meeting 4 months ago, back in September last year?

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Note-2007-1.html

Response to Scraw (Post #384) - It would appear the Minister is going to need to take a bit more than two days (off) to fix this mess, maybe starting with looking for an aerospace adviser with a few more smarts!

On the matter of anwering questions, one is left wondering if Mr Denis Hughes has ever heard of what responses that raise more questions than they answer are known as?

These are called poor or inadequate responses! DOH!


:nutkick

 

[gf0012-aust]

GF,
let me see if I have correctly understood what you are saying here.
..........................

Also, I suggest the Prime Minister and the rest of the Parliament, along with most of Australia would disagree that these matters are outside "the purvue <sic>... of the Minister".

You know as well as I do that the Minister does not review submissions ahead of the nominated panel - so its academic when the interviewer takes that line of questioning.


The issue of purvue is the appropriate flow of engagement - not whether the Minister gets to read the submissions first and thus is seen as the independant decision maker de riguer for purchase of "platform x". The minister is not the technical panel, he's in no position to make any decision about any submission (sans advice) apart from commenting about sense and logic, grammatical quality and spelling etc... He acts under advisement. The DLO (bless his pompous heart) is not the panel, not the RAAF, and certainly not the technical group - he is (and he seems to have misunderstood his importance) - the "gatekeeper" if not the gopher for all media liaison issues.

If the Minister used to work at a tech level for Lockmart, Boeing, Bert Rutan, Ben Rich etc... then maybe he'd have a degree of qualification to comment in absentia and ahead of the nominated panel members - otherwise, like all Ministers he gets a series of briefings that are designed to give him clarity of thought as to where the ball should bounce next - even then it will be under advisement.

Putting the DLO under the hammer and causing him to (quite rightly so) defend the issue of process wrt to DefMin has only resulted in further ostracision IMV. That was just plain stupid tactics when a more subcutaneous but less confrontational effort would have gained more ground.

The DLO might well be a dill, but he was handed a "get out of gaol card" for free as well.

 

[Tasman]

Thanks for the info about the process gf. It makes me feel a bit more confident about the system, if not the DLO. I have to say that recently the Department seems to have been much more decisive in its actions (e.g. the C17 and M1A purchases), so IMO, they are starting to get some things right.

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thanks for the info about the process gf. It makes me feel a bit more confident about the system, if not the DLO. I have to say that recently the Department seems to have been much more decisive in its actions (e.g. the C17 and M1A purchases), so IMO, they are starting to get some things right.

Cheers

added the following to my prev.

"The DLO (bless his pompous heart) is not the panel, not the RAAF, and certainly not the technical group - he is (and he seems to have misunderstood his importance) - the "gatekeeper" if not the gopher for all media liaison issues."

 

[Tasman]

The Defence Minister's press release in the Defence Department's website on 1st February seems to clarify current thinking in defence re the JSF etc:

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

Australia’s planned acquisition of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) remains on track.

Initial Operational Capability of the first squadron of JSF is expected in 2014/2015.

In December I signed on behalf of the Australian Government the JSF Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development (PSFD) Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).

The full complement of JSF will be phased in over the next decade.

Statements that JSF will be far less capable than initially thought are simply incorrect. There has been no reduction in the ability of the JSF to conduct its full range of air-to-air and air-to-ground roles.

The F-22 is clearly extremely capable in air-to-air roles, but its air-to-surface capabilities do not cover the full range of roles required by Australia.

Defence assessments show that the JSF will allow Australia to maintain its regional capability edge well into the future.

Claims that the JSF’s electro-optical capability “only worked in clear skies” are misleading. It is a simple fact of physics that all electro-optic systems work only in relatively clear skies. This characteristic relates to all aircraft and all systems, not just the JSF.

For all-weather target detection the JSF will use its Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, the world's most advance radar in a fighter aircraft.

There is no proposal to extend the life of the F-111 to the year 2020. The F-111 will be withdrawn in the 2010 to 2012 timeframe. The decision on the exact timing will be made soon.

Australia will not accept an air combat capability shortfall during the transition to the JSF. A risk mitigation strategy being analysed is to obtain 24 Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft to ensure Australia’s air combat capability edge is maintained.

Our analysis supports the original assessment that the JSF is the most suitable aircraft for Australia’s needs.

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/NelsonMintpl.cfm?CurrentId=6341

It seems that extending the life of the F111 is still not being contemplated by the Department. IMO Defence seems to be remarkably optimistic re the F35 being in squadron service in 2014/15 but at least it is positioning itself to fill any capability gap that may arise. I suspect we are being 'softened up' for an FA18F purchase, which seems to me to be the only sensible thing to do with the F111 being withdrawn from 2010 and a lot of Hornet airframes being temporarily withdrawn for major upgrades.

Cheers

 

[Occum]

Hi Tasman,

Yep, I suspect you are right. Certainly the Boeing St Louis/US Navy Strategy (Project Archangel) has always been about getting Super Hornets in as the 'interim solution', then making them the final. This risk has been advised and explained to Defence for some years now (first raised in 2001) but they have continued to paint themselves into a corner (which is what Project Archangel has been relying on) and now they are there. There is a high probability that Australia will end up with Super Hornets as its new air combat capability and future generations of Australians will damn us beyond the grave.

See the response to the media release posted by Air Power Australia -

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Media-Release-050207-1.html

Cheers

 

[Tasman]

Thanks for the link Occum. It's a disturbing situation that defence seems to have dug itself into. Defence's obsession with one platform always looked to be a dangerous option and while it makes economic sense to have one aircraft that can do everything the history of this sort of approach demonstrates that:
1. We can end up with 'a jack of all trades, master of none' type aircraft,
2. A failure of a single type can lead to delays in the acquisition program, failure to be able to perform planned tasks, or perhaps a grounding of the entire fleet at some point after delivery, or maybe
3. We get an aircraft that does one role really well but where the ability to perform other missions is at least debateable and will almost certainly be costly because of modifications. For example reading back through this thread it seems to me that there are few who question the ability of the F22 to assure air dominance but its use in the strike role is constantly being debated (mainly because of the perceived cost of making the necessary modifications). It would also be a very costly aircraft to risk in the close support role.

Throughout this thread various proposals for a mixed air combat force have been put forward. It has also been questioned whether the US would sell the F22 to Australia. From my observation it seems that many of the American members, in particular, seem to think that an F22 sale to Oz would not be approved, although I would personally like to see this tested at a government to government level. I am not expert enough to be able to say whether the mix should be F22/F35, F22/FA18F, F35/FA18F or some other combination, but I would be very happy to see at least two different types wearing the kangaroo emblem ten years from now. I suspect we will and they will be a mix of F35s and FA18Fs. There has been a lot of convincing argument, though that suggests to me that one of the first two options (i.e. F22/F35 or F22/FA18F) would provide a more effective force, even if the numbers of F22s were comparatively low.

Cheers

 

[rjmaz1]

It seems that extending the life of the F111 is still not being contemplated by the Department.

Why would you extend the life of an aircraft that isn't stealthy, and the aircraft has to consume half of its fuel just to make up for the shortfall of not having stealthy?

A full blown war Against Indonesia would see the F-111's requiring inflight refueling on the way back. If you gave the JSF's a tanker they could hit all the targets the F-111 could, with far less risk to the aircraft. Not to mention the JSF can actually defend itself.

The JSF is far superior strike aircraft than the F-111.

I am glad that the evolved F-111 will definitley not go ahead. Even with upgrading avionics and AMRAAM the F-111 would still have to use its afterburners excessively and reduce its range to JSF levels. Unless the F-111 had a huge radar cross section reduction and could carry most bombs internally then it will always be a bad idea. Reducing the radar cross section would most likely have the same speed reduction that the B-1b suffered. An F-111 that can barely reach supersonic speeds is not good at all.

Not to mention that airborn radars would see a low altitude F-111 approaching from many miles away.

 

[rossfrb_1]

The Australian has two articles proclaiming the apparent imminent decision by the RAAF to purchase some Shornets

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21187027-31477,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21190098-31477,00.html

One article makes mention of the fact that the deal is worth US 3.1 billion, (including some spares).
That works out at roughly 129 million USD each.
That's not that far short of a Raptor isn't it?

rb

 

[Grand Danois]

The Australian has two articles proclaiming the apparent imminent decision by the RAAF to purchase some Shornets

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21187027-31477,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21190098-31477,00.html

One article makes mention of the fact that the deal is worth US 3.1 billion, (including some spares).
That works out at roughly 129 million USD each.
That's not that far short of a Raptor isn't it?

rb

Apparently not. However, it looks like UPC plus extra stuff.

It costs about $75 million for each warplane. They have a combat radius of 681 nautical miles and are equipped with the latest APG-79 radar.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21190098-31477,00.html

 

[rossfrb_1]

Apparently not. However, it looks like UPC plus extra stuff.

"...The Pentagon told the US Congress on Tuesday it was proposing to sell Australia 24 of the upgraded Hornets in a deal worth $US3.1 billion ($4 billion). The package includes the aircraft, 48 engines, radars, guided missile launchers and other military equipment..."

If you wanted to break down a Raptor's cost you could quote it as UPC (unit production cost?) plus radar, plus...

I'd have thought the UPC should include the radar and maybe a few other things, but these things are obviously considered as extras.

Is there such a thing as UFC, (unit flyaway cost)?
Anyone got any numbers on how much a Raptor might cost UFC vs Shornet? I'm presuming that the proposed Shornet deal is in 2007 $ whereas any possible Raptor pricing would be in 2008/9 $

 

[Grand Danois]

"...The Pentagon told the US Congress on Tuesday it was proposing to sell Australia 24 of the upgraded Hornets in a deal worth $US3.1 billion ($4 billion). The package includes the aircraft, 48 engines, radars, guided missile launchers and other military equipment..."

If you wanted to break down a Raptor's cost you could quote it as UPC (unit production cost?) plus radar, plus...

I'd have thought the UPC should include the radar and maybe a few other things, but these things are obviously considered as extras.

Also confused myself. But the SH UPC is 75-78 M$-ish. Why this is more expensive, I cannot explain.

Is there such a thing as UFC, (unit flyaway cost)?
Anyone got any numbers on how much a Raptor might cost UFC vs Shornet? I'm presuming that the proposed Shornet deal is in 2007 $ whereas any possible Raptor pricing would be in 2008/9 $

Not sure if there is an UFC acronym. There are fly away and recurrent fly away and whatnot, and it's all quite confusing. But UPC is reasonably safe I suppose. Don't think I have picked up a fly away cost of the SH, but the Raptor is/will be 106 M$ fly away and is currently 168 M$ UPC.

 

[Tasman]

"...The Pentagon told the US Congress on Tuesday it was proposing to sell Australia 24 of the upgraded Hornets in a deal worth $US3.1 billion ($4 billion). The package includes the aircraft, 48 engines, radars, guided missile launchers and other military equipment..."

If you wanted to break down a Raptor's cost you could quote it as UPC (unit production cost?) plus radar, plus...

I'd have thought the UPC should include the radar and maybe a few other things, but these things are obviously considered as extras.

Is there such a thing as UFC, (unit flyaway cost)?
Anyone got any numbers on how much a Raptor might cost UFC vs Shornet? I'm presuming that the proposed Shornet deal is in 2007 $ whereas any possible Raptor pricing would be in 2008/9 $

From my observations it seems that the costs associated with Oz defence purchases in recent times have usually included ongoing support costs, hence the apparently high price. For example the contract for the 11 RAN Seasprites has been quoted at $A 1 billion, much more than the unit costs for sales to Turkey and New Zealand, even allowing for additional equipment. I expect an Oz SH deal would also include ongoing costs. There is no way Australia would pay the same for an SH as they would for a Raptor. It would be interesting though to see a direct comparison with the same level of extras and ongoing support. Without a request from Australia for the Raptor, though, I can't see how we can get this info.

Cheers

 

[phreeky]

"Short notice surcharge"?

Isn't the sort of purchase timeframe we're looking at really, really short? I don't know about military purchase costs, but assuming they follow the trend of commercial purchases, you've gotta expect to pay a reasonable amount more for such a short timeframe. Or given the availability in the construction line of these aircraft would that not play a role here?