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

[phreeky]

B47s

B52s?

Having a force, Air-to-Air or Air-to-Ground, that relies soley on an individual aircraft type doesn't really sit well with me.

Although I know little of particular capabilities, I was always under the impression that the current Hornets can conduct some strike operations and, god forbid, the F-111s do actually have the capabilities to carry some short range Air-to-Air missiles (AIM-9 of some variety?), but no cannon nor anything with a longer range. At least we'd have something that could shoot down a Cessna 150 dropping grenades out the window, or more realistically attack an invading ship though if one of our aircraft types was grounded!

The RAAF talking/hiting of a progress of F-111+F/A-18A/B -> F/A-18A/B+F/A-18E/F -> F/A-18E/F+F35 force structures at least provides that sort of situation, up until the point when they suggest they'd like an entire F35 structure.

Even though it may amount to nothing, with the large number of F35s being delivered internationally, there is ultimately going to be a point in time where an incident will occur on an F35 somewhere that will cause the grounding of all F35s for some period of time, would there not?

 

[Tasman]

B52s?

The proposal was for 24 B-47E/RB-47E Statojets to be provided (not B52s - I don't think the US would ever have considered selling them to another country). The F111s were ordered in 1963 when the project was in its early days and there was never any hope of them becoming operational before about 1968 (as it happened they didn't arrive until 1973). Because of the worry about Indonesia at the time the government was keen to order something that would provide a sense of security. The B-47s were to be provided 'free of charge' (with Australia paying for refurbishing, spares, etc) in a direct deal between the Australian Defence Minister and the US Secretary of Defence. The air force, though, was less than enthusiastic and "by all accounts the decision not to acquire the B-47s was greeted with enormous sighs of relief by the RAAF!" When delays in the F111 program increased the urgency for the RAAF to replace its Canberras the RAAF opted for the F-4E Phantom II as a 'bridging' aircraft and this demonstrates RAAF thinking about the type of strike aircraft it wants, that is tactical strike reconnaissance, not strategic. That thinking is still seen today with the RAAF seeking aircraft like the F-35 and FA-18F.

Stewart Wilson, Vulcan, B-47 and B-52, Aerospace Publications, 1997

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-47_Stratojet

Cheers

 

[rjmaz1]

Can anyone point me to any material that seriously links an official Aussie request, or consideration, to purchase the B1b? Or, the Yank consideration to sell it? Is this just Internet fantasy?

The B-1b was at Avalon airshow many years back as it was proposed by the US to be a possible replacement to our current F-111's. Thats what i remember overhearing when i was there.

Imagine the cost of a bakers dozen, hiring and training the crews, the spare parts, the weapons, the basing, the bloody fuel? And when we, as far as I know, have never maintained a 75% operational rate.

5 B-1b aircraft would effectively replace up to 50 JSF aircraft in the strike role. I highly doubt training the crews for 5 aircraft would exceed that of 50 JSF. Five B-1b aircrafts total fuel consumption would also be far less than 50 JSF aircraft.

Having a 75% operational rate is not needed during peace time. Having only 2 of the 5 aircraft available at any moment would easily be good enough in peace time. Just as long as another two aircraft can be bought online in a couple weeks then it will work well. Buying a 6th aircraft, not restoring it and using purely for spare parts would be the best solution.

Thank you for replying to my post RZmaz1.
In my previous post I referred to the fact "That this equipment fulfill politically mandated strategic requirements is a given".

What this means is that if it is a requirement for the RAAF to be able to bomb targets into Asia at strategic type ranges than your suggestion would have validity. However to my knowledge it has never been and most likely never be a requirement for the RAAF.

I do not propose the B-1b to be used as a stretegic bomber deep into Asia. I prefer it to be recognised as a direct replacement for the F-111. The F-111 in alot of missions still requires inflight refueling if it needs to fly fast and/or low. The B-1b would eliminate inflight refueling from all of the current F-111 mission profiles.

The B-1b would be able to use afterburners extensively and fly at low altitudes for longer as it will have the fuel to spare. It has enoguh fuel that it could fly supersonic for most of the mission, a perfect match for the super cruising F-22.

To top it off being able to deliver multiple F-111 aircraft loads of weapons makes it an excellent option. So 5 B-1b's could carry the same load of say 20 F-111's.

 

[Todjaeger]

B-1B for Australia?

Currently, the RAAF is looking at getting approximately 100 F-35 JSF to cover the A-to-A, Strike and a few other mission roles. The JSF is expected to have sufficient capabilities to fufill the different RAAF requirements for MRCA. It is important to note that the RAAF wants 100 aircraft. Having a total of only 30 aircraft, even if individually the aircraft are more capable, will not meet the requirement.

Ignoring that the US at present will NOT sell the F-22 to anyone, 24 F-22 can't take the place of 100 F-35. While an F-22 might be equal to 4 JSF in A-to-A (it will be some time I imagine before anyone knos what the ratio is) having such a low number as 24 means far less available aircraft to defend Australia. Also, the impact of maintenance, repairs, or combat attrition will be felt much sooner, and with greater (worse) effect. Imagine, 2 F-22 sidelined for maintenance & refueling, that's 8% of the RAAF air combat force.

Similarly 5 B-1B, while having greater range and capacity, don't make for an effective addition to the F-22 because a B-1B is a strategic strike asset. It won't be able to engage in A-to-A, and for missions like CAS, maritime strike, etc. it would be overkill. It'd be like going rabit hunting with a 0.50 cal. and hand grenades (sounds fun though ) A B-1B can carry enough conventional ordnance to devastate a city on its own, and unless Australia is looking to achieve that capacity, bigger is not better. As indicated above with the limited number of F-22s, with only 5 in inventory, each aircraft down for maintenance, repair or combat losses is 20% of max available strike strength. If, for some reason Australia needed to hit six different targets, unless the targets are near each other (or RAAF has other aircraft) then 5 B-1B isn't enough. And again, ignoring whether or not the US would sell any, even from the boneyard, which is questionable.

-Cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Just for anyone interested, here's a great video of the of an RAAF pig taking out the north korean container ship Pong Su with a couple of 2000 pound Paveway II's (i think). Its a damn good show.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5ofn4l1Hw4

 

[Rich]

The B-1b was at Avalon airshow many years back as it was proposed by the US to be a possible replacement to our current F-111's. Thats what i remember overhearing when i was there.

Tenuous. You have to do better. You should hear what I "over hear" at every car show Ive been to.

5 B-1b aircraft would effectively replace up to 50 JSF aircraft in the strike role. I highly doubt training the crews for 5 aircraft would exceed that of 50 JSF. Five B-1b aircrafts total fuel consumption would also be far less than 50 JSF aircraft.

5 means you'll be able to keep about 2 flying at a time. Thats about the rate we've achieved even with the endless resources of the stupid Yank taxpayer. Also, you'd be spending mucho dinero on a truck that is out sized to deliver "most" of your ordinance for "most" of your conceivable missions. This is the era of smart weaponry and your going to have a 1st class cruise missile that can easily be trucked by a C-130, if you can find a way to hang the thing off it.

Oh, I see. Well during "peacetime" you really dont need any operational right? The trick is to keep enough operational to be able to make a useful contribution in an emergency.

You bought the re-fuelers already right? I cant remember . Regardless what your flying, B1bs, F-35s, pigs, B-17s, F-18s, the re-fuelers give you a nice edge and safety cushion. The re-fuelers are a separate issue. Frankly you should be thrilled with the capability they give you regardless of strategic bombers.

The future of the RAAF is standoff precision weapons, stealth, 1st world avionics, re-fueling in air, outstanding training, and networked lethality. Not a bomber that belongs in another era. The thing has been about as useful to us as tits on a Bull. So how is it going to be useful to you?

B1b's supported by F-22s? C'mon my friend, get a grip!

 

[Tasman]

Just for anyone interested, here's a great video of the of an RAAF pig taking out the north korean container ship Pong Su with a couple of 2000 pound Paveway II's (i think). Its a damn good show.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5ofn4l1Hw4

Thanks Ozzy. I remember seeing this on the TV news some time ago. Unfortunately there seems to be a problem with the link. I tried it and ended up with the message "The video you have requested is not available." Has anyone else managed to get it to run?

Cheers

 

[Waylander]

The same for me.

 

[Falstaff]

For me too. Perhaps you can provide the search terms?

 

[ronin-X]

This should be what you're after..... a nice IR shot of the bombs slaming into the side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQeWD6hm6Ak

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQeWD6hm6Ak

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

sorry guys, it seems its been flaged by a user for some reason, but i was signed in when i tested the link, the name of the video is "Pong Su Sinking". I Dont know why this has been flaged, i mean they showed it on the news.

 

[Tasman]

This should be what you're after..... a nice IR shot of the bombs slaming into the side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQeWD6hm6Ak

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQeWD6hm6Ak

Thanks ronin-X. Excellent video! Perhaps it was a pity the drug traffickers were not still on board!

Cheers

 

[old faithful]

Good one ronin,ta. Would like to see more like it go the same way.

 

[Pathfinder-X]

F-22 Flight Disrupted by International Date Line

Six Lockheed F-22 Raptors have Y2K-esque glitch of their own over the Pacific


Lockheed’s F-22 Raptor is the most advanced fighter in the world with its stealth capabilities, advanced radar, state of the art weapons systems and ultra-efficient turbofans which allow the F-22 to "supercruise" at supersonic speeds without an afterburner. The Raptor has gone up against the best that the US Air Force and Navy has to offer taking out F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18 Super Hornets during simulated war games in Alaska. The Raptor-led "Blue Air" team was able to rack up an impressive 241-to-2 kill ratio during the exercise against the "Red Air" threat -- the two kills on the blue team were from the 30-year old F-15 teammates and not the new Raptors.

But while the simulated war games were a somewhat easy feat for the Raptor, something more mundane was able to cripple six aircraft on a 12 to 15 hours flight from Hawaii to Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan. The U.S. Air Force's mighty Raptor was felled by the International Date Line (IDL).

When the group of Raptors crossed over the IDL, multiple computer systems crashed on the planes. Everything from fuel subsystems, to navigation and partial communications were completely taken offline. Numerous attempts were made to "reboot" the systems to no avail.

Luckily for the Raptors, there were no weather issues that day so visibility was not a problem. Also, the Raptors had their refueling tankers as guide dogs to "carry" them back to safety. "They needed help. Had they gotten separated from their tankers or had the weather been bad, they had no attitude reference. They had no communications or navigation," said Retired Air Force Major General Don Shepperd. "They would have turned around and probably could have found the Hawaiian Islands. But if the weather had been bad on approach, there could have been real trouble.”

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6225

I'm no computer expert, but this story seems a bit wild. Perhaps somebody here could offer an explanation?

 

[Occum]

Latest Jsf Costing

For those who might be interested, here is a summary of the latest costing for the CTOL JSF from the US President's Budget Proposal to Congress for the US Defence Budget FY08.

Year........Unit Procurement Cost......Acft.Nos
.....................(US$M)
2008............$ 243.619...FY08..............2
2009............$ 238.286...FY09..............6
2010............$ 204.776...FY10..............8
2011............$ 147.671...FY11.............12
2012............$ 117.002...FY12.............42
2013............$ 108.805...FY13.............48

These data come from Exhibit P-40 from the budget proposal papers which shows the estimated costs out to 2013 for the FYDP. See attached copy of P-40.

These costings do not include the effects of any reduction in the rate of delivery (the 110 down to 48) since this action is subject to what the Congress does with the proposal and is not intended to start till 2013.

The SAR (Selected Acquisition Report) up to Dec06 is due out in about two weeks, along with the next in the series of GAO Reports on the JSF Program, both of which have some pretty interesting stuff in them.

 

[windscorpion]

Reminds me of the story of the jet fighters that flipped over as they crossed the equator, if that is true of course

 

[Tasman]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6225

I'm no computer expert, but this story seems a bit wild. Perhaps somebody here could offer an explanation?

Remember the effort and expense that went into ensuring computer programs wouldn't fall over on 1/1/2000! It's amazing how some computer glitches suddenly appear in a totally unexpected way, although you would think that this was perhaps a situation that should have been allowed for. I bet the programs in other new designs will be getting the once over to ensure that a similar fault does not show up with them. Thank goodness the Raptors flew over the date line and exposed the glitch. Better that it was discovered now rather than causing a problem in a combat situation. I gather from the article that it has now been fixed.

Cheers

 

[swerve]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6225

I'm no computer expert, but this story seems a bit wild. Perhaps somebody here could offer an explanation?

It's not the first time. The F-20 prototypes had a very similar problem in about 1984 or 1985, but going the other way across the line. Navigation went haywire when he crossed the 180th meridian. In that case, the pilot was flying alone*, but still had his radio and a compass. Traced to the wrong sign (- vs +) in a calculation.

*There were two, going round the world in easy stages on a marketing tour, but one had a problem, so the second carried on back to the USA alone.

They got there in the end. Seems to have been fixed quite quickly once they returned to Hawaii. I presume the fix will be applied to the rest of the fleet.

 

[Rich]

Imagine those Pilots having to bail on 2 billion $$ in aircraft just because of faulty code? I never flew but I do hope they still teach basic navigation at USAF flight school. If they dont I bet they do now.

 

[swerve]

Remember the effort and expense that went into ensuring computer programs wouldn't fall over on 1/1/2000! ...

Cheers

And most of that effort & expense was wasted. I spent months devising tests to prove to people with remarkably little ability to follow simple logic (senior managers, mostly) that problems which I knew didn't exist really didn't exist, & a few days playing cards & watching TV (because of lack of faults to fix) in the office, being paid several times my usual rate, when I'd rather have been at parties. Yes, there were faults we needed to fix (most due to very sloppy programming - the built in date handling routines on all the computers we were using were fine, & problems only arose where they weren't used), but a tiny fraction of the number that senior management imagined. We could have spent 10% of the effort & been sort of OK, with a few minor problems to fix later, or 20% of the effort & been sure. One of the biggest problems was finding & removing all the too too clever bits of code intelligent idiots had written to get round the end of the century not being a leap year, when it was, because it was divisible by 400. Grrrrr! But that wouldn't have gone wrong until February 29th.

Ah well, it made me some money. Shouldn't grumble. And I digress . . .