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

[Occum]

A Tad Testy

The F-35 is not a dud. Its a better strike aircraft than the F-22. BETTER! It carrys more and of heavier types. Its also cheaper so we can afford more.

Oops! Would seem a somewhat raw nerve has been touched. If you read previous carefully, you will see that Super Dud is a play on words on Super Bug which refers, as I am sure you now realise, to the Super Hornet - that's the fourth generation derivative of the third generation aircraft that has somewhat less aerodynamic performance than it's third gen parent which, in turn, has somewhat less aerodynamic performance than, say, a MIG-29.

Answer me this.

How many weapons has the JSF carried, let alone delivered, let alone successfully employed to take out a target?

(Your use of the present tense is a little bit optimistic, don't you know).

When is this likely to occur?

What is the planned overall weapons payload capability of the JSF? Will it be able to lift such a payload with full internal fuel and if so, to what altitude and to what speed?

In what year will the various weapons envisaged for the aircraft actually be cleared off the JSF?

Now compare all this to what the F-22 can do today and will be able to do once it has completed its version of the Seek Eagle Program and when this will be.

The F-22 will always be a better strike aircraft for all the reasons previously discussed which is why General Mike Moseley said what he has said.

On the issue of costs, sadly the jury is still out on this one and will be for some time.

In the meantime, the costs are going up which is what this thread is all about.

You might want to take a look at the recently released GAO Report on the JSF Program, if you are not prepared to believe the above. For links to the report and the summary, see -

http://www.ausairpower.net/media.html

Strike is primary what we would use aircraft for.

Hold that thought and add to it interception (eg. cruise missile, cruise missile carrier, etc.) and a few other roles plus, importantly, the ability to survive in the a hostile Day 1 type environment, replete with such nasties known as Favorits, Gargoyles, grumbles and the like and take (eh, "strike") these nasties out to clear the way for other forces. See -

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Grumble-Gargoyle.html

Australia is not located in a place where complex air to air battles are going to occur. We could add all the planes in surrounding countries and barely get a mish mash of 1 24 plane squadron of operational modern planes.

Not sure the RAAF or any strategic analyst in Australia with the credentials to support the title, let alone Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, Burma, India, China, or even Japan (and, moreover, the USA) would agree with you on that one.

With the F-35 we will have more strike aircraft than ever before, with precision munitions.

More does not mean better (you should think about this for a bit) and precision munitions are precision munitions, irrespective of which delivery platform they are cleared off, though the overall weapon effectiveness can be influenced by such things as the launch platform's kinematics and markedly so.

Evolved F-111? That sounds like a budget black hole if there ever was one. Reskin, redesign, update avionics, re-engineer. Run an entire unique platform just for australia? It would be cheaper and easier and faster to develop a new aircraft. Look at the seasprites.

And you would know this because . . . . .?

Just out of interest, what are your qualifications and experience in matters of an aerospace nature?

 

[rjmaz1]

Response to Ocuum Post # 499.

This thread is entitled "Aussie JSF to outcost F-22s?".

It would be much appreciated if you kept on topic and not mention time and cost estimates of the evolved F-111 concept. The comparison and cost esimates should be between the F-22 and F-35 not the evolved F-111.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Rjmaz1

But the F35 will be much much better than any russian aircraft out there now, or in the foreseable future. The same reasoning is behind the F35 choice. So why is the 'big bad dog' so desperatly needed for the RAAF, especially when all it can do is dogfight (all be it very well) and we can only afford two squadrons, when there is a mutch more flexable platform out there, which we can afford to equip 4 squadrons with? Personally i think as long as it comes in at a reasonable cost, it is a much better option.

Yep spot on.. It seems alot of people are underestimating the performance of the JSF and compare it directly to the F-22.. Compare it to any other aircraft and the F-35 is a very good aircraft.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

occum: you seem to be the one who led this thread down the platform v platform or what plans are more suitable for the defence of austalia in the future track. Then you posted a link that showed the claimed cost savings in the evolved F111S/F22 plan. Statements like:

Maybe then we can start looking at 'What is Best' for Australia and what we, collectively, will leave its future generations.

tend to lead the thread away from just costs. You infered from said post that you disagreed with the Defences choice of the F35 and then posted a link outlining an alternative plan. So dont make statements like the one above if your not willing to debate the merits of them.

 

[Tasman]

This thread is supposed to be about costs, so if people are interested, they might want to take a look at the comparison on costs posted here -

http://www.ausairpower.net/media.html

You are invited to try to tear this apart since it is only through such robust debate can the 'What is Right' be elevated above the ad hominem based view of 'Who is Right'. Maybe then we can start looking at 'What is Best' for Australia and what we, collectively, will leave its future generations.

FYI - the figures on the left come from budget papers, ANAO reports, and Defence itself. The notes also go some way to explain the basis of the numbers presented.

One problem I have with the cost comparison chart is that some aircraft costs include ten year support and operational costs and others don’t. For example the Super Hornets are shown as averaging more per unit than the F-22s because of this, which we all know is not the case. It would be handy if the chart was consistent in the way aircraft costs are displayed.

Sorry I have to say this is a tad hyocritical given your rapterous promotion of the 'evolved F-111' which, by your own assertion is also outside the scope of this thread. And since you opened that can of worms how can you be in any way confident that you can achieve what you claim with an evovled F-111 givne the problem with the Seasprite, noting these are primarily avionics issues. Are you suggesting you are smater than Litton and Karman or are you playing down the risks.

What you propose with the evolved F111 is probably more ambitious than the Seasprite upgrade and if it goes wrong we spend a lot of money for nothing. Even if you get it right we still have an old orphaned airframe, with a large RCS, that cannot go on forever. Sorry I have to say that if past history is anything to go by (i.e the time taken for the 142 intergration) then I feel the risk is not worth it.

Finally back on track. I would love to see the F-22 in Australina colours as it is the best A2A platform around ..... it is not a bomber! It does not have the strike capablity of the F-35 and any costing should incorprate the full development of that feature if we are going to propose basing the RAAF soley around the F-22. I doubt the US will pay for this work if we are forced to pursue it. They, after will have the F-35, if the aircraft lives up to expectations.

Perhaps another way to look at it is that when the F-18F is to be repalced maybe the F-22 will be a cost effective option in its primary role (removiong the need to pay for the upgrades for a strike version) assuming the US build more as has often been aserted. The combination of the F-35 and F-22 would provide a formidable RAAF.

I thought you made some excellent points alexsa. I also feel that some of Occum's comments about others confining their posts to cost issues whilst himself pushing the merits of the F22/Evolved F111 and belittling the JSF and SH (or Super Dud as he likes calls it to emphasise the point) are somewhat hypocritical. That's a pity because there are many good points and a lot of good info in his posts.

I agree with what you say about the risks of the Evolved F111 project and I also think this looks to be a much more complex and risky program than the Seasprite. That is how I see the situation, and realistically, politicians, especially the present minister, are likely to see it the same way and are not going to support another risky program. Regrettably, the F111s, great aircraft that I agree they are, are going to be withdrawn when the FA-18Fs enter service. Even a change of government will not alter the FA18F (and therefore the F111) decision. The contract will be well in place by that time.

If the F-35 project does fall over, which I think is unlikely; we will have to look at alternatives on offer at that time. This would probably involve, IMO, additional FA-18Fs, supplemented by an air superiority type.

I think that as time goes on the chances of the US releasing the F-22 for export to Australia will increase. I imagine a change of government would result in a formal request to the USA to sell the aircraft to Australia. If the answer is positive we could then see it replace the FA-18Fs and maybe some of the planned F-35s. I can’t see the Labor Party wiping the whole JSF program unless something goes radically wrong with it but they might tinker with it. So, depending on what happens down the track, I think we could see a mix something like:

1. 75 F-35s plus 25 F-22s
2. 60 F-35s plus 40 F-22s
3. 60+ FA-18Fs plus 40 F-22s (or an alternative such as Eurofighter Typhoon if the Raptor is not available)

Cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

3 squadrons of F35's and a squadron of F22's would be one formidable mix. And with the super bug aquisition this becomes more likely as the last squadron wont need replacing untill 2020.

 

[Markus40]

It makes perfect sense i think to believe that the F35 will be purchased despite the problems, and they will be integrated along with the F18F.

I do think the F22 debate being thrown about is a bit of a Fantasy, as its definitly not the type of aircraft that Australia needs at the level of this aircrafts performance given the non IMMEDIATE and benign nature for a strict air defence role. Its not even a necessary requirement against the Indonesian Airforce which now have advanced Russian Aircraft. The F35 can deal with them sufficiently. The only time i believe the F22 would come in handy for Australia is where it would have a country like China with large numbers of sophisticated Russian and Chinese fighters. Its then a counter air combat force such as the F22 would come in handy, but thats unlikely due the distance Australia is from China. Taiwan could make good use of them with the threat of large numbers of fighters coming against it. But then again the US is closely guarding its F22 in any case and it would seem for the moment that they will sell them to their trusted allies.

It is true that the F22 is currently undergoing trials for a air to ground role using a Hi-Lo-Hi radius and as well as dropping ordinance at high altitude.

My personal understanding is that the F35 is a perfect aircraft for Australia and sooner or later it will pull through the testing requirements and according to the GAO report will be available at the determined sell stage. I am also hoping that Australia invests in the F35b for the RAN and can do this once the LHD of the Spanish design has been selected.

 

[Aussie Digger]

This post is a very good example of the presumptive reasoning, abductive and non sequitur arguments and the use of red herrings and 'benefit trawling' that have been the hallmarks of one side of this debate.

The table presented at:

http://www.ausairpower.net/media.html

is a comparative tool known in the trade as a 'comparator'. Working back through the points raised in the above post:

And your response is an excellent example of a person (or rather "group") whose mindset seems unable to accept criticism or a difference of opinion of any kind.

Particularly when the same such criticism as has been outlined by those who "hold the purse strings"...

5. Exchange Rate - The same risk hedged exchange rate has been used across the table, where applicable. Therefore, any variation in exchange rate will effect both sides of the ledger, so to speak. Obviously, exchange rate does not apply to work done and paid for in Australia. Raising 'exchange rate' as a source of variance to the accuracy of the data, particularly when it is only applied to one side of the argument, is a red herring and somewhat flawed reasoning.

Then consider yourself guilty my friend, as your sums do not add up, unless you're interested in "crystal ball" gazing.

The $6b dollar figure for the SH acquisition is in AUD. Your total for the F-22 acquisition has to be in USD, or else it's plainly wrong. Without direct access to the contract the USA has signed with LM, the best you can do is "guestimate" the price of any F-22A purchase. A "guestimation" does not seem to constitute the "hard data" that you seem to crave, in my book.

4. 2006 CRS Report - The figure of US$173 million in this report was representative of the average unit procurment cost (AUPC) of the current production numbers of F-22 aircraft for the US Air Force. In simple terms, that would have been about the cost of aircraft # AF-4090. See Note (v) beneath the table. All 185 aircraft in this production have been committed to the US Air Force. Any Australian or other foreign buy would be over and above this number and, therefore, further into the production. Just as senior officials in Defence are saying in relation to the JSF, the further into the full rate production, the lower the unit cost. Using this figure from the 2006 CRS Report is a non sequitur, a good example of a red herring and flawed reasoning.

And of course the USA would not put any premium on any such purchase would they? Nor would they include the cost of any upgrades to make it interoperable with other RAAF assets or suitable for the kinds of roles, RAAF would like to employ the aircraft in, for example: an EO/IR targetting system. They'd no doubt let us have the F-22A for cheaper than they've had to purchase it themselves...

3. Extensive Weapons and Sensor Package - Citing the imprimatur of the Minister for Defence, his "public acknowledgment today (20/3/07)" and such terms as 'extensive' is all very grand(iose) but no substitute for hard data. How much is this package worth?
Is it $237m, $500m or even $1Bn. If the latter (which it certainly is not), then, does this effect the overall conclusions that can be drawn from this comparative table? As for being 'fair', the cost used for the F-22 includes a cost estimate for armament which, when amortised across the proposed buy numbers, works out to around about 5 per cent of the average unit procurement cost. Again, this point is predicated on presumptive reasoning, is non sequitur in nature, and a red herring - as well as shows how this post misses the point of the cost comparison entirely. It is also a good example of an attempt at 'benefit trawling'.

The FMS announcement for the SH acquisition put the bill for the basic aircraft, tech support, spare engines, EW kit etc at US$3.1b, or AUD $3.8b at current exchange rates (21.03.07). AUD $2.2b or thereabouts is an awful lot of coin don't you agree? Plenty of weapons, sensors and support can be bought for that amount, no doubt. Does at least $2.2B affect your table at all?

Strange that an SH purchase will require such an extensive amount for support and an appropriate weapons types, but an F-22A acquisition won't. Or is someone else fond of those rose coloured glasses?

You've mentioned the SDB. I Haven't yet seen that weapon funded for ADF. Has anyone? Guess the USA being so glad of a foreign purchaser of an aircraft they deem too important to release or even market for international sale, will throw that in cost free? Which of course leads me to your next "point".

2. Australian Access to the F-22 - As has been said repeatedly on this forum and in other forums, including before Parliamentary oversight committees, because of the Obey Amendment and, moreover, the politics that now surround this issue, the US DoD cannot offer Australia the aircraft - we have to ask for it, and formally. Given, as is well known in Defence and Parliamentary circles, the Minister 'hates' the F-22, is he the right person to ask? Given, back in 2001, the new CAF at the time (now CDF) was the person who shut down the 'F-22 for Australia' responses coming out of the US Air Force, is he the right person to ask? As for the arguments presented, this post appears to assert some first hand knowledge of what Japan and Israel think about, and their intentions in relation to, the F-22. Based on the arguments presented in similar previous posts, it would be fair to assume this statement is based upon a not unbiased interpretation of reports in the media. Another fine example of presumptive reasoning leading to abductive and non sequitur argument.

I have no first hand knowledge of Israeli or Japanese defence acquisition policy. The only thing my previous post implied was that I have read the public announcements made by the Japanese and Israeli's in relation to this issue. Both have made remarkably similar statements in relation to this matter, statements that are virtually identical to those made by Defmin HILL and NELSON about this issue: F-22 is not for sale.

Now perhaps it could be a worldwide conspiracy, or perhaps a simple case of "no-one's formally asked for it yet"? Both Countries are (I hope you at least agree to this) in a much more threatening strategic environment than Australia, and could well benefit from the acknowledged (even by me) unsurpassed air to air combat capabilities of the F-22.

Funnily enough, despite the greater need, they still publicly acknowledge that they can't acquire the F-22. Strange isn't it?

1. HUG Project Budget - Firstly, the comparison is based upon the NACC and related activities. The original acquisition of the F/A-18 classics is not part of these activities and, therefore, any suggestion it be included is, in itself, a 'furphy' - a classic 'red herring'. The post is quite correct when it says that HUG Project funds have been expended. It is also quite correct in saying "that CBR remains a considerable part of that budget". However, what it doesn't say is that the figure used in the comparison ($2.92 Bn) is conservative, pre-dates the budgetary changes due to such things as the ALR2002/ALR-67V3 changeover but offsets the monies already expended with those that will need to be spent as the risks identified in the HUG and related deeper level maintenance activities (eg. Kapton insulated wiring replacement, fuel bladders, ASI 1 & 2 structural arisings, vapour seals, full strip/repaint, wing internals, etc) materialise. To leave the HUG Project costs out of the comparator, either in part or fully, would invalidate the comparison as it is, after all, a comparison between two options for the 'NACC Project and related activities' and the HUG Project is one of the activities in one of the options. Again, this post seems not to understand the purpose of such a comparison.

I understand your reasoning all too well. Perhaps I was unclear earlier. My post in relation to these comments was simply that comparing yet to be spent funds with already spent funds seems either a complete waste of time to me, or evidence of a somewhat more sinister agenda. Now you criticise me for taking the more positive road?

Even if the proposed APA force structure model were to be adopted entirely by ADF and Government, (an unlikely prospect in the EXTREME IMHO, though of the 2 combat types, I consider acquisition of F-22 more likely than upgrades of the F-111), the funds expended on the HUG to date cannot obviously be recovered. Some perhaps through the "sale of parts", (if a buyer could be found) but the majority is already gone.

The acquisition of the Hornet aircraft originally comment was somewhat ascerbic I agree, however the "funds already expended issue" seemed a blatantly obvious point to me...

A Relevant Question or Three:

By its very nature, tone and obvious intent, this post raises some interesting questions:

The F-22 is the 'meanest dog on the block' when it comes to air power. It would not only ensure Australia regains its fading regional air superiority status but would provide the air dominance capability to enable our country to continue to make valuable contributions to the maintenance of peace and security in the region.

I agree. What I don't agree with is, i) the idea that we CAN actually buy the aircraft, ii)that the F-22 is affordable as you alone repeatedly suggest and iii) that the F-22 is the ONLY way to achieve a similar effect, the effect of course being the important point, NOT the platform.

That said, what is so wrong with advocating the best for our fighting men and women, for our Nation and for future generations of Australians - particularly when the best is far more capable than, far more cost effective than, and far less risky than the current plans of the Department and its Minister?

Is it not the Australian way, part of the Great Australian Heritage, to seek out innovative, cost effective solutions to our Defence capability needs and isn't this what the people in Government and the Department keep asking of people in Defence and the Australian Defence Industry?

If so, what is the basis behind the nature, tone and intent of this post, with its red herrings, presumptive reasonings, abductive and non sequitur arguments, and benefit trawling?:shudder

Nothing, but "best" is a subjective argument and one you have failed to convince me (and many others) in. That the F-22 is the best air to air fighter, I do not doubt. That it's cheaper and less risky I DO doubt. Particularly when combined with your F-111 upgrade plan.

The "tone and intent" was a response to the challenge YOU invited. The "comparator" itself has "draft - pending finalisation of peer review" stamped across it. Clearly it is a work in progress. You SAID you wanted criticism about it. Is that not the case? Did you want mere subservience and automatic acceptance instead perhaps?


A quick thought in relation to your ideas about the effect on industrial "capacity" should the current withdrawal of the F-111 proceed. Which company actually runs the F-111 Weapon System Business Unit and manufactures both our Legacy Hornet and upcoming Super Hornet? I'm fairly certain it ain't Australian...

I await the inevitable reply...

Please don't feel offended if I don't get back to you immediately about this. I'm off to Victoria tomorrow, Avalon on friday and then a 9 day driving holiday, through Victoria and South Australia...

 

[Occum]

Request You Read the Material

Response to Aussie Digger Post # 516

It would seem from your post that the table you refer to might be a bit more difficult to understand than first thought.

For instance, though all the figures in the table itself are in Australian Dollars, your confusion in relation to the exchange rate issue suggests this might need to be made clearer. It could be that you have not read or, maybe, understood the notes at the bottom of the table. If so, let me know and I will see if they can be clarified for you.

As you will see from these notes, the costs cited for the F-22 are -

1. The average unit procurement cost (AUPC) of US$153 million that ACM Angus Houston advised to the Parliamentary Committee and in his Strategic Insight Paper published through ASPI.

2. The unit flyaway cost (UFC) of US$137 million that has been stated in various US Air Force publications over the past year as the price currently being paid.

3. An estimate of the AUPC for the purchase of 50 x F-22s after the current build of 185 for the US Air Force.

Since some people seem to be "very comfortable" with LM and senior Defence officials citing the average unit recurring flyaway cost (AURFC) in 2002 dollars as the price for the JSF, it was decided (rightly or wrongly) that the 2007 UFC of US$137 million would be used as the example in the table. Now even I think that was a bit cheeky myself but, hey, what the heck. However, as you can see, even if, say, US$200 million per unit were to be used, there would still be savings of over A$12 Bn to be had which I would be confident you would agree is a sh*t load of change!

As for your belief that one needs to know the contractual arrangements between LM and the US Air Force, not true. All that is needed to get a pretty good idea of the costs is to take a look at Exhibits P-5 and P-40 in the USAF Budget Proposal Papers each year.

Also, you might want to ask someone in Defence about the breakdown of the "around A$6 billion" for the SH. Your asserted figure for the "extensives" is just a tad high. As for the dollars, they are in 'base year' - the current estimate for what is likely to be paid (expended) over the three plus 10 years is closer to A$7 Bn.

Anyway, enjoy your trip to the Air Show and other southern clines and "we" look forward to your more considered critique once you have had a chance to read the table and the notes in more detail, taking on board the above.

 

[Occum]

Oops!

Will try once more.
How can an average UPC be lower than the cheapest actual UPC?

Apologies. Missed your two posts. See response to Aussie Digger's post which, hopefully, answers your question.

My understanding of the table is that it is a comparator (spreadsheet model based) that has all the indices and factors standardised and common to both force structure options, allowing it to be used as a due diligence tool for such things as 'what if' analysis.

 

[StingrayOZ]

How many weapons has the JSF carried, let alone delivered, let alone successfully employed to take out a target?

We are not buying from some ex-soviet spin off country. We are buying from the number one user and producer of quality weapons. The country and companies that have been at the forefront of weapon development for 50 years.

So your seriously implying that the entire US defence industry has dropped the ball on the F-35? Come on. Test flights are currently being carried out, by the time we sign up we will have an excellent idea of how good the F-35 is.

Now compare all this to what the F-22 can do today and will be able to do once it has completed its version of the Seek Eagle Program and when this will be.

But the F-22 is not for sale. It can't do any of these for Australia. Taking your logic, so instead of waiting for the F-22 we should have instead bought some F-15's instead and upgraded the entire fleet to F-15? Or lets take it one further. Is any country capable of challenging our F-18's over home soil? Maybe we shouldn't buy anything, because right now we don't need them.

A bit of future planning means you are going to have to make some predictions and assumptions.

The F-22 will always be a better strike aircraft for all the reasons previously discussed which is why General Mike Moseley said what he has said.

Disagree. F-22 carries more. It will be able to carry many different types of ground weapons. F-22 can't take off from a LHD or rough and ready airfields near the battlefield. F-22 can't carry internally anything in the 2,000 lb range.

More does not mean better (you should think about this for a bit) and precision munitions are precision munitions, irrespective of which delivery platform they are cleared off, though the overall weapon effectiveness can be influenced by such things as the launch platform's kinematics and markedly so.

Yes, but the F-35 is designed with these weapons in mind. Sure the F-22 is faster, flies higher and that would be a nice thing to have. But the F-35 is hardly poor in this area. With the F-35 you can deliver more weapons per sortie, with more aircraft.

Just out of interest, what are your qualifications and experience in matters of an aerospace nature?

None. I am merely a physics qualified. But then again, I don't bring a great many preconceptions with me.

Ask a submariner what should Australia buy, they will say the best submarines. Ask a Tank commander what Australia should buy they will say the best Tanks. Ask a pilot what Australia should buy they will say the best Planes. Ask them all together and they will fight each other and claim they know best. None of them will want to compromise and all will put up good arguments.

As I see it, the F-35 is the force multiplier the ADF needs to improve its land, water and air power. I just don't see that in the F-22, it has air superiority written all over it. Given the amount of air superiority fighting Australia does, and the threats we face it does not seem to be what we need. Any dressing of a F-22 as a strike aircraft is just that, dressing.

Not that the F-35 is not capable of air superiority. Its the man for many jobs. May not be mind blowing brillant like the single minded F-22, but will beat all comers in the region at all jobs.

Forget the F-22. F-35 is exactly what we need. Buy a 100, stick a few on our LHD's and everyone will come round, just like they did on the F-111. There was a lot of resistance on that one too.

 

[ssmoore]

Lets assume that the F22 was cleared for sale to select US allies, would development cost also be tacked onto the price or would they get them at the same price as the USAF?

With the F35 program the development costs are spread somewhat amongst the partner country's. But the F22 was never intended for export and I assume the US taxpayer footed the entire cost.

Now dont get me wrong I have no problem with Austrailia getting them and dont care what they would pay really but that might be a sore subject in congress, if this were ever to be voted upon.

 

[Ryttare]

We are not buying from some ex-soviet spin off country. We are buying from the number one user and producer of quality weapons. The country and companies that have been at the forefront of weapon development for 50 years.

So your seriously implying that the entire US defence industry has dropped the ball on the F-35? Come on. Test flights are currently being carried out, by the time we sign up we will have an excellent idea of how good the F-35 is.

I would say it's wise to wait and see how the JSF works out before buying it. I'm not an aeroplane expert, just an enthusiast, but I know what a spin is when I see it. So many different messages about prices and fuzzy talk about capabilities are sent out that I'm gett more and more sceptical.

I'm no aussie, but if I were I would look for alternatives if the marketing guys at JSF isn't truly honest. The F-22 is pricey and probably not available, and F-35 is uncertain. Personally, I think that a mix of F-15 and Eurofighter Typhoon would seem interesting. In combination with stealthy long range precision missiles it could be a lethal combination.

Sorry to but in, now I will let the aussies discuss this.

 

[Rich]

Lets assume that the F22 was cleared for sale to select US allies, would development cost also be tacked onto the price or would they get them at the same price as the USAF?

Considering the development cost for this aircraft was higher then the 2006 Defense budget for almost every other nation in the world I would suspect the cost would be higher. Somebody is paying those development costs and it aint the corporations.

If I remember right the combined R&D costs of the two aircraft was somewhere in the 80 Billion US range. The last time I checked the F-35 consortium had kicked in about 40 million US. Maybe thats gone up but with F-35 R&D right around 40 billion, and with such a small consortium kick in amount, we aren't going to include foot rubs with the Lightening when we finally deliver it.

The USAF likes to quote "flyaway" costs, which btw doesnt include R&D costs. I suspect either aircraft is going to include a bump up for R&D. However its the Yank taxpayer who will mostly get the bill stuck in his/her ear.

On the plus side the worlds Democratic air forces, the ones allied with the USA, will dominate their skies for what is probably the rest of our lives. I'm 50yo so I'll probably be worm food by the time the next F-geewhiz comes out the gate.

The F-35 is not a dud. Its a better strike aircraft than the F-22. BETTER! It carrys more and of heavier types. Its also cheaper so we can afford more. Strike is primary what we would use aircraft for.

Australia is not located in a place where complex air to air battles are going to occur. We could add all the planes in surrounding countries and barely get a mish mash of 1 24 plane squadron of operational modern planes. This isn't england, this isn't Japan.

With the F-35 we will have more strike aircraft than ever before, with precision munitions.

I'm glad someone down under finally figured this out. Instead of just going ":shudder We want the Raptor".

Actually there have been quite a few posters from down under who have remained objective about this entire row.

 

[Grand Danois]

It will be the US Govt and the US taxpayer only who will pay for the R&D of the Raptor. Foreign entities are not allowed by law to pay for R&D on US projects. That cost is funded by the US Govt and recouperated through the FMS fee of 3.58%.

The JSF is different. And the monetary and tech contributions from the partner nations are significant, not to speak of the economies of scale from the partners (Think saw a figure of USD9.2B savings on that account alone when I skimmed the last GAO report. Can that be?).

 

[swerve]

... If I remember right the combined R&D costs of the two aircraft was somewhere in the 80 Billion US range. The last time I checked the F-35 consortium had kicked in about 40 million US. ....

$40 million? Where did that come from? IIRC Norway alone has coughed up more, & is committed to at least $125 mn. That's orders of magnitude less than the UK contribution to date. Are you sure there aren't a couple of zeros missing? Or it's a very, very old figure?

 

[Rich]

$40 million? Where did that come from? IIRC Norway alone has coughed up more, & is committed to at least $125 mn. That's orders of magnitude less than the UK contribution to date. Are you sure there aren't a couple of zeros missing? Or it's a very, very old figure?

Probably old. I haven't looked into it for awhile. If you have a more current source I'd appreciate it. I'd also like to know if this "coughed up more" also includes monies that will be eventually used to pay for the aircraft. Numbers are funny things.

 

[Occum]

Food for Thought

It will be the US Govt and the US taxpayer only who will pay for the R&D of the Raptor. Foreign entities are not allowed by law to pay for R&D on US projects. That cost is funded by the US Govt and recouperated through the FMS fee of 3.58%.

The JSF is different. And the monetary and tech contributions from the partner nations are significant, not to speak of the economies of scale from the partners (Think saw a figure of USD9.2B savings on that account alone when I skimmed the last GAO report. Can that be?).

Excellent points.

The US$9.2Bn first appeared in the Dec05 SAR as being due to "the benefits of additional procurement by partner countries (-$9,243.8 million). This 'benefit' was described as 'reductions due to improvement in learned cost savings resulting from build of partner country aircraft which had not been previously included in the budget estimates'. It was cited as one of the offsets [along with reductions in the budget due to cancellation of the second engine (US$7,063.5 million), etc], to the cost increases tabled during the previous year.

By rights, given Congressional direction on the second engine, the Dec06 SAR should reflect this latter cost being put back into the budget. Will be interesting to see if it does since the DoD has, yet again, left the second engine out of the FY08 budget proposals.

Also yet to see if the project budget now reflects the $5,033.00 million commitment of the partner nations under the PSFD MOU signed recently. Australia's share of this commitment is around US$690 million, in current year dollars. A careful read of the MOU reveals the risk that these commitments are not fixed and have the potential of being an open check. For instance, if the US cut their numbers by, say, 50%, the partner nations share under this MOU goes up to US$8,183.18 million with Australia's rising to US$1,120.98 million. This, of course, assumes none of the other identified or yet to be identified risks materialise in the project. The MOU is structured to ensure the PSFD costs will be shared, including such things as the costs for shutting down the production line and the costs of any legal claims over such things as IP infringements. Pretty neat, huh?

The full effect of this latter point (IP - Intellectual Property) is yet to crystallise, so should be put into the 'yet to be identified by the Project Office' risk basket. Normally, if an organisation puts in 'risk capital', that is, contributes to the cost of the development by paying cold, hard cash and/or provision of background IP, then they share in the ownership of the foreground IP that the project produces. Will leave others to ponder this one. Could get pretty nasty, particularly if one partner nation doesn't get the capabilities supplied to another - and wants them!

:shudder

Even a cursory look over the budget history of this project shows that it has been more about 'robbing Peter to pay Paul and feed LM and its mates' and working the budget reporting cycle to spin the figures, thus avoiding the Nunn-McCurdy oversight trigger.

 

[radiosilence]

These are the Countries that are committed to the JSF program.


United Kingdom (signed 17 Jan 2001 for $2B)
Italy (signed 24 Jun 2002 for $1B)
Netherlands (signed 17 Jun 2002 for $800M)
Turkey (signed 11 Jun 2002 for $175M)
Canada (signed 7 Feb 2002 for $150M)
Australia (signed 31 Oct 2002 for $150M)
Denmark (signed 28 May 2002 for $125M)
Norway (signed 20 Jun 2002 for $125M)

 

[swerve]

Probably old. I haven't looked into it for awhile. If you have a more current source I'd appreciate it. I'd also like to know if this "coughed up more" also includes monies that will be eventually used to pay for the aircraft. Numbers are funny things.

I remember a Parliamentary answer a while ago where it was stated that the UK contribution to date had been about half the committed amount, which was ca $2bn. I don't have a link to that, & just had a look but it was lost somewhere in the thousands of results. I know that's the contribution to development costs, separate from anything which might be paid for aircraft. After all, we haven't ordered any yet.

You've got me interested now. I'll see if I can dig out how much has actually been paid, rather than promised, by all the partners.

 

[Occum]

In the Absence of Facts, Logic and Rational Thinking

So your seriously implying that the entire US defence industry has dropped the ball on the F-35? Come on. Test flights are currently being carried out, by the time we sign up we will have an excellent idea of how good the F-35 is.

I suggest you are 'inferring' and incorrectly so; rather than, as you suggest, anyone 'seriously implying'!

The fact is that the US defence industry is currently laughing all the way to the bank. When the risks materialise, the only difference will be that they will be crying all the way to the bank.

The flight test program is currently planned as a 7,000 flying hour/7 Year long activity. By the end of 2008, the project will still not have the ground test aircraft in place, let alone those needed to do all the flight test.
You really should do some homework.

But the F-22 is not for sale. It can't do any of these for Australia.

Now why is that, pray tell? Is there some limitation in the software or in the systems which says, "Nah! Not allowed to do that for Australia".

Taking your logic, so instead of waiting for the F-22 we should have instead bought some F-15's instead and upgraded the entire fleet to F-15? Or lets take it one further.

Not my logic. Sounds more like that of a physics major!

Is any country capable of challenging our F-18's over home soil? Maybe we shouldn't buy anything, because right now we don't need them.

Yes.

No, and,

Suggest most Australian's would not be very keen on your, "Let's stick our head in the sand and our bums in the air and take it as it comes" philosophy.

F-22 carries more. It will be able to carry many different types of ground weapons.

Correct, as well as other S-A and A-A weapons, as they evolve - as will other aircraft that have the MIL-STD-1760 weapons bus (aka. the 'J' series weapons bus) as has been fully integrated into the F-111s.

F-22 can't take off from a LHD or rough and ready airfields near the battlefield.

Don't need to and why would you want to? Don't see this requirement in any of the strategic guidance of the Government or in any of the stated strategic needs of the DoD. Do you know something that no-one else seems to know?

F-22 can't carry internally anything in the 2,000 lb range.

The limitation is the size of the weapons bay (principally the length), not weight. The hardpoints are stressed for far more.

Interesting to observe that back in 2000/01 when it looked like the JSF CTOL would likely only carry 1,000 lb stores internally, the RAAF were using the contra argument against retaining the F-111 with its large stores weight carriage capability (more than 2,000 lb stores) because, with the high precision, smaller stores that were under development, the maximum weight store they would need to carry was the 1,000 lb-ers.

Again, you should really do some homework and be careful you don't get sucked in by the spin.

Yes, but the F-35 is designed with these weapons in mind. Sure the F-22 is faster, flies higher and that would be a nice thing to have. But the F-35 is hardly poor in this area. With the F-35 you can deliver more weapons per sortie, with more aircraft.

How do you know this? How about backing up what you say with some provable numbers and facts? Won't you have to wait till the flight test and demonstration programs are completed? Or, is there some magical crystal ball that tells you what they are and that they are real? If that is the case, then why spend all that time and money on doing the flight test?

None. I am merely a physics qualified. But then again, I don't bring a great many preconceptions with me.

Curious qualifications statement - particularly the 'merely'. Are you suggesting physics is somehow a lesser science?

Also, are you suggesting that knowledge, experience and expertise equate to "a great many preconceptions"?

Sounds a bit like 'ignorance is bliss' or am I missing something here?

Ask a submariner what should Australia buy, they will say the best submarines. Ask a Tank commander what Australia should buy they will say the best Tanks. Ask a pilot what Australia should buy they will say the best Planes. Ask them all together and they will fight each other and claim they know best. None of them will want to compromise and all will put up good arguments.

And your point is ......?

As I see it, the F-35 is the force multiplier the ADF needs to improve its land, water and air power. I just don't see that in the F-22, it has air superiority written all over it. Given the amount of air superiority fighting Australia does, and the threats we face it does not seem to be what we need.

Then why is the present government prepared to spend over A$30 Bn on air combat capabilities with such an emphasis on dealing with air borne threats using networking with AEW&Cs and the like? Look at the threat scenarios they are basing their planning on. The majority are air threats which might just have something to do with the air-sea gap, don't you think?

Any dressing of a F-22 as a strike aircraft is just that, dressing.

So, according to you, General Mike Moseley et al are not telling the American people the truth?
Interesting perspective?
Being physics qualified, I assume you would be familiar with the scientific method. Can you prove this statement about 'strike aircraft dressing' and explain why, in the process, the F-22 has four internal weapon bays and 4 x 5,000 lb rated external hard points plus the provision for an EOTS plus provision for sideways looking antennas plus ..... ?

Not that the F-35 is not capable of air superiority. Its the man for many jobs. May not be mind blowing brillant like the single minded F-22, but will beat all comers in the region at all jobs.

From a strategic and doctrinal perspective, Air Dominance is what will be required to deal with the threats emerging in our region now and for the next 20-30 years. After all, that is what it is all about, don't you think?

In this environment, not being 'mind blowing brilliant' is what will get people killed and, more over, from a defensive posture perspective, make Australia a second or third rate power in the region.

Forget the F-22. F-35 is exactly what we need. Buy a 100, stick a few on our LHD's and everyone will come round, just like they did on the F-111.

The flippancy this displays boggles the mind.

There was a lot of resistance on that one too.

Having been around back then, I can tell you any resistance was not from the experts - only those who didn't understand the true nature of the wing pivot fitting production flaw and the resulting special way the D6ac steel needed to be managed - something which Australians mastered very quickly - and those concerned about the rising costs which, by the way, pale into insignificance compared with the cost variances being seen today, even when calculated in today's dollars.

When you have done your homework, happy to engage again but, till then, don't see much point in responding to any more of your posts.