Due Diligence - The skill of knowing when you are being misled.
Aussie Digger said:
NRFAC = Non-recurring fly away cost I'd imagine.
If this be the case (Magoo, can you confirm this), then folks on this thread are still being misled by the 'apples vs oranges' approach used by Harvs and others when asked how much the JSF is going to cost compared with the F-22.
IIRC, they said it was US$45m and this was the Average Unit
Recurring Fly Away Cost, in 2002 dollars. The purchase price of an aircraft is a lot more than just the recurring cost element.
When asked how much the Raptor would cost, they initially said the F-22 was just too expensive for Australia, citing words bantered around by the anti F-22 lobby in the US, then they used the Total Program Cost figures divided by the current production of 183.
I have used neither. Rather, I have used the Unit Procurement Cost (UPC) both in terms of program average as well as the averages calculated for the applicable block productions at the times of the proposed purchases.
This is a more correct and informed way of discussing aircraft costings.
Aussie Digger said:
As to the cost of the F-111 upgrade, RAAF estimated at LEAST $8 billion for the upgrade proposals suggested by APA in front of the estimates committee.
Surely you don't believe Shep's figure of
$8 billion.
Think about it for a minute. That is more than the whole budget for the Collins Class submarines; more than double the budget for the Wedgetail; and, more than six (6) North South Railways.
The whole of the F-111 AUP cost about $1Bn and my read of what has been proposed for evolving the F-111 avionics is no where near the size nor complexity of AUP.
For a calibration, take a look at what the USAF are doing with the A-10C. New digital cockpit with HOTAS (what has been proposed for the F-111), electro optical targeting system capability using both Litening and Sniper pods (equivalent to PaveTack upgrade proposed for F-111 which would also turn every PaveTack aircraft into a RECCE bird), full Mil-Std-1760 weapons bus (which F-111 already has along with full software support facilities already in place), doubling DC power generation (not required on F-111) and new low level terrain avoidance/targeting computer (not required for F-111). This is all being done for around US$330 million - and this budget also includes the modification of some 295+ aircraft.
As for the proposal to re-engine the little beasty. I happen to think this is a good idea though, from a fiscal budgeting point of view, may best be done sometime after 2015 though the economics of operating with the TF30-P109 may warrant and justify earlier. As to cost and complexity, take a look at the program that turned the F-14 into a super cruiser (F-14D). There is plenty of open source information on this program, including costings. Just before Grumman started work on the F-14D, there was a similar development program underway at General Dynamics for the F-111. In fact, the engine that GD chose (F110-GE400) to replace the TF30 in the pig was also chosen by Grumman for the F-14 (which also had the TF30-P3) and some of the GD design team were seconded to Grumman for the F-14D Program. In other words, the bulk of the design and development work has been done and, if you are an afficianado of the aerospace industry, you would know is available. The cost of such a program would be but a fraction of what Shep is claiming, even in today's or 2015 dollars. Further economies could be struck by using the F110-GE440 engines from the F-14Ds which could be upgrades and zero lifed for a fraction of the cost of new engines. However, personally, I would recommend using the F-119 engine for commonality with the F-22. Being a smaller and, aerodynamically, more tolerant engine than the TF-30, such an upgrade would be quite feasible (as proven on the F-14D). As to risk, I would say, overall, medium low to low risk but, there again, I don't suffer from the cultural cringe, having been involved in two re-engining programs in my career as well as observed the fine work done on the upgrade from the -P3 to the -P109 on the pig.
Overall, the $8bn figure Shep put on the table is well over double the "$2.5 bn to $3.5 bn" that the RAAF told the Parliament it was going to cost to operate, maintain and upgrade the F-111 (aka. Total Operating Expenditures) through to 2020.
Do you get the feeling that some folks are having difficulty relating to the real value of a billion dollars ($1bn). I suppose when you say it quickly, it doesn't register as the sh*t load of money it really is. A memory jogger told to me by one astute dude that helps to calibrate the mind goes something like this -
There are sixty seconds in a minute; 3,600 seconds in an hour.
A million seconds is 12 days.
A billion seconds is 32 years.
Aussie Digger said:
Add this figure to the $2.5b we've already spent on the HUG to date which would virtually be lost unless we were able to find a buyer willing to buy our shagged "legacy Hornet" airframes (something I am not sanguine about) and your costings aren't looking so great Occum...
I am also "not sanguine about. . . our shagged 'legacy Hornet' airframes". As I am sure you are aware, in aviation terms, the Hornets are at their design lives (as a result of all the yanking and banking) which makes them older than the F-111s which are at about 60% of their
original design lives.
This is also why we now have a whole generation of Fighter Pilots who, for the past 6 or so years, have never known flying the Hornet without serious restrictions in an attempt to try to preserve the fatigue life of the jet. Sort of like Ralph Schumacher trying to win an F1 race but not allowed to go past third gear. So much for preparedness. Some are likely to say that this is alright because if we need to use the jets in anger, these restrictions will not apply. There are two very real and very significant risks which make such a view extremely naive, to say the least, and would put people's lives at risk should such a situation arise, if they are not already.
Many Pilots and Engineers have tried to get these matters sorted out but have found it's like hitting their heads against the proverbial brick wall. This is one of the reasons why so many of the more experienced and conscientious ones have left or are leaving the Service.
I agree it does not make a lot of sense upgrading the Hornets. It is good money after bad - sorta fits the trend of other projects like the Super Seasprites, don't you think?
By the way, the people who hatched this little doozy (and others with similar traits) are the same ones who came up with the current plans for the New Air Combat Capability. Not surprising they are no longer in the Department or have been promoted into positions where CYA is an artform. Sadly, those who are there today trying to do the work are wearing the consequences of their predecessors' follies and, as Shep and Roger Lough say, '
being people who don't know what they don't know'.
Aussie Digger said:
Not to mention the ever present cloud hanging over the F-22 and the most recent proposals to drop the remaining 60 odd F-22 airframes leaving USAF with a 120 strong fleet, ending the production line and making the cost of any future airframes go through the roof even if it were possible to start up production again. A REAL winner...
In fact, the exact opposite is happening.
Both the House of Representatives and the Senate of the US Congress have come down strongly on side of the F-22 Program during this current round of Budget Appropriations. The language in the Appropriation Bills of both houses increase F-22 funding and support the MYP proposed by the Pentagon.
The same cannot be said for the JSF Program with the Senate saying to cut 2007 funding requested in the President's Budget by half.
A second study into the Tactical Fighter Programs confirms the findings of the Whitney, Bradley and Brown study commissioned by the Deputy Secretary of Defence, Mr Gordon England which recommends 40 to 60 additional Raptors for the USAF.
Meantime, the Pentagon is keeping the JSF elements of these studies very much under wraps. However, Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute believes the USAF will cut their numbers of JSFs from 1,753 units to 1,000 next year. This would be after the international players have contractually committed to the aircraft via the PFSD MOU. As a legal officer, I am assuming you would be aware of the laws of contract - offer, acceptance, consideration, etc.
