A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Finished work at 2.00am last night after investigating a suspicious house fire for 5 hours. Had to shower to get the stink of smoke and ash off me and then couldn't sleep immediately...Magoo said:
F-111s beyond 2012
- Thread starter Magoo
- Start date
Definitely.abramsteve said:Just a few questions guys. Does the stealth qualities of the JSF make High Altitude penetration an option that can be factored into the whole stress/range/payload/speed equation? (Thats a mouthfull)Is my thinking outdated or does flying higher make for better fuel efficency, thus increasing range? Is this even relevant with the F-35?
Afterburners on a JSF or F-111 will use alot of fuel, so does low altitude penetration, these both dramatically reduce the range of an aircraft.
With a country such as indonesia the JSF is stealthy enough to fly in and out at high altitude without being detected. This allows the JSF to fly where it is most fuel efficient making its range exceptionally good for its size.
As the F-111 has to fly at low altitude or at high speed as well as carry bombs externally (more drag), its range isn't that much larger than a JSF even though its twice the size. Plus the JSF being able to defend itself when on a strike mission reduces the number of support/escorts and the required inflight refueling assets will be halved.
Either way if we get JSF's or F-22's Australia's air force will be the best in the region. Either option has pro's and cons.
F-22 advantages: Best performance, higher sortie rate, lower risk available now, extra capabilities.
F-22 disadvantages: Cost (low numbers) may require the hornets to make up numbers
JSF advantages: Single aircraft fleet, jack of all trades.
JSF disadvantages: Higher risk option, possible cost rise, requires hornet upgrades as stopgap.
Either way it will be a huge improvement.
The JSF's disadvantages could easily be removed if we waited until production has started. This removes the risk and we will most likely get them cheaper. We will have to fly our current hornets for longer, but as they will get the centre barrel upgraded this wouldn't be a problem. We could even lease some Night attack hornets as a stopgap.
Looks the Government have decided to play it safe just incase something goes wrong with the Joint Strike Fighter Program.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/backup-ordered-for-next-warplane/2006/08/01/1154198137589.html
THE Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson, has ordered a new proposal for an alternative to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter amid concerns the $15 billion project cannot be delivered as promised.
Dr Nelson also acknowledged the high risks in the Government's strategy for a new air combat capability that maintains Australia's long-held, and strategically vital, air dominance in the region.
He was impressed by the fighter's potential and believed, if delivered on time and for the promised price, it would be "the correct aircraft for us".
"Equally, this is not only the most expensive, it's the highest risk acquisition we will have ever made," he told the Herald.
"I have said to Defence that I want a well-developed alternative. We don't have to finally commit to the Joint Strike Force by 2008 but I want to make sure we have a well-developed alternative well in advance of that."
He said he would not move the program to cabinet until alternatives were analysed and at least one selected. He would not identify what those alternatives might be. But Defence analysts have said the potent F-22 Raptor, the F-16 fighter jet and the Super Hornet, or a combination of them, were the likely candidates.
The fighter is not only the most expensive Defence project ever, it's the biggest investment by the Commonwealth since Federation. About 100 of the high-tech stealth fighters has been earmarked to replace the F-111s and the F/A-18 Hornets from 2010.
The Hornets will be upgraded, for $3 billion, to fill the gap if the Joint Strike Fighter is late. But as the Herald revealed, major problems have hit the upgrade, notably its new electronic warfare self-protection system cannot be integrated. Dr Nelson confirmed the Australian system, which alerts pilots to threats, had "technical difficulties" and may be abandoned in favour of another model.
The Joint Strike Fighter is in development, but there are concerns its price will skyrocket and delivery time fall back years. "What most threatens the thing is beyond our control, the US political system," Dr Nelson said. Congress is threatening to cut the program's budget and has ordered its manufacturer to test more before production.
If the US military, whose budget has blown out due to the Iraq war, cuts its production order, the price will go up substantially. Britain has already cut its order and others may follow.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/backup-ordered-for-next-warplane/2006/08/01/1154198137589.html
THE Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson, has ordered a new proposal for an alternative to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter amid concerns the $15 billion project cannot be delivered as promised.
Dr Nelson also acknowledged the high risks in the Government's strategy for a new air combat capability that maintains Australia's long-held, and strategically vital, air dominance in the region.
He was impressed by the fighter's potential and believed, if delivered on time and for the promised price, it would be "the correct aircraft for us".
"Equally, this is not only the most expensive, it's the highest risk acquisition we will have ever made," he told the Herald.
"I have said to Defence that I want a well-developed alternative. We don't have to finally commit to the Joint Strike Force by 2008 but I want to make sure we have a well-developed alternative well in advance of that."
He said he would not move the program to cabinet until alternatives were analysed and at least one selected. He would not identify what those alternatives might be. But Defence analysts have said the potent F-22 Raptor, the F-16 fighter jet and the Super Hornet, or a combination of them, were the likely candidates.
The fighter is not only the most expensive Defence project ever, it's the biggest investment by the Commonwealth since Federation. About 100 of the high-tech stealth fighters has been earmarked to replace the F-111s and the F/A-18 Hornets from 2010.
The Hornets will be upgraded, for $3 billion, to fill the gap if the Joint Strike Fighter is late. But as the Herald revealed, major problems have hit the upgrade, notably its new electronic warfare self-protection system cannot be integrated. Dr Nelson confirmed the Australian system, which alerts pilots to threats, had "technical difficulties" and may be abandoned in favour of another model.
The Joint Strike Fighter is in development, but there are concerns its price will skyrocket and delivery time fall back years. "What most threatens the thing is beyond our control, the US political system," Dr Nelson said. Congress is threatening to cut the program's budget and has ordered its manufacturer to test more before production.
If the US military, whose budget has blown out due to the Iraq war, cuts its production order, the price will go up substantially. Britain has already cut its order and others may follow.
Just wait until all the international countries sign on the dotted line then the US cut its order and the price sky rockets...
The US WILL be cutting its JSF order, how much we dont know. If the US halved its JSF order for each of its divisions, the price of a single JSF will rise to well over 100 million and be similar price to the F-22, give or take 10%.
This then starts the death spiral that happened with the F-22, they now wont be able to justify the cost so everyone else decreases their order. The small countries will drop out completely and other countries will want to go with other aircraft. The JSF will no longer be the cost effective option. The total production run may end up being less than half that was originally planned.
If you take this paranoid worst case approach Australia can put things into place to stop any money getting lost.
I prefer the F-22 option, small numbers should not worry us. 200 years ago a single machine gun could take out 100 indians. A fleet of 50-60 F-22's could do the job of our current defence. The pilot trainign costs will be reduced etc
However if we choose not to go with the F-22 then we must not rush into retiring the F-111's. Surely they could be kept flying for another 10 years, which is the point in this thread.
If we miss the boat completely and skip the JSF i dont think there will be another manned western fighter aircraft.
The US WILL be cutting its JSF order, how much we dont know. If the US halved its JSF order for each of its divisions, the price of a single JSF will rise to well over 100 million and be similar price to the F-22, give or take 10%.
This then starts the death spiral that happened with the F-22, they now wont be able to justify the cost so everyone else decreases their order. The small countries will drop out completely and other countries will want to go with other aircraft. The JSF will no longer be the cost effective option. The total production run may end up being less than half that was originally planned.
If you take this paranoid worst case approach Australia can put things into place to stop any money getting lost.
- Purchase F-22's now, fewer aircraft that are more lethal. No need for stop gaps.
- Keep the F-111's and hornets flying until the JSF program is underway
- If the F-111's must be retired purchase identical hornets from the US navy
- Purchase a completely different aircraft, F-15E, Eurofighter etc
I prefer the F-22 option, small numbers should not worry us. 200 years ago a single machine gun could take out 100 indians. A fleet of 50-60 F-22's could do the job of our current defence. The pilot trainign costs will be reduced etc
However if we choose not to go with the F-22 then we must not rush into retiring the F-111's. Surely they could be kept flying for another 10 years, which is the point in this thread.
If we miss the boat completely and skip the JSF i dont think there will be another manned western fighter aircraft.
There is no rush to buy Lightnings. Hornets can have their lives extended. New Super Hornets, Eagles, Typhoons and/or Rafaels can be acquired instead. I wouldn't buy any new aircraft unless the decision was made not to acquire the Lightnings. If the Lightnings are too expensive, so are the Raptors.
I prefer the Lightnings, but if they were off the table, I like the latest Eagles, F-15Es. They have the best strike range. They could be bought in enough numbers inside the budget allotted. My question is are they still in production? If not, its a draw between the Super Hornets and the Tyhoons, the Super Hornets having the better strike capabilities.
Hornets can have their lives extended for $3 billion. It will be difficult to buy 40 new aircraft for that same amount. But as the Americans discard their used F-15Cs or F/A-18Cs, they may come available before the Lightnings are available.
Buy new for the long term, lease used for the short term if necessary. Extend the lives of the Hornets for the short term too.
I prefer the Lightnings, but if they were off the table, I like the latest Eagles, F-15Es. They have the best strike range. They could be bought in enough numbers inside the budget allotted. My question is are they still in production? If not, its a draw between the Super Hornets and the Tyhoons, the Super Hornets having the better strike capabilities.
Hornets can have their lives extended for $3 billion. It will be difficult to buy 40 new aircraft for that same amount. But as the Americans discard their used F-15Cs or F/A-18Cs, they may come available before the Lightnings are available.
Buy new for the long term, lease used for the short term if necessary. Extend the lives of the Hornets for the short term too.
Last edited:
abramsteve
New Member
I would assume the F-15E is still in production, because of their recent purchase by the Singaporeans. Apparently the SE model is exceptional. We should keep our options open, but I dont think keeping the 111s flying will be of that great a benifit. Especially if the money required could be spent on a new intrim fighter/attack aircraft.
The F-15SG actually costs more than the JSF. However thats based on the current JSF price which is not very realistic and should rise quite a bit once production starts.
Even the superhornets and Eurofighter cost more in todays dollars than the unrealistic price of the JSF.
The F-22 was actually on budget until they decided to cut the orders and begin the death spiral. The F-22 now costs twice as much only because they are buying little numbers.
The JSF however is over budget and will now cost 50% more than the estimate 5 years ago and that doesn't include any death spiral at all. If a few countries drop out and cut orders this should raise the price to double that of the original proposed cost. The original proposed cost was under 50million, completely unrealistic.
The F-15SG, Eurofighter, Superhornet and F-22 are all expensive options however when comparing all of those the F-22 is the best it costs 50% more than any of the others but its performance easily makes up for it.
The ONLY cheap option is to buy second hand Fa-18D hornets from the navy which would allow us to skip the JSF completely. This is one of my prefered options as its the cheapest and is the only option to maintain a fleet of over 100 aircraft. The extra money can be put into airlift and the navy which actually gets used for a good purpose.
Even the superhornets and Eurofighter cost more in todays dollars than the unrealistic price of the JSF.
The F-22 was actually on budget until they decided to cut the orders and begin the death spiral. The F-22 now costs twice as much only because they are buying little numbers.
The JSF however is over budget and will now cost 50% more than the estimate 5 years ago and that doesn't include any death spiral at all. If a few countries drop out and cut orders this should raise the price to double that of the original proposed cost. The original proposed cost was under 50million, completely unrealistic.
The F-15SG, Eurofighter, Superhornet and F-22 are all expensive options however when comparing all of those the F-22 is the best it costs 50% more than any of the others but its performance easily makes up for it.
The ONLY cheap option is to buy second hand Fa-18D hornets from the navy which would allow us to skip the JSF completely. This is one of my prefered options as its the cheapest and is the only option to maintain a fleet of over 100 aircraft. The extra money can be put into airlift and the navy which actually gets used for a good purpose.
If you are going to skip the JSF entirely, I would rather buy a new aircraft which will last 20 years than a used aircraft that won't. The question then becomes how much are you willing to spend. If you are going to buy new the cheapest option could possibly be a choice of either the F-16C or F/A-18E. If you are concerned about range over price, the choice could be the F-15E.
abramsteve
New Member
Sorry bout that, but hey I was close!The_Jet said:
Whilst personaly being in favor of range over cost, I agree with rjmaz1 that maintaining a 100+ fleet and still having money to put into airlift and the other services is a good idea. But only in the intrim. I dont like the idea of purchasing second hand, and I am still in favor of a dedicated strike aircraft. I dont like my chances on the latter though!
Super hornet is more expensive than the JSF as well, its no where near the cheapest option. The F-16 Block 52 is also very expensive and offers no range, performance or avionics increase over our hornets.Sea Toby said:
The only cheap option like i said are second hand Fa-18D's. These are relatively new, some are under 10 years old
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #72
Sources? My understanding is the US Navy is currently buying Block 2 Super Hornets complete with engines and AESA radars for US$52 million each. This price could conceivably come down if we were to order 40-60 Supers through a US Navy FMS deal.rjmaz1 said:
Assuming, that is, that there were F/A-18Ds available, which they're not. The USMC and USN are planning to re-barrel between 300 and 400 of their classic Hornets, and the USMC loves their F/A-18Ds!rjmaz1 said:
Magoo
This should come as no surprise to anyone but the F-22 is ruled out!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1706624.htm
Nelson quiet on new fighter back-up plan
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson says the Government remains committed to its plan to buy the new Joint Strike Fighter super-jets.
He has made the comments despite saying he wants an alternative in place in case the purchase does not go ahead.
The Government has until 2008 to make a final decision on the $15 billion deal to buy the aircraft, which will replace the RAAF's existing bombers and fighter jets.
Dr Nelson will not say which jets are being considered as back-ups, but has ruled out the F-22A Raptor as an alternative.
"The F-22A Raptor, even if it were to be sold to Australia by the United States, based on its complete capability is not the correct aircraft for us," he said.
"It is a brilliant aircraft, it is a combat aircraft but it will not cover all of our capabilities.
"Apart from anything else the price and the numbers that we need make it prohibitive."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200608/s1706624.htm
Nelson quiet on new fighter back-up plan
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson says the Government remains committed to its plan to buy the new Joint Strike Fighter super-jets.
He has made the comments despite saying he wants an alternative in place in case the purchase does not go ahead.
The Government has until 2008 to make a final decision on the $15 billion deal to buy the aircraft, which will replace the RAAF's existing bombers and fighter jets.
Dr Nelson will not say which jets are being considered as back-ups, but has ruled out the F-22A Raptor as an alternative.
"The F-22A Raptor, even if it were to be sold to Australia by the United States, based on its complete capability is not the correct aircraft for us," he said.
"It is a brilliant aircraft, it is a combat aircraft but it will not cover all of our capabilities.
"Apart from anything else the price and the numbers that we need make it prohibitive."
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Exactly!The_Jet said:
Since the government is willing to spend $15 billion in Australian dollars for 100 aircraft, considering the value of the Australian dollar to the American dollar, plus spares, support, simulators, training, etc., the fighter better cost less than $75 million American.
The Raptor won't fill this criteria, and the government is beginning to worry about the Lightning II.
So its a choice between Western manufacturers of the Typhoon, Rafael, Gripen, Strike Eagle, Eagle, Super Hornet, and Falcons.
The Typhoon doesn't have the strike package of the Strike Eagle or Super Hornet, the Gripen has the less range, Rafael uses French missiles, Falcons have only one engine.
So it appears it will be either the Eagle/Strike Eagle package or the Super Hornet. Australia operates the older and smaller Hornet already, has better availability numbers with an easier to maintain engine than the Eagles, has almost the same range of the Eagle, carries a similar weapons package, although not as fast.
The Raptor won't fill this criteria, and the government is beginning to worry about the Lightning II.
So its a choice between Western manufacturers of the Typhoon, Rafael, Gripen, Strike Eagle, Eagle, Super Hornet, and Falcons.
The Typhoon doesn't have the strike package of the Strike Eagle or Super Hornet, the Gripen has the less range, Rafael uses French missiles, Falcons have only one engine.
So it appears it will be either the Eagle/Strike Eagle package or the Super Hornet. Australia operates the older and smaller Hornet already, has better availability numbers with an easier to maintain engine than the Eagles, has almost the same range of the Eagle, carries a similar weapons package, although not as fast.
What capability does the F-22 not have that the JSF has?The_Jet said:
It seems the Superhornet is MUCH cheaper than what i thought. At $52million US thats extremely cheap. Rebarreling the Australian 70 hornets aparently costs 3 billions dollars, thats 42 million dollars australian per aircraft. So a brand new superhornet is only twice as much. Thats definitely one of the best option if that price is correct. However i see F-22 prices varying from 100 to 300 million US so its anyones guess, much cheaper than a JSF thats for sure.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Integrated or to be integrated air to ground munitions.rjmaz1 said:What capability does the F-22 not have that the JSF has?
F-22A - Air Superiority/Air Dominance Fighter
GBU-32 JDAM
GBU-39 SDB
F-35A - Joint Strike Fighter
AGM-154 JSOW
Brimstone
GBU-31/32/38 JDAM
GBU-39 SDB
CBU-87/89 CBU
CBU-103/104/105 WCMD
AGM-65 Maverick
AGM-88 HARM
AGM-158 JASSM
Storm Shadow
GBU-10/12/16/24 LGB
Mk 82/83/84 GP
CBU-99/100 Rockeye II
+ some more, IIRC
Included in F-35 price is an air to ground integrated EO targeting system, netcentrics and lots of other stuff, which the Raptor has not. Some of it may be funded for the F-22A, some may not. If you want it on the F-22A = increase in UFC.
I especially can't imagine maritime strike being funded for the F-22A. This means Australia will have to undertake the cost of this this = increase in UFC.
What the Raptor does is simply not in high demand. And is freaking expensive and has a bigger footprint. It looks like if any of the two programmes would have to go, it would be the Raptor.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #78
Ahhh, no. Rebarreling the Hornets will cost about A$12-$15m each, so if we do 50, then that'll be A$600-$750m.rjmaz1 said:What capability does the F-22 not have that the JSF has?
It seems the Superhornet is MUCH cheaper than what i thought. At $52million US thats extremely cheap. Rebarreling the Australian 70 hornets aparently costs 3 billions dollars, thats 42 million dollars australian per aircraft. So a brand new superhornet is only twice as much. Thats definitely one of the best option if that price is correct. However i see F-22 prices varying from 100 to 300 million US so its anyones guess, much cheaper than a JSF thats for sure.
All the elements of the Hornet upgrade combined, including the centre-barrels, CIT, Link-16, APG-73, ASRAAM, AMRAAM, JDAM, JASSM, Litening II, cockpit displays, JHMCS, ALR-2002 (or perhaps ALR-67(v)3) etc etc will add up to around A$2.8bn.
Magoo
Thanks for clearing that up, i thought there must be other stuff included in that 3 million.Magoo said:
However, I thought our hornets had already been upgraded with the APG-73 and AMRAAM?
I think the best weapon we could add to our hornets would be the small diameter bomb. Our hornets could carry 8 easily with very little drag and weight increase and still have room for AMRAAM's.
The F-15E has aparently improved dramatically now that is deploys SDB's.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #80
The Hornet Upgrade (HUG) program includes AIR 5376 Phases 1, 2.1 (APG-73, CIT, ARC-210 etc), 2.2 (JHMCS, moving map display, new cockpit displays, OF19C FCS), 2.3 (EW), 2.4 (Litening II), 3.1 (Structural patches), & 3.2 (Centre barrels), AIR 5400 (ASRAAM & AMRAAM), AIR 5409 (JDAM) and AIR 5418 (JASSM).rjmaz1 said:
Only 2.3, 2.4 & 3.2 are to be done on 5376, while 5409 & 5418 will start next year.
Word is SDB is on the RAAF's wishlist and may be acquired once the US Navy has cleared it off the Hornet.
Magoo
http://www.ausaviation.com.au/books/hornets/hornetindex.htm