F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped
- Thread starter LancerMc
- Start date
windscorpion
New Member
Dams are a great economic asset but can be a strategic weakness. I read somewhere that if the Aswan dam was breached in an attack the resulting flood waters could wipe out 90+% of Egypt's population.
I've heard that suggested, & I'd like to see a proper analysis.
Damn hard to break, though. 900 metres thick at the base. Slope of the front is gentle enough that I've seen dogs sleeping on it, enjoying the warmth of the sun (it was midwinter, & cool). Damped & tamped so cracks can't propagate.
Aswan: From what I heard - oh 25 years ago - is that the egyptians have taken that into consideration, and there should be precaution so the water can be lead out into the dessert.
Look: Japan is not going to get F-22's upgraded or not - they would still give Japan a deep strike capability. And dams are very vulnerable - if you hit them right. The major part of the destruction is done by the water flowing from a small breach near the top.
The rumours of Japan getting deep strike capability - if any such are around - are due to the fact that China needs a bit of persuasion with regards to North Korea. Nukes in the hands of Ping-Pong BAD are quite a bigger threat to China than to the USA. But if China doesn't think so - and Japan does - Japan could start developing cruisemissiles (with US subdeliveries). That would leave 3 with the capability to make swimming a compulsary part of the Chinese school curriculum. Now: If the Chinese see reason, that could be reduced to 1. And the Chinese do see reason - North Korea is going down the tube as soon as the details have been worked out considering who is to pay for 10 years of a nation on emergency relief.
Look: Japan is not going to get F-22's upgraded or not - they would still give Japan a deep strike capability. And dams are very vulnerable - if you hit them right. The major part of the destruction is done by the water flowing from a small breach near the top.
The rumours of Japan getting deep strike capability - if any such are around - are due to the fact that China needs a bit of persuasion with regards to North Korea. Nukes in the hands of Ping-Pong BAD are quite a bigger threat to China than to the USA. But if China doesn't think so - and Japan does - Japan could start developing cruisemissiles (with US subdeliveries). That would leave 3 with the capability to make swimming a compulsary part of the Chinese school curriculum. Now: If the Chinese see reason, that could be reduced to 1. And the Chinese do see reason - North Korea is going down the tube as soon as the details have been worked out considering who is to pay for 10 years of a nation on emergency relief.
The Fat Lady has yet to sing.
Sorry have taken some time to get back on this - New Year's start up and all that.
Did think it strange a LTCDR would only have 300 hours which is one of the reasons I replied the way I did. Anyway, most of my knowledge on how USN works comes from one of my associates - spent most of my US time around Mojave, Lancaster and San Diego.
That is your opinion to which you are entitled. We and others in the US do not believe they are off the table. Moreover, they should not be for a whole raft of reasons - both in Australia's interests as well as US interests.
If one wishes to attack another person's credibility, this can be done without attacking them personally. Frankly, one should attack the 'what' rather than the 'who'. As said before it is not a matter of 'who' is right, but 'what'.
I don't believe you will find I did either of these things. As to the claim that Dr Kopp or anyone who supports the F-22/Evolved F-111 force structure option is trying to "propose to the DoD a procurement plan based on their credentials", this is incorrect. A fully developed proposal, supported by rigorous analyses, was provided to Defence back in 2001. Further information was requested and supplied. Then the Air6000 Project was hijacked by the bureaucrats and senior officials who saw a quick fix through the JSF Program. If you will take the time to read the submissions to the JSCFADT inquiry, you will see that the only proponents who are resting (and relying) upon their credential laurals are those who support the Defence position. The actual arguments presented are either non-sequitur, extremely qualified or just plainly untruthful. What you may not realise is that the Australian Department of Defence is about where the Pentagon and US DoD were pre Goldwater-Nichols, in terms of the group think driven decision making. In fact, the position in Australia is a lot worse, given the level of deskilling that occured during the 1990s (a consequence of the in discriminate down sizing and outsourcing) and what has happend since the Defence 2000 White Paper. FYI, this White Paper directed retirement of the F/A-18s first (2012) and operating the F-111s through to 2020. One has got to ask what changed from 2000 to 2002? Look at the competencies, expertise and experience of the decision makers and you will start to see one of the big problems.
Why do this when it is far more capable than; far more cost effective than; and far less risky than, with far more benefit to the Defence community than the current plans of the Australian Department of Defence?
Anyway, thanks for the background and remember it ain't over till the fat lady sings.
While I will bow to your superior engineering knowledge there are very few in Australia who can match my flight experience including your most capable veterans. Some how I get the impression you knew I had more flight time than that... you know how the USN works.
Sorry have taken some time to get back on this - New Year's start up and all that.
Did think it strange a LTCDR would only have 300 hours which is one of the reasons I replied the way I did. Anyway, most of my knowledge on how USN works comes from one of my associates - spent most of my US time around Mojave, Lancaster and San Diego.
The only point I have made is to move on from the F-22 and F-111, they are off the table. I am all up for a debate of relevent issues.
That is your opinion to which you are entitled. We and others in the US do not believe they are off the table. Moreover, they should not be for a whole raft of reasons - both in Australia's interests as well as US interests.
If one wishes to attack another person's credibility, this can be done without attacking them personally. Frankly, one should attack the 'what' rather than the 'who'. As said before it is not a matter of 'who' is right, but 'what'.
I don't believe you will find I did either of these things. As to the claim that Dr Kopp or anyone who supports the F-22/Evolved F-111 force structure option is trying to "propose to the DoD a procurement plan based on their credentials", this is incorrect. A fully developed proposal, supported by rigorous analyses, was provided to Defence back in 2001. Further information was requested and supplied. Then the Air6000 Project was hijacked by the bureaucrats and senior officials who saw a quick fix through the JSF Program. If you will take the time to read the submissions to the JSCFADT inquiry, you will see that the only proponents who are resting (and relying) upon their credential laurals are those who support the Defence position. The actual arguments presented are either non-sequitur, extremely qualified or just plainly untruthful. What you may not realise is that the Australian Department of Defence is about where the Pentagon and US DoD were pre Goldwater-Nichols, in terms of the group think driven decision making. In fact, the position in Australia is a lot worse, given the level of deskilling that occured during the 1990s (a consequence of the in discriminate down sizing and outsourcing) and what has happend since the Defence 2000 White Paper. FYI, this White Paper directed retirement of the F/A-18s first (2012) and operating the F-111s through to 2020. One has got to ask what changed from 2000 to 2002? Look at the competencies, expertise and experience of the decision makers and you will start to see one of the big problems.
Move on from an F-22/F-111 orbat and I'm more than game.
Why do this when it is far more capable than; far more cost effective than; and far less risky than, with far more benefit to the Defence community than the current plans of the Australian Department of Defence?
Anyway, thanks for the background and remember it ain't over till the fat lady sings.
Last edited by a moderator:
If the five tanks are not jetisoned this may be the case.
The fuel from the external tanks in most cases are used up first. This would allow the Super Hornets reach enemy air space on external fuel. They would then be jetisoned and the aircraft would be clean with maximum performance and full internal fuel. This will allow the Super Hornets to engage and refill from a tanker on the way back.
I'd be interested in more details on your...
...comments. How is the F-22 of more benefit to the Australian Defence Community (I assume you mean industry as well) than the F-35?Occum said:
Cheers
Magoo
PETER671BT
New Member
who knows AND who cares,bottom line is AUSTRALIA has bought the JSF and all have live with it,But looking at both planes they have there dis- advantage and advangates.Hopefully they'll able to get 100 planes for the price they paid.And that they'll do the job for australia,and other allied countries.The cockpits in each plane are the latest technology has to offer.I must ask... is Dr. Kopp a veteran RAAF combat pilot? Or is he a pencil-pusher?
Edit:
A little birdie told me he spent 30 minutes in a Super Bug... well I have 300 hours so there. I guess I should be the holy grail... worship me.imp
The aerodynamics on each is good,but I do woory about the exhaust on the JSF for it's movablitly.THE nozzle seem to be to large in diameter,to compared to the f-22.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Recent news on the JSF program, some good, some not so good. IN relation to the "bad" news however is that no ACTUAL commitment to reducing buys between 09-13. Overall I'd have to agree with the Deputy Defence Secretary that this IS good news for the program. Any time a defence organisation is directed AND funded to buy MORE of a capabiltiy than they wish, is a "turn up for the books"...
Posted on Thu, Jan. 04, 2007
Cutback on F-35 in 2008 rejected
Services can buy fewer fighters between 2009-13.
By Tony Capaccio
BLOOMBERG NEWS
The Defense Department vetoed Navy and Air Force plans to cut the number of Lockheed Martin-made F-35 joint strike fighters they would buy next year.
Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England ordered the services to add $1.8 billion to their fiscal 2008 budgets. He told the Air Force to buy six fighters instead of four and the Navy, which proposed to buy no fighters in 2008, to buy six. At the same time, he agreed to let both services buy fewer aircraft than planned between 2009 and 2013.
England's orders, relayed to the service secretaries in a 60-page memo last month, reflect a desire to support the F-35, an international project and the Pentagon's largest weapons program, while still paying extraordinary costs associated with the Iraq and Afghan conflicts and meeting the Navy's commitment to increase the fleet, analysts said.
"England's decision amounts to putting his finger in the F- 35 dike," because both the Navy and Air Force are indicating "waning" support in the face of these other demands, said Thomas Ehrhard, a military-aircraft analyst for the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment in Washington.
Both services also may be asked to help fund the cost of increasing the size of the Army, an initiative Bush ordered last month, Ehrhard said.
The F-35's estimated $276 billion price tag "represents a huge chunk" of future spending, "but so far, nobody at the top is willing to pull the plug," Ehrhard said.
Kevin Wensing, a spokesman for England, declined to comment on the decision except to say that the Pentagon's leaders and "our allies are committed to this important program."
England's "Program Decision Memorandum," signed Dec. 13, is one of four directives sent to the military service secretaries, chiefs of staff and Pentagon acquisition officials that spell out spending priorities through fiscal 2013 for space, aircraft, special operations, healthcare and defense intelligence programs.
John Kent, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin, said the F-35 program continues to head in the right direction.
"We're not going to conclude anything yet, but certainly this is good news on the surface," Kent said in an interview with the Star-Telegram. The F-35 had its first test flight last month.
"We're very excited to see the program move to the next level with all these new developments," he said.
The Pentagon estimates that it will spend about $231 billion over the next 20 years buying aircraft. Congress through last year has approved about $31 billion for the F-35, mostly for development.
The F-35 Lightning II is designed to be a short-range fighter that's almost invisible to radar and is capable of supporting ground troops. The program, as conceived in late 1996, envisioned the U.S. military buying 2,978 planes, including 10 for development testing. The number was reduced to 2,852 aircraft in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review and today stands at 2,458, including 15 for development testing.
The Air Force plans to buy 1,763 planes, a number that's held since 1997. The Navy and Marines would buy 680; they originally planned to buy 1,089, but the Navy cut this number in 2002 when the Navy and Marine Corps fighter squadrons were consolidated.
Additionally, the United Kingdom is buying 138 planes, and Italy may buy as many as 131. Turkey and Austra- lia plan to buy 100 each, the Netherlands 85, Canada 60, and Norway and Denmark 48 each.
Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based research institute, said the Navy is convinced that it can't afford all the aircraft it now plans to buy and still meet its commitment to increase the fleet by almost 30 ships by 2020.
Navy and Marine Corps officials "do not see eye-to-eye on the program," Thompson said. "Senior admirals oppose buying the Marine variant" that can take off on short fields and the smaller decks of amphibious warfare vessels, while Marine leaders question the value of the Navy version that requires the large deck of a traditional aircraft carrier, Thompson said.
Richard Aboulafia, a military-aircraft market analyst with the Teal Group in Alexandria, Va., was more sanguine about the program's prospects. The purchasing delays that England approved could be restored, and the original Navy and Air Force production schedules were too ambitious anyway, he said.
"The real budget danger was short term, so restoring the 2008 funding is good news," Aboulafia said. The production schedule "was always aggressive, but the new schedule looks realistic," he said.
England, former president of Lockheed's aircraft operations in Fort Worth, where the company is making the F-35, seemed to acknowledge in his memo the need to slow the program, directing the armed forces to adjust their budgets to "fund the development program properly."
Although the F-35 is more stealthy than the Boeing Co. F/A-18E/F that's now the centerpiece of naval aviation, "the Navy seems content" with this plane and may not be in a rush to buy the new one, Ehrhard said.
About 4,000 people work on the F-35 program at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth plant.
Staff writer David Wethe contributed to this report.
Posted on Thu, Jan. 04, 2007
Cutback on F-35 in 2008 rejected
Services can buy fewer fighters between 2009-13.
By Tony Capaccio
BLOOMBERG NEWS
The Defense Department vetoed Navy and Air Force plans to cut the number of Lockheed Martin-made F-35 joint strike fighters they would buy next year.
Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England ordered the services to add $1.8 billion to their fiscal 2008 budgets. He told the Air Force to buy six fighters instead of four and the Navy, which proposed to buy no fighters in 2008, to buy six. At the same time, he agreed to let both services buy fewer aircraft than planned between 2009 and 2013.
England's orders, relayed to the service secretaries in a 60-page memo last month, reflect a desire to support the F-35, an international project and the Pentagon's largest weapons program, while still paying extraordinary costs associated with the Iraq and Afghan conflicts and meeting the Navy's commitment to increase the fleet, analysts said.
"England's decision amounts to putting his finger in the F- 35 dike," because both the Navy and Air Force are indicating "waning" support in the face of these other demands, said Thomas Ehrhard, a military-aircraft analyst for the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment in Washington.
Both services also may be asked to help fund the cost of increasing the size of the Army, an initiative Bush ordered last month, Ehrhard said.
The F-35's estimated $276 billion price tag "represents a huge chunk" of future spending, "but so far, nobody at the top is willing to pull the plug," Ehrhard said.
Kevin Wensing, a spokesman for England, declined to comment on the decision except to say that the Pentagon's leaders and "our allies are committed to this important program."
England's "Program Decision Memorandum," signed Dec. 13, is one of four directives sent to the military service secretaries, chiefs of staff and Pentagon acquisition officials that spell out spending priorities through fiscal 2013 for space, aircraft, special operations, healthcare and defense intelligence programs.
John Kent, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin, said the F-35 program continues to head in the right direction.
"We're not going to conclude anything yet, but certainly this is good news on the surface," Kent said in an interview with the Star-Telegram. The F-35 had its first test flight last month.
"We're very excited to see the program move to the next level with all these new developments," he said.
The Pentagon estimates that it will spend about $231 billion over the next 20 years buying aircraft. Congress through last year has approved about $31 billion for the F-35, mostly for development.
The F-35 Lightning II is designed to be a short-range fighter that's almost invisible to radar and is capable of supporting ground troops. The program, as conceived in late 1996, envisioned the U.S. military buying 2,978 planes, including 10 for development testing. The number was reduced to 2,852 aircraft in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review and today stands at 2,458, including 15 for development testing.
The Air Force plans to buy 1,763 planes, a number that's held since 1997. The Navy and Marines would buy 680; they originally planned to buy 1,089, but the Navy cut this number in 2002 when the Navy and Marine Corps fighter squadrons were consolidated.
Additionally, the United Kingdom is buying 138 planes, and Italy may buy as many as 131. Turkey and Austra- lia plan to buy 100 each, the Netherlands 85, Canada 60, and Norway and Denmark 48 each.
Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based research institute, said the Navy is convinced that it can't afford all the aircraft it now plans to buy and still meet its commitment to increase the fleet by almost 30 ships by 2020.
Navy and Marine Corps officials "do not see eye-to-eye on the program," Thompson said. "Senior admirals oppose buying the Marine variant" that can take off on short fields and the smaller decks of amphibious warfare vessels, while Marine leaders question the value of the Navy version that requires the large deck of a traditional aircraft carrier, Thompson said.
Richard Aboulafia, a military-aircraft market analyst with the Teal Group in Alexandria, Va., was more sanguine about the program's prospects. The purchasing delays that England approved could be restored, and the original Navy and Air Force production schedules were too ambitious anyway, he said.
"The real budget danger was short term, so restoring the 2008 funding is good news," Aboulafia said. The production schedule "was always aggressive, but the new schedule looks realistic," he said.
England, former president of Lockheed's aircraft operations in Fort Worth, where the company is making the F-35, seemed to acknowledge in his memo the need to slow the program, directing the armed forces to adjust their budgets to "fund the development program properly."
Although the F-35 is more stealthy than the Boeing Co. F/A-18E/F that's now the centerpiece of naval aviation, "the Navy seems content" with this plane and may not be in a rush to buy the new one, Ehrhard said.
About 4,000 people work on the F-35 program at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth plant.
Staff writer David Wethe contributed to this report.
PETER671BT
New Member
I had look at what yos said and the F-111 Haven't seen combat is right and are a derrent,but are quiet agile too.I 've got a video showing one doing roll overs and inverted dives.F-111 could be enhance by rebiulding it into a aircraft very simliar to a su-30,but with biult in weapons bays,and using the f-111 engines and cockpit,undercarriage.I design a version for RAAF if you know any one that listen and a diagramme of that version.
spec was speed at mach 2.3,distance 5950km,vector thrust,G model improved power,wings half swept 15.3m,tail wings change to two,24.8m lenght,hieght 5.60m,weapons hard points internal bays 2,total of six 120 aams,plus external weapons are 10 stations in total and carry six 120 aams and two external fuel tanks,total max take off wieght at 50,050kgs.
I sacrifise speed for more weapons.by .2mach,
spec was speed at mach 2.3,distance 5950km,vector thrust,G model improved power,wings half swept 15.3m,tail wings change to two,24.8m lenght,hieght 5.60m,weapons hard points internal bays 2,total of six 120 aams,plus external weapons are 10 stations in total and carry six 120 aams and two external fuel tanks,total max take off wieght at 50,050kgs.
I sacrifise speed for more weapons.by .2mach,
Some Insights
Hi Magoo,
The information you are asking for has been posted on other threads, in some detail, and can be found in various Parliamentary submissions, however, will summarise for you.
First, some scene setting.
With the signing up to the PFSD MOU, Dr Nelson and his predecessor have spent and committed to spend through this and the SDD MOU around half a billion dollars on Australia's participation (including Project Office and other government department expenses) in the JSF Program by around 2012. This does not include the procurement cost for the aircraft.
To date, Australian Industry has won around US$100 million dollars worth of contracts. Bravo Zulu to all who have done this, however well worth reading Submission 20 to the JSCFADT which, unlike the Defence submissions, provides tables of costs and a risk analysis of this somewhat adventurous loss lead venture.
See - http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs/sub20_1.pdf
and search on 'loss-lead business model'
FYI - the US$100 million is the gross value of the contracts and the 15% EBIT assumed in the analysis is extremely generous (given the highly competitive and somewhat draconian nature of the JSF Program contractual Ts&Cs). If you haven't read them, well worth taking a look. The big risk is that with the high probability of delays in schedule (and significant ones, at that), Australia is likely to have a number of corporate carcasses which will be ripe for the picking (@ < 10 cents in the dollar for all the infrastructure and investment they have made to be part of the JSF Program) by none other than LM. How else do you think the LM Board is mitigating the sub contractor risks on their books, if not through their global expansion program?
Anyway, to the summary -
1. F-22 is and always will be an exclusive club, unlike JSF which is already suffering from the malaise of the melee that comes from so many players.
2. A buy of 50 +5 (total 55) Raptors would result, on present numbers, in Australia having over 23% of the world fleet - a position it has not been in before (ever) with any aircraft fleet. Such a proportion of the total fleet brings with it significant commercial and strategic industrial influence, provided one knows how to use such influence which is a risk if just left up to Defence who, as they freely admit and understandably, lack the commercial acumen. This latter point is one of the major issues that is being addressed through the Industry Policy Review (by both Defence and industry). So far, so good.
3. Such a buy would be good for the USAF for the Raptor Program but moreover from a strategic perspective. We are now moving into some of the more sensitive aspects of the Evolved F-111 Proposal (which has the purchase of the F-22 as its centrepiece which is why its NDP was "Procuring the F-22 by Stealth") so I will just have to leave you to take this point up from here. Happy, to discuss off line with some caveats.
4. Fully evolving the F-111 would cost somewhat less (by some degree) than two billion dollars, even with the healthy risk margins that were used in the cost estimates in the original proposals. Certainly not the eight billion dollars that AM Geoff Shephard stated he felt would be the cost to the JSCFADT hearing back on the 31st of March last year. He has either not read the proposals or is choosing to use fictitious numbers. He will likely be required to table his cost estmates. As you can see with most if not all the arguments put forward by Defence, none are supported by facts or hard numbers since they know if they tabled what they presently claim to be facts and hard numbers, these would go to their credit which is now, likely, to happen (and some might say about time, too). However, I digress. A significant portion of this money for evolving the F-111 (at Australia's own pace and under Australia's control) would be spent in engaging and employing Australian Industry in the design, integration and low risk technology insertion programs. This is the exact opposite to the outcomes of the current Defence plans and will return significantly more in terms of the industry capabilities required to support Australia's defence capabilities (aka self reliance) plus provide the seed funds required for Australia's industrial base to expand its export activities.
........ to be continued (with more on both the F-22 and the evolving of the F-111). Suggest studying the submissions to the JSCFADT would be helpful in gaining an appreciation of some of the details behind the above as well as what I will be providing in the next installment.
Hi Magoo,
The information you are asking for has been posted on other threads, in some detail, and can be found in various Parliamentary submissions, however, will summarise for you.
First, some scene setting.
With the signing up to the PFSD MOU, Dr Nelson and his predecessor have spent and committed to spend through this and the SDD MOU around half a billion dollars on Australia's participation (including Project Office and other government department expenses) in the JSF Program by around 2012. This does not include the procurement cost for the aircraft.
To date, Australian Industry has won around US$100 million dollars worth of contracts. Bravo Zulu to all who have done this, however well worth reading Submission 20 to the JSCFADT which, unlike the Defence submissions, provides tables of costs and a risk analysis of this somewhat adventurous loss lead venture.
See - http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs/sub20_1.pdf
and search on 'loss-lead business model'
FYI - the US$100 million is the gross value of the contracts and the 15% EBIT assumed in the analysis is extremely generous (given the highly competitive and somewhat draconian nature of the JSF Program contractual Ts&Cs). If you haven't read them, well worth taking a look. The big risk is that with the high probability of delays in schedule (and significant ones, at that), Australia is likely to have a number of corporate carcasses which will be ripe for the picking (@ < 10 cents in the dollar for all the infrastructure and investment they have made to be part of the JSF Program) by none other than LM. How else do you think the LM Board is mitigating the sub contractor risks on their books, if not through their global expansion program?
Anyway, to the summary -
1. F-22 is and always will be an exclusive club, unlike JSF which is already suffering from the malaise of the melee that comes from so many players.
2. A buy of 50 +5 (total 55) Raptors would result, on present numbers, in Australia having over 23% of the world fleet - a position it has not been in before (ever) with any aircraft fleet. Such a proportion of the total fleet brings with it significant commercial and strategic industrial influence, provided one knows how to use such influence which is a risk if just left up to Defence who, as they freely admit and understandably, lack the commercial acumen. This latter point is one of the major issues that is being addressed through the Industry Policy Review (by both Defence and industry). So far, so good.
3. Such a buy would be good for the USAF for the Raptor Program but moreover from a strategic perspective. We are now moving into some of the more sensitive aspects of the Evolved F-111 Proposal (which has the purchase of the F-22 as its centrepiece which is why its NDP was "Procuring the F-22 by Stealth") so I will just have to leave you to take this point up from here. Happy, to discuss off line with some caveats.
4. Fully evolving the F-111 would cost somewhat less (by some degree) than two billion dollars, even with the healthy risk margins that were used in the cost estimates in the original proposals. Certainly not the eight billion dollars that AM Geoff Shephard stated he felt would be the cost to the JSCFADT hearing back on the 31st of March last year. He has either not read the proposals or is choosing to use fictitious numbers. He will likely be required to table his cost estmates. As you can see with most if not all the arguments put forward by Defence, none are supported by facts or hard numbers since they know if they tabled what they presently claim to be facts and hard numbers, these would go to their credit which is now, likely, to happen (and some might say about time, too). However, I digress. A significant portion of this money for evolving the F-111 (at Australia's own pace and under Australia's control) would be spent in engaging and employing Australian Industry in the design, integration and low risk technology insertion programs. This is the exact opposite to the outcomes of the current Defence plans and will return significantly more in terms of the industry capabilities required to support Australia's defence capabilities (aka self reliance) plus provide the seed funds required for Australia's industrial base to expand its export activities.
........ to be continued (with more on both the F-22 and the evolving of the F-111). Suggest studying the submissions to the JSCFADT would be helpful in gaining an appreciation of some of the details behind the above as well as what I will be providing in the next installment.
Last edited:
nfloorl: Thats pretty funny. Based on the cost of upgrading our hornets the F-111's would cost MUCH more to upgrade them to what you suggest. Most of our upgrades were off the shelf components that the US Navy developed themselves. Similar upgrades for the F-111 would have to be funded entirely by Australia. The development cost would be huge, the risk of the program not working and Australia loosing its money is also quite high. I cant give an estimate but we could probably buy 10 B-1B's off the USAF and that would work out much cheaper in the short and long term.
Occum suggested that the cost of the evolved F-111 may be as low as think cost of 2 billion dollars. Based on the UAE F-16 Block 60 Project i think the development could even be double or tripple that amount.
If you live in Australia and want to make the most cost effective purchase where you get the most "Bang for your buck" then you buy off the shelf hardware.
The evolved F-111 provides very little Bang for your buck, it will cost alot for very few aircraft.
The F-22 costs a little too much for the amount of Bang you receive, yet it does deliver a bigger punch than the JSF and Super Hornet ever could.
The Super Hornet and JSF both provide excellent value for money. The JSF has more risk and is not available for atleast 5 years with Australia possibly having to wait up to 10 years.
This is why i think the Super Hornet is the way to go. Slightly older in design but it fills the short term needs and will definitely to a good job in the long term.
Shortcomings in Literacy Competency or Selective Comprehension??
Dear RJM,
Sorry to have to be the one to point out your BAD, but this is not what was said.
If you would be so kind as to re-read post #306 you will see what I say to be true, with the relevant section stating:
"4. Fully evolving the F-111 would cost somewhat less (by some degree) than two billion dollars, even with the healthy risk margins that were used in the cost estimates in the original proposals. Certainly not the eight billion dollars that AM Geoff Shephard stated he felt would be the cost to the JSCFADT hearing back on the 31st of March last year."
For your information, the cost estimates for the Evolved F-111 Proposal were specific to the F-111 (not the F/A-18 nor the F-16 nor any other aircraft) and are applicable to the upgrades and technology insertion programs provided to the Air6000 Project Office in response to their request for proposals. These costs estimates have also been peer reviewed by members of the Australian Defence Industry with the appropriate skills, competencies, expertise and experience to do so.
If you would like to provide a breakdown of your cost estimates along with relevant risk margins, how they were derived and, of course, the relevant planning assumptions you have made (eg. regarding exchange rates, CPI, learning curve equations, etc.), we will be more than happy to have them peer reviewed for you so you can work out (and, more importantly, understand) why there are other BADs in this post of yours.
Thats pretty funny. . . .
Occum suggested that the cost of the evolved F-111 may be as low as think cost of 2 billion dollars. Based on the UAE F-16 Block 60 Project i think the development could even be double or tripple that amount.
Dear RJM,
Sorry to have to be the one to point out your BAD, but this is not what was said.
If you would be so kind as to re-read post #306 you will see what I say to be true, with the relevant section stating:
"4. Fully evolving the F-111 would cost somewhat less (by some degree) than two billion dollars, even with the healthy risk margins that were used in the cost estimates in the original proposals. Certainly not the eight billion dollars that AM Geoff Shephard stated he felt would be the cost to the JSCFADT hearing back on the 31st of March last year."
For your information, the cost estimates for the Evolved F-111 Proposal were specific to the F-111 (not the F/A-18 nor the F-16 nor any other aircraft) and are applicable to the upgrades and technology insertion programs provided to the Air6000 Project Office in response to their request for proposals. These costs estimates have also been peer reviewed by members of the Australian Defence Industry with the appropriate skills, competencies, expertise and experience to do so.
If you would like to provide a breakdown of your cost estimates along with relevant risk margins, how they were derived and, of course, the relevant planning assumptions you have made (eg. regarding exchange rates, CPI, learning curve equations, etc.), we will be more than happy to have them peer reviewed for you so you can work out (and, more importantly, understand) why there are other BADs in this post of yours.
Not yet. Just stated an intention to buy it. Same as everyone else. No purchase contracts so far.
The Block 60 F-16 program cost the UAE US 2 billion dollars in development costs. This did not cover the actual aircraft, nor would it cover the F-111's being upgraded.
The Block 60 F-16's is not that much different from a Block 50+ F-16. It still carries the same weapons as a standard F-16, All F-16's have always been electronic. The engines are still the same just an uprated version that fits to the existing wiring, all off the shelf upgrades which the F-111 doesn't have.
The Evolved F-111 will NOT be as easy. It would easily cost twice as much to develop. So thats 4 billion right there.
1) We will want the Evolved F-111's to carry additional new weapons, AMRAAM, Small Diameter bombs etc.
2) We will have to change the entire avionics to a completely digital system. All the F-111's would have to be taken apart to run the wiring. With the Block 60 F-16 the airframe wiring is nearly identical to a Block 50 aircraft straight off the production line. So this is where alot of extra development and implementation costs will appear.
3) No off the shelf side by side cockpits exist. Australia would have to develop this themselves. What radar would we use? The JSF and F-22 AESA radars are suited for single pilot cockpits. The evolved F-111 would most likely use modified avionic systems from a twin seat super hornet.
Those three major parts were all performed on the Block 60 F-16 program, so that program i believe should be used for comparison. Each of those steps require significantly more work with the F-111 when compared to the F-16. More work means more risk and cost. The additional work and complexity cannot be done for the same cost, so it would definitely end up costing more than 2 billion dollars.
To start with 2 billion dollars could buy an entire squadron of Super Hornets by using the development cost only. The cost of upgrading each F-111 best case would be atleast half the cost of a new Super Bug. So we could have two squadrons of Super Hornets for the cost of a single squadron of evolved F-111's. Thats best case, worst case we could have three or even four squadrons of Super Hornets for the cost of one squadron of Evolved F-111's.
So we end up getting an aircraft with the same systems of a Super Hornet in an air frame that has longer range and is quicker. However the evolved F-111 will never be as agile nor would it ever have the radar cross section of the Super Hornet.
If we were to fit F119 engines with the F-22 thrust vectoring performance would be excellent. However that would be another billion in development and another billion in upgrading the aircraft right there. Also reducing the radar cross section of the F-111, thats another billion in development cost and another billion modifying the F-111 air frames. This would make the F-111's VERY impressive aircraft, however for the cost of developing and modifying 30 F-111 aircraft for the same price we could have a small fleet of F-22 aircraft.
Australia is not prepared to waste half of the AIR 6000 budget on upgrading the F-111's.
Dear RJM,
I am sure others will likely point out the various BADS in your last post, of which there are many. For instance:
Suggest you go away and study up on what was done to the aircraft under the F/RF-111C AUP and F-111G AMP before making such claims as if you know what you are talking about.
In the mean time, so that an appropriately tailored response can be made to your last, could you please provide your bona fides for making such claims. It would be helpful to know your particular competencies, skills and experience in the particular areas. Also, any relevant qualifications, say, in either the technical or operational disciplines or both.
At the moment, based upon what you have written, we would be starting from a basis that you are an aviation enthusiast (a good thing) but that you have very little technical knowledge or expertise or experience of your own in aviation. Now this is not a bad thing but does mean an appropriate response will pretty much have to start from the basics which will require a fair bit of effort which if not received in the spirit in which it would be provided, then this would be a waste of your time and ours.
Additionally, the offer made in Post #308 still stands if you wish to avail yourself of the opportunity.
However, based upon your last, it would appear your figures are, at best, WAGs without citeable, supporting analyses. If this is not correct, then happy to have these reviewed for you in the spirit of advancing your understanding of the Evolved F-111 Option and aircraft design/modifications/upgrades, in general.
Till next time.
I am sure others will likely point out the various BADS in your last post, of which there are many. For instance:
Suggest you go away and study up on what was done to the aircraft under the F/RF-111C AUP and F-111G AMP before making such claims as if you know what you are talking about.
In the mean time, so that an appropriately tailored response can be made to your last, could you please provide your bona fides for making such claims. It would be helpful to know your particular competencies, skills and experience in the particular areas. Also, any relevant qualifications, say, in either the technical or operational disciplines or both.
At the moment, based upon what you have written, we would be starting from a basis that you are an aviation enthusiast (a good thing) but that you have very little technical knowledge or expertise or experience of your own in aviation. Now this is not a bad thing but does mean an appropriate response will pretty much have to start from the basics which will require a fair bit of effort which if not received in the spirit in which it would be provided, then this would be a waste of your time and ours.
Additionally, the offer made in Post #308 still stands if you wish to avail yourself of the opportunity.
However, based upon your last, it would appear your figures are, at best, WAGs without citeable, supporting analyses. If this is not correct, then happy to have these reviewed for you in the spirit of advancing your understanding of the Evolved F-111 Option and aircraft design/modifications/upgrades, in general.
Till next time.
Dear RJM,
I am sure others will likely point out the various BADS in your last post, of which there are many. For instance:
Suggest you go away and study up on what was done to the aircraft under the F-111 AUP and F-111G AMP before making such claims as if you know what you are talking about.
Anyway, so an appropriately tailored response can be made to your last, could you please provide your bona fides for making such claims. It would be helpful to know your particular competencies, skills and experience in the particular areas. Also, any relevant qualifications, say, in either the technical or operational disciplines or both.
At the moment, based upon what you have written, we would be starting from a basis that you are an aviation enthusiast (a good thing) but that you have very little technical knowledge or expertise or experience of your own in aviation. Now this is not a bad thing but does mean an appropriate response will pretty much have to start with the basics which will require a fair bit of effort which if not received in the spirit which it would be given would be a waste of your time and ours.
In the meantime, the offer made in Post #308 still stands if you wish to take up the opportunity. However, based upon your last, it would appear your figures are, at best, WAGs without citeable, supporting analyses. If this is not correct, then happy to have these reviewed for you in the spirit of advancing your understanding of the Evolved F-111 Option.
Till next time.
But it is still an old orphan airframe with an RCS the size of a house and Australia would bear all the risk and cost of development as RJM stated.
For all those bemoaning the risk assocated with the F-35 this would of similar or greater magnitude but without the interest of a number of partners.
Roll on the JSF. (and maybe 24 to 48 rhino's)
Cultural Cringe and Scardy Cats
Amazing.
How is it that the Maritime Community in Australia is able to successfully operate, maintain and upgrade assets which, by the definitions applied by some members of the Aerospace Community, are 'orphans' yet supposed aviation professionals and aviation enthusiasts alike cringe at the thought when it comes to their chosen domain.
Remember, the current CDF (along with most RAAF senior officers) are on record as stating there is nothing that can replace the F-111.
Roll on the eradication of the cultural cringe and the scardy cats who are holding back and, in some cases, hell bent on killing off the Australia Aerospace Industry.
Amazing.
How is it that the Maritime Community in Australia is able to successfully operate, maintain and upgrade assets which, by the definitions applied by some members of the Aerospace Community, are 'orphans' yet supposed aviation professionals and aviation enthusiasts alike cringe at the thought when it comes to their chosen domain.
Remember, the current CDF (along with most RAAF senior officers) are on record as stating there is nothing that can replace the F-111.
Roll on the eradication of the cultural cringe and the scardy cats who are holding back and, in some cases, hell bent on killing off the Australia Aerospace Industry.