Forum: Program and politics

Conan wrote:

I've said before APA's figures were rubbish, but the F-111 upgrade proposal shows that more clearly than anything else.

Their costing was $1b for the whole F-111S upgrade.

Funny, it looks like between 1.6 and 2.5 billion from here…

F-16.net Sponsor

spazsinbad wrote:

'jeffb' shirley the air system info is updated? MisDirect eh.

Whatever the AUSTRALIAN may have reported there is no getting around the OBEY Amendment.

What has the date 2009 got to do with the F-22? Air 6000 commenced in 1999 - not 2009 - after c.2000 the F-22 and other contenders became irrelevant.

Sadly the non-contender F-22 sales team did not make it to Oz according to ELP. Shirley not - shucks. Very Happy

All no named sources and no-shows.

Come on Spazsinbad, talk about misdirect. The Air System Info that Australia was given access to in 2002 was a fiction and yes I’m sure they update it everytime something else has to be changed, like the range KPP criteria for instance. And try reading the links properly too. ELP said they did arrive out here but got turned around at the airport like the Eurofighter and Rafale teams after the 'surprise' F-35 decision.

Conan wrote:

Who cares? Legislation is still in place, effectively preventing it's sale and the production line has closed even further effectively preventing it's export. On top of which RAAF has stated any number of times it doesn't want the F-22.

What more do you need?

It's also awesome that you can believe DSTO when they state something that supports your view, but when they offer a contrary opinion, they become too "de-skilled" to know what they're talking about...

Sounds like a grudging admission that the F-22 WAS a contender to me Conan and I wasn't having a go at the DSTO, I was having a go at you and your selective dismissal of sources depending on whether they say the F-35 is fantastic or not.

Anyway, this wasn’t about you or your mate ‘Shirley’ Spazsinbad.

Ultor had posted:

Ultor wrote:

Besides I don't understand APA stance at all. They pursued very strange solutions. APA wanted Australia to purchase F-22s knowing very well they are banned from export. They also proposed to make from 1960s vintage F-111 penetration bomber design some sort of XXI century fighter, bomber and EW platform "all in one". All that looks ridiculous at best...

Just thought I’d clear up some of the misconceptions for him.
Smile

jeffb wrote:

I hadn’t actually mentioned the cost of the alternate proposal HB but your points about the support costs of the F-22s are likely well taken. The comparison I saw that compared the costs of the two proposals didn’t include support costs as the F-35 costs were unknown at the time (2002).

There was some dispute about the costing model defence had used to determine that the F-111 were too expensive to continue supporting and if your interested her is a link to the main points from everyone's best friend Carlo Kopp:
http://www.ausairpower.net/F-111-Costs-CK-Mar-04.pdf

However as far back as 2002 there were clear signals the F-22 was going to be a maintenance hog. This was part of the reason why the F-35 was given priority. Back then the JSF was intended to have an O&M cost of around that of a F-16. That seems to have gone up some, but its not likely to be even close to the F-22.

Frankly given APA's other work I just can't find any of their figures credible at all.

Fair enough and here is the quote: "...While on the way, the teams visit was canceled by senior officials. When they landed in Australia, they were told to go home..." I had only remembered the 'while on the way' part. So sue me - shirley not.

And 'jeffb' to be clear. Given 'Conan' and 'SpazSinbad' disagreements here on this forum I doubt if anyone would think either of us are 'mates'. Just look for any suggestion of 'F-35Bs on LHDs' on this forum. However we have decided on a truce (like 'don't mention the war') regarding that topic - so don't start. Twisted Evil

Still don't hear any admission from you 'jeffb' about the start of the 'OBEY Amendment' being ???

Read somewhere the Australion F-111, at some point, 166 hours per flighthour maintenance
How many hours, after another 20 years or more, would that be?

Seems to me a very expensive aircraft for Australia

The only operator would be Australia. As an example, some equipment of the EPAF F16's, will fly longer than expected, will have to be specially
produced in small very expensive series because it's not on the market available anymore.
Suppose this will also be the case for the F-111?

jeffb wrote:

Conan wrote:

I've said before APA's figures were rubbish, but the F-111 upgrade proposal shows that more clearly than anything else.

Their costing was $1b for the whole F-111S upgrade.

Funny, it looks like between 1.6 and 2.5 billion from here…

Quote:

updated 20 January 2008

Got the original pricing they submitted?

Wink

jeffb wrote:

Sounds like a grudging admission that the F-22 WAS a contender to me Conan and I wasn't having a go at the DSTO, I was having a go at you and your selective dismissal of sources depending on whether they say the F-35 is fantastic or not.

Not grudging at all. The F-22A certainly was proposed to RAAF by Lockheed Martin as a possible solution in the original request for proposals. It turned out not possible and remains that way.

However that doesn't change the fact that we simply didn't want it then, as we don't want it today.

Quote:

Anyway, this wasn’t about you or your mate ‘Shirley’ Spazsinbad.

I've got no beef with Spaz and indeed I don't even disagree with his point that F-35B's might be useful. We just disagree on a few related matters is all, but I respect the rational thinking he puts behind his opinion on these matters.

Something that is usually missing when people talk about their equipment fantasies...

hb_pencil wrote:

jeffb wrote:

I hadn’t actually mentioned the cost of the alternate proposal HB but your points about the support costs of the F-22s are likely well taken. The comparison I saw that compared the costs of the two proposals didn’t include support costs as the F-35 costs were unknown at the time (2002).

There was some dispute about the costing model defence had used to determine that the F-111 were too expensive to continue supporting and if your interested her is a link to the main points from everyone's best friend Carlo Kopp:
http://www.ausairpower.net/F-111-Costs-CK-Mar-04.pdf

However as far back as 2002 there were clear signals the F-22 was going to be a maintenance hog. This was part of the reason why the F-35 was given priority. Back then the JSF was intended to have an O&M cost of around that of a F-16. That seems to have gone up some, but its not likely to be even close to the F-22.

Frankly given APA's other work I just can't find any of their figures credible at all.

It’s interesting that you say that about APA given some of Lockheeds rubbery numbers, even the 'same support costs as an F-16' one, but if you've made your mind up there's not much point discussing it is there.

Conan wrote:

jeffb wrote:

Conan wrote:

I've said before APA's figures were rubbish, but the F-111 upgrade proposal shows that more clearly than anything else.

Their costing was $1b for the whole F-111S upgrade.

Funny, it looks like between 1.6 and 2.5 billion from here…

Quote:

updated 20 January 2008

Got the original pricing they submitted?

Wink

Got evidence that the prices changed?
Wink

Last edited by jeffb on Mar 16, 2012 - 02:01 PM; edited 1 time in total

spazsinbad wrote:

Fair enough and here is the quote: "...While on the way, the teams visit was canceled by senior officials. When they landed in Australia, they were told to go home..." I had only remembered the 'while on the way' part. So sue me - shirley not.

And 'jeffb' to be clear. Given 'Conan' and 'SpazSinbad' disagreements here on this forum I doubt if anyone would think either of us are 'mates'. Just look for any suggestion of 'F-35Bs on LHDs' on this forum. However we have decided on a truce (like 'don't mention the war') regarding that topic - so don't start. Twisted Evil

Still don't hear any admission from you 'jeffb' about the start of the 'OBEY Amendment' being ???

Here you go Spaz

Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1998 wrote:

(Sec. 8117) Prohibits funds from this Act from being used to: (1) enter into or renew a contract with a contractor who has not submitted to the Labor Department its most recently required annual report concerning the employment of veterans; (2) approve or license the sale of the F-22 advanced tactical fighter to any foreign government; or (3) fund the United States Man and the Biosphere Program or related projects.

Seems to say that it was passed into law on or after 21/10/1997?

So there you go, seeing as it was a contender for Air 6000 I simply assumed that Obey had come after. Apparently not.

IANAL but doesn’t that imply that someone else can pony up the funds to ‘approve or licence the sale’?

Conan wrote:

The F-22A certainly was proposed to RAAF by Lockheed Martin as a possible solution in the original request for proposals

Conan wrote:

but I respect the rational thinking he puts behind his opinion on these matters.

Something that is usually missing when people talk about their equipment fantasies...

Yeah, I hate those F-35 fanboys too. Twisted Evil

DOTE 2011 Annual Report wrote:

Mission
A unit equipped with the F-22A:
• Provides air superiority over friendly or enemy territory
• Defends friendly forces against fighter, bomber, or cruise missile attack
• Escorts friendly air forces into enemy territory
• Provides air-to-ground capability for counter-air, strategic attack, counter-land, and enemy air defense suppression missions.
…
Mission
• A force equipped with F-35 units should permit the combatant commander to attack targets day or night, in all weather, in highly defended areas of joint operations.
• Targets include fixed and mobile land targets, enemy surface units at sea, and air threats, including advanced cruise missiles.

It's not about 'equipment fantasies' Conan, it's about getting the right tool for the job.

How clear can this be? "...(2) approve or license the sale of the F-22 advanced tactical fighter to any foreign government..."

jeffb wrote:

Got evidence that the prices changed?

Er, I provided it before, but seeing as though you appear to have comprehension issues here it is again, lifted straight from APA's own "fantastic" chart.

Quote:

updated 20 January 2008

jeffb wrote:

It's not about 'equipment fantasies' Conan, it's about getting the right tool for the job.[/quote]

That's precisely what it is. The F-35 derives much of it's criticism because it isn't "fast enough" or "agile enough" or to paraphrase the ludicrous Dr Jensen from TODAY "doesn't carry enough weapons."

Those who fantasize about such capabilities, thinking they are the be-all and end-all of combat capability represent the crowd you are obviously highly sympathetic to.

All the ACTUAL craftsmen who use (or will) this "tool" overwhelmingly state it IS the "tool" for the job they need to do, but that isn't good enough for the likes of you.

All the anti-JSF fanboys (and I include every single published member of APA in that because NONE of them are operational and none of them will EVER use any of the things they like to discuss so frequently) opine that these craftsmen are "wrong" or "misguided", "ill-informed"
and often accused blatantly of being corrupt or however you wish to put it, but every single one of these fanboys are nothing but armchair generals, who not only don't do THE job, they have no intention of ever "putting up or shutting up" about the job others do.

Chris Mills, the Director of "Repsim" being the perfect example. Where was HIS "moral courage" when he worked in the Hornet Upgrade Program, the program that produced an air combat capability that has achieved nothing more than an "improved capability to let the pilot know he is about to die" as some of the people you clearly support have described it?

Where was his moral stand about "what is right" then? He has stated many times how "inferior" Australia's air combat plans are compared to the threat, so where was the "moral courage" he finds such a lack of in his former colleagues, when he WAS current and employed to deliver the very capability he now finds so abhorrent?

jeffb wrote:

hb_pencil wrote:

jeffb wrote:

I hadn’t actually mentioned the cost of the alternate proposal HB but your points about the support costs of the F-22s are likely well taken. The comparison I saw that compared the costs of the two proposals didn’t include support costs as the F-35 costs were unknown at the time (2002).

There was some dispute about the costing model defence had used to determine that the F-111 were too expensive to continue supporting and if your interested her is a link to the main points from everyone's best friend Carlo Kopp:
http://www.ausairpower.net/F-111-Costs-CK-Mar-04.pdf

However as far back as 2002 there were clear signals the F-22 was going to be a maintenance hog. This was part of the reason why the F-35 was given priority. Back then the JSF was intended to have an O&M cost of around that of a F-16. That seems to have gone up some, but its not likely to be even close to the F-22.

Frankly given APA's other work I just can't find any of their figures credible at all.

It’s interesting that you say that about APA given some of Lockheeds rubbery numbers, even the 'same support costs as an F-16' one, but if you've made your mind up there's not much point discussing it is there.

Its not interesting at all. APA uses misleading numbers to make their points. I listed some of them earlier on in this thread in regards to their Parliamentary submission. I really try to exclude LM statements, instead using the DoD stuff, as its more realistic and based on their own analysis.

Having lifecycle costs that were in line with the F-16 was a major aim of the JSF project from even before the competition started. They would have no basis to question that in 2002, only a year after the X-35 was chosen. (the first real question came in about 2007 or so with early analysis.)

Forum: Program and politics

Joint strike fighter program a 'failure' (from beloved APA)