F-16.net

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

Conan wrote:

elp wrote:

High Conan, some good points but given what I have seen so far, Defence is far from earning a gold star for their efforts. In cases I have mentioned already, the opposite is true in spite of all the spin they try and lay on. File it under: agree to disagree.

Righto.

Obviously you don't feel like "playing" today? Smile

My mommy said I had to come in. It was beddy bye time and I had been playing air marshall too much lately. Laughing

F-16.net Sponsor

Enthusiast Joined: Jan 05, 2007 Posts: 41 Status: Offline

Oops wron button! Embarassed

Enthusiast Joined: Jan 05, 2007 Posts: 41 Status: Offline

[quote]

The Hornet's nest
Richard Baker
July 9, 2007

For the masterminds behind Project Archangel, it was a moment to savour.

On March 6, Australia's Defence Minister Brendan Nelson strode out onto Canberra's Fairbairn air force base to announce the $6.6 billion purchase of 24 Super Hornets, the fighter jet the executives on Boeing's secret sales plan, dubbed "Archangel", had been trying to sell for years. Nelson's announcement marked their first "kill".

It had been some time coming, with the US Government approving in 2001 the international sale of the Super Hornet - the US Navy's multi-role attack aircraft. Since then, the Archangel team, reporting to Boeing's defence systems headquarters in St Louis, Missouri, has been lobbying foreign governments, in particular Australia, to consider the Super Hornet.

Getting the plane into Australia was vital for Boeing, the world's second-largest defence contractor. A recent Pentagon report questioned the long-term viability of Boeing's fighter assembly line, with rival Lockheed Martin making the two "fifth generation" fighters to be used by the US, the F-22 Raptor and the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), 100 of which Australia plans to acquire between 2012 and 2020.

Once the entire JSF fleet enters service, Boeing's front-line fighter presence in Australia will be gone. By getting Super Hornets in Australia now, Boeing has a platform from which to sell more should the JSF be hit by cost blowouts, delays or technology problems.

Making the Super Hornet deal even more remarkable is the fact that Australia's air chiefs and Defence Department did not want the plane or consider it necessary. They had judged that Australia's existing stocks of old, but formidable, F-111 bombers - due to be retired in 2010 - and classic FA-18 Hornets would do the job until the JSF arrived.

But during a series of meetings in 2006, Boeing and the US Navy hinted to Nelson and his advisers that the Royal Australian Air Force chiefs may have got their assessment wrong. The crucial phrase "capability gap" kept coming up in the talks. Nelson was told that if he believed Australia risked having a capability gap in its air force, the Super Hornet would fill the breach.

So in November last year, Nelson - contrary to the advice of his air chiefs and disregarding the Government's procurement protocols, which stipulate rigorous, lengthy internal and external analysis of major acquisitions - set the wheels in motion for Australia to buy a plane it hitherto had not needed. By early March the deal was done. At a cost of $6.6 billion, Nelson was able to say he had closed any potential capability gap by buying 24 Block II F-A 18F Super Hornets. Or so he thought.

Though a coup for Boeing, the Super Hornet deal has proved controversial for the Government and, in particular, Nelson. "A monumental f--k-up" says a senior Government MP, who declined to be named. "Unprecedented in contemporary Defence procurement" is how retired RAAF air commodore Garry Bates describes Nelson's decision. "It just flawed me ... there was no independent analysis," recalls Peter Criss, a retired RAAF air vice-marshal and air commander of Australia.

Defending his choice earlier this year, Nelson argued that Australia is a "Hornet country".

"I have absolute confidence that our country will be well and truly protected by our upgraded FA 18s (and) a squadron of Super Hornets," he said.

But Nelson has failed to convince a host of former RAAF officers and defence analysts of his wisdom. They ask: why did Nelson ignore the advice of RAAF chiefs who said as recently as last November that the Super Hornet was not required? How could the Minister justify spending so much without adhering to the Government's procurement rules? Why is the F-111 being retired in 2010 after $200 million was spent on spare parts and facilities to keep it flying safely until 2020?

Most importantly, several critics suggest Australia risks losing its status as the region's superior air power as soon as 2012 because the Super Hornet lacks the range and the punch of the F-111. Furthermore, serious doubts remain about whether the JSF will ensure regional air superiority with Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, India and China ordering the very powerful Russian-built Sukhoi Su 30 flankers.

There is clamour for the Government to ask the US to consider selling Australia a fleet of Raptor fighters, widely recognised as the world's best air combat plane.

"The big issue is that neither the JSF nor the Super Hornet will cut it against the Russian flankers that are going to be everywhere in the region. People have got to wake up to just how deadly the stuff coming into our region is," says a serving RAAF fighter pilot.

NELSON'S announcement at Fairbairn made for a fitting farewell for Boeing Australia president Andrew Pea. The former Liberal leader and ambassador to the US retired just days before the big Super Hornet announcement. His 4 years at the helm had been a success, securing Boeing $5 billion in other defence contracts as well as a huge to deal to supply Qantas with 115 787 air liners.

Although companies as big as Boeing are rarely troubled getting access to politicians and officials, having Pea as a door-opener made putting a case to Canberra's decision-makers that bit easier.

"A brilliant strategic appointment ... he was very good in dealing with the top level of government," says a source who has seen Pea in action for Boeing.

Pea, who remains a Boeing consultant, declined to answer questions posed by The Age. But it is believed he helped smooth the way for those working on Project Archangel, such as former US F-111 pilot Rick McCrary, to get their message across.

Director of Boeing's F/A-18 international business operations, McCrary is regarded as the brains and muscle behind the Super Hornet sales push. Defence officials regard him as a highly intelligent, disciplined man. Working alongside Boeing Australia's government relations manager, Charlie Walford, McCrary is understood to have personally briefed Nelson last year on the Super Hornet and how it could fill any "capability gap" Australia might encounter.

"McCrary is brilliant at sales and had unfettered access in Canberra," says a defence industry source.

Boeing's strategy was not to question Australia's decision to pursue the JSF as its long-term air combat solution. What Boeing, and later the US Navy, were able to do in meetings was to persuade Nelson that the Government faced genuine political and defence risks in introducing new technology such as the JSF while retiring the F-111.

It was a tactic the company tried in 2004, when McCrary's boss, Boeing vice-president Chris Chadwick, told Australian officials that the Super Hornet was a "very positive alternative" to the JSF if they feared a "capability gap" emerging. The offer was not taken up.

However, with rumours of delays and budget problems affecting the fighter program emerging again last year, Boeing renewed its efforts.

"They targeted Nelson and probably fairly quickly read into his personality, appealing to his vanity and desire to be seen as someone who is in charge. A decision maker," says a well-placed Government source.

Nelson's spokesman Nigel Blunden would neither confirm nor deny whether the Minister met Boeing or the US Navy officials last year to discuss Super Hornets. And Defence is cryptic when answering about the impact of Boeing's promotion of the Super Hornet to Australia in recent years, with a spokesman saying: "Australia's decision to buy Super Hornets was not contingent on offers Boeing may or may not have made at any other time."

The Age understands it may not be the last time Australia hears from Boeing about the Super Hornet. It is believed Boeing headquarters has canvassed an option where the Super Hornet is not just the interim fighter for Australia, but the long-term solution, should the JSF encounter more problems. This could lead to the company selling another 26 Super Hornets to Australia and 20 "Growler" aircraft, which specialise in electronic warfare.

McCrary wouldn't be drawn into specifics of Boeing's intentions or discuss details of meetings with Nelson during 2006.

"Minister Nelson said publicly in November, 2006, that he had asked his department to provide a fully reasoned 'Plan B' should the Joint Strike Fighter not be available for a 2012 RAAF service entry. The US Navy responded to these Australian requests for Super Hornet information," he told The Age.

"As part of this information-gathering exercise, a number of Boeing employees met with Australian officials. It is important to remember that Australia's decision to buy the Super Hornets was negotiated directly with the US Government under its Foreign Military Sales legislation."

Despite McCrary's portrayal of Boeing as a passive observer of the Super Hornet negotiations, the company's internal documents make it clear Australia was a primary target. A slide-show to promote the Super Hornet seems tailor-made to Australia's situation, with the overall message being the plane will secure any "potential capability gap".

Making it difficult for Nelson to promote the merits of his decision is the fact that his air chiefs were publicly saying Australia did not require an interim fighter at the same time he was coming to the conclusion that it did.

In November, Air Chief Marshal Geoff Shepherd told a parliamentary committee he had no intention of buying the Super Hornet or any other plane as an interim fighter as Australia's current fleet of F-111s and FA-18 classic Hornets would suffice until the JSF entered service. Weeks earlier his deputy, Vice Marshal John Blackburn, said "we shouldn't need an interim solution".

But by mid-November, Nelson turned years of defence planning on its head, telling cabinet's National Security Committee that Australia risked an air capability gap between 2010 and 2020. The country needed to examine an interim fighter and the Super Hornet was the best bet.

To bolster his argument, Nelson produced a top-secret assessment by Australia's defence scientists that he claimed cast serious doubt on the F-111's ability to continue past 2010 due to wing-fatigue. The Age understands some in defence seriously question the validity of the conclusions drawn from that test.

Former deputy secretary of the Defence Department and now a leading analyst, Hugh White, says he is aware of "questions ... about the conclusions reached on the basis of the wing fatigue tests". A report by the Auditor-General earlier this year found the structural integrity of the F-111 fleet to be "well managed", with enough spares and expertise in place to increase the life of the aircraft past 2010.

The end result of the cabinet meeting was a victory for Nelson; Australia would examine options for an interim fighter, with the Super Hornet the most likely candidate. As a bonus, more than $6 billion would be made available from general government revenue, not the defence budget.

There is much speculation about just where Nelson got the information for his cabinet presentation from. Although his department had information on the Super Hornet, it had not conducted a detailed analysis of the implications of buying it because Australia's air chiefs had said it was not required.

Rumours persist that Boeing was invited to make a presentation in the cabinet meeting. While others claim to have been told that Nelson used material, possibly a slide show, supplied by Boeing to convince colleagues of his plan. Asked to confirm or deny the speculation, a Defence spokesman said "cabinet briefs and discussions are confidential".

SIX billion dollars is a lot of money. It's more than half what the Prime Minister is proposing to spend to save the entire Murray-Darling system upon which four Australian states rely. When retired air commodore Bates, Defence's former Director-General Aerospace Combat Systems, heard the Government had made a snap decision to buy Super Hornets, he was astounded.

"It shocked me ... given the Super Hornet was a mature aircraft, maybe two or three years would be required to do a very minimum and concise accountable aquisition process," Bates says.

Under guidelines introduced in 2004 after a review of defence procurement by South Australian businessman Malcolm Kinnaird, the Government is meant to consider making such acquisitions "dependent on comprehensive analyses of technology, cost and schedule risks subjected to external verification". It is process designed to protect taxpayers.

Neither Kinnaird and nor any other members of the Defence Procurement Advisory Board would speak to The Age about Nelson's abandonment of Defence's normal purchasing rules. The only board member to respond, businessman John White, said "thank you for your interest in these important matters".

Hugh White says the manner in which the decision was taken to buy Super Hornets was "incomprehensibly clumsy".

"There is no way due diligence was applied either to defining the problem (of air capability) or identifying the solution," he says.

Justifying the Super Hornet process, a Defence spokesman said the procurement was consistent with the Kinnaird recommendations because the acquisition was made with reference to ongoing air combat analysis and because it was a "military-off-the-shelf" purchase bought under the well-established US Foreign Military Sales Program.

But Nelson's disregard for the normal procurement rules did not go unnoticed in Canberra's halls of power. Treasury secretary Ken Henry, a member of Defence's Procurement Advisory Board, appeared to make a thinly veiled criticism of the process in a February speech coinciding with negotiations between Australia and US over the plane.

"Just keep in mind how exposed you might be if and when the whole thing turns pear-shaped and the world learns that you have flouted the post-Kinnaird procurement guidelines," Henry said.

Two Government MPs with Defence experience before entering politics have also spoken out on the Super Hornet. In a parliamentary committee hearing, Liberal MP and former RAAF servicewoman Jackie Kelly described the buying of the Super Hornet as a "little hairball" thrown into the Defence mix.

Fellow Liberal MP and former Defence physicist, Denis Jensen, says the Government is mistaken to retire the F-111 in 2010 and the Super Hornet is the wrong option.

For the record, the Super Hornet is far bigger than the classic Hornet used by the RAAF. It has a greater range, some stealth capabilities, a good weapons platform and an excellent radar. However, because of its greater size and design for use on aircraft carriers, it is the slowest fighter Australia has had in nearly 50 years.

"This thing (Super Hornet) will not survive in a fight now in our region," says Criss, one of Australia's most experienced fighter pilots.

Of even bigger concern for the Government are claims it is committing a huge error by pinning its long-term hopes on the JSF, an experimental version of which recently made its first flight. Jensen is calling for the Government to review its 2002 decision to go with the JSF and to do a cost-benefit analysis with the F-22.

Australian Strategic Policy Institute director Andrew Davies says the Government's argument that the F-22 is too expensive and does not have the right strike capabilities for Australia is weakening. With a final decision on buying the JSF not due until next year, Australia should examine the merits of acquiring the F-22 and approach the US about changing its stance on not selling it overseas, Davies says.

Despite the critics, Nelson and Defence are confidant Australia's air superiority will remain unchallenged in the years to come, no matter what Russian fighters enter the region.

"The Super Hornet that Australia is acquiring ... is the US Navy's most capable frontline fighter ... it (is) the most advanced 4.5 generation aircraft available," says a Defence spokesman.

But Melbourne defence analyst and co-founder of website Air Power Australia, Carlo Kopp, has a far more gloomy outlook.

"There is no way they can guarantee the ability to win control of the air after 2010. At best, 2012. We are on a slippery slide to an air capability that takes us back in relative terms to the late 1930s," he says.

If Kopp and other critics are right, then Australia may need to look to its own archangel should, heaven forbid, any regional conflict emerge in decades to come

............GRRRRRR Boy do I hate that Nelson fool!!!!!! Bring on the election! Evil or Very Mad

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

I would get real use to the Super. Given the Defence climate there, I don't see how it can be stopped.

As a person, Dr. Nelson is an OK guy. So you shouldn't "hate" him but ..... oh why rehash all this again..... Laughing

Enthusiast Joined: Jul 16, 2007 Posts: 38 Status: Offline

Please, Australia doesn't need the F-22. First of all, no regional war is about to happen. Second, even if for some reason a conflict did emerge, Australia has more than enough to defeat any enemy in the area. In a few years, Australia will have the F-35 and is getting Super Hornets now. Those two fighter aircraft are definitely ready to take on any Russian fighters. I think the only reason that countries like Australia, Japan, and Israel are looking for the Raptor is just to say "Oh, look what we've got, the best fighter in the world." It's ridiculous to think that they NEED the F-22. The difference between needing something and wanting something is very big. Anyways, no one's getting it as it's not for export.

Active Member Joined: Nov 22, 2004 Posts: 134

dwightlooi wrote:

Even if the F-22 is available, the F-35 is the better aircraft.

Do you think we should cancel the remaining F-22s ordered and/or not order any more of them?

dwightlooi wrote:

This is so not just on the virtues of its superior multi-role capability, more advanced sensor fit and lower maintenance schedules,

I wouldn't be so sure about the sensors--we don't know what the ALR-94 can really do, and it's the most complex (and one of the most expensive, I'd imagine) system on the F-22.

dwightlooi wrote:

but also because it is 1/6th to 1/3 the price of the F-22 depending on the degree of R&D waver in an F-22 sale.

Hmmm...there's always a lot of "fuzzy math" going on with these prices. Smile

The bottom line is that a certain amount of R&D has been done on the F-22 (from which the F-35 program benefits greatly, but who's counting?) and a certain amount will be done on the F-35, and that after all of this R&D is done and paid for, how much each complete airframe really costs will ultimately determine who can afford them and how many they can afford. That's how it has always been, anyway, given sufficient time.

dwightlooi wrote:

I can confidently say that even in A2A, 3~6 F-35s are much more effective than one F-22 and certainly far more effective against a larger number of 4th generation adversaries than a single F-22 will ever be.

Can you confidently say that the F-35 will not run into any more issues that could increase its weight and cost significantly?

Corsair1963 wrote:

Let's not forget the F-35C has more fuel and a larger wing than either the F-35A or F-35B. Wink

The larger wings (which is what gives it additional fuel capacity) are there for better low-speed handling for carrier operations. If they made the airplane more efficient overall than the F-35A, then the F-35A would probably have the same wings.

Corsair1963 wrote:

Few (very few) would believe that the Lightning would be superior to the Raptor in Air-to-Air. Yet, personally I don't believe these "wild" claims either compare to the F-35 Lightning. Remember, similar claims were made during the developement of the F-16 and F/A-18 by there bigger cousins. (i.e. Eagle and Tomcat) Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the kill-to-loss ratio between the F-22 and F-35. Aren't very simliar to the current F-15 and F-16........ Wink

It's not a very good analogy because for one thing the difference in flight performance between the F-22 and F-35 is greater by design. With regard to one going against the other, it is difficult to project what kind of tactics would be employed, but the F-22 would have the edge in most respects. Far more important is how they would compare against other fighters, and while it's easy to imagine the F-35 doing just as well because of stealth, things happen fast and can get very messy in real combat, and the F-22 offers more options and greater survivability because of its flight performance.

Conan wrote:

It's my understanding that the RCS of the Super Hornet even with external stores is still significantly better than any other current fighter besides the F-22.

It stands to reason that this would be true because the RCS reduction measures probably would not have been taken in the first place, otherwise. The question is how much it would really help in real combat, which is difficult to predict. To take a hypothetical example, if you can get the frontal RCS of the whole system, loaded for combat, down to 50% that of a loaded F-15, then to a first-order approximation you've reduced the detection range of typical radars by about 16%. Is that useful? Under some conditions, I suppose it could be, although it's far from the devastating advantage held by the F-22, obviously.

elp wrote:

Ah yes, Keating. He also doesn't have a problem with helping China build an aircraft carrier. Laughing

It depends on what kind of help he would be willing to give. It seems to me that we could stand to learn a lot more about the Chinese navy and the intentions of the Chinese government than they would learn from us on a technical level. Smile

Newbie Joined: Jun 28, 2005 Posts: 3 Status: Offline

May i ask some questions as to what we really think we need to keep this country safe.Personally i think purchasing an Aircraft carrier from the USA with a full complement of F22's for the north of the country would be ideal, allowing us to place a large contingent where and when we choose. I believe we have ordered 25 Superhornets and upgrades for 16 of our exhisting F18's, that might hold us over for a huge F22 order?? Hope so.

1/ Demographics of Australia needs to be considered as there is alot of space out there like the USA, this has to be a priority. F18 Superhornet or F22 or F35 Or F16 which is most suitable, and or is it a mixture.

2/ Are their any weapons that the Superhornet doesn't currently carry that are critical for our national security?

3/ What is our maximum exposure as far as type of threat that we are likely to encounter from the Air or Sea if any?

4/How many Aircraft are needed and affordability to meet the requirements.

P.s I realise that this is not a fresh subject but i haven't read anything that sounds convincing one way or another.

I wonder if there are any (ex)F-111 maintainers on here that could give their views. I myself couldn't imagine going from working on an Ardvark (sorry - Pig Wink

) to a F-35. From experience I know that working on a Legacy Hornet & a Rhino can be VASTLY different! And I've worked on both for years now. Cheers

Viper1 wrote:

May i ask some questions as to what we really think we need to keep this country safe.Personally i think purchasing an Aircraft carrier from the USA with a full complement of F22's for the north of the country would be ideal, allowing us to place a large contingent where and when we choose. I believe we have ordered 25 Superhornets and upgrades for 16 of our exhisting F18's, that might hold us over for a huge F22 order?? Hope so.

For starters, we could never man a US aircraft carrier. Each of the USN's carriers requires a crew of around 5000 from memory. There's only 11,000 sailors in the entire RAN...

Secondly, I'm not sure the F-22 is carrier capable... Smile

Thirdly, we have ordered 24 Super Hornets and EVERY legacy Hornet currently in RAAF is undergoing the Hornet upgrade program (ie: 71x RAAF F/A-18A/B Hornets have been upgraded).

Quote:

1/ Demographics of Australia needs to be considered as there is alot of space out there like the USA, this has to be a priority. F18 Superhornet or F22 or F35 Or F16 which is most suitable, and or is it a mixture.

Demographics or geography? What do the variables amongst the Australian population have to do with our air combat capability? Smile

Quote:

2/ Are their any weapons that the Superhornet doesn't currently carry that are critical for our national security?

Not really. IF the AGM-158 JASSM is acquired by RAAF then it "may" be integrated onto the Super Hornet some time "down the track", but I certainly don't consider it "critical". Neither obviously does the USN. They don't even OPERATE the JASSM...

Quote:

3/ What is our maximum exposure as far as type of threat that we are likely to encounter from the Air or Sea if any?

Um, our entire civilisation is destroyed? Seriously though I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this.

There is little real threat to Australia at present and in the forseeable future. No Country in our region is acquiring the sorts of air and naval capabilities required to seriously threaten Australia and no Country in our region has any obvious intention or reason to do so. There are of course any number of possibilities should this happen, or that happen, but very few ACTUAL threats in reality.

Quote:

4/How many Aircraft are needed and affordability to meet the requirements.

You need to consider what RAAF are required to do and the level of resources they are provided with, to answer this question.

RAAF is required by the Australian Government (amongst other things) to provide an air combat capability, sufficient to conduct defence of Australia operations against a credible threat and to provide options for deployment beyond our shores.

RAAF is not expected to provide an air combat capability sufficient to fight a high intensity conflict "single handedly" against a superpower, based a short distance off our coast...

RAAF intends to provide this in coming years, primarily through it's AIR-6000 project. This project is designed to acquire (primarily) a next generation air combat aircraft to continue to provide RAAF with an "over match" when compared to regional capabilities.

The aircraft it has chosen is the F-35A Lightning II. No orders has been placed yet, however since the early 1970's when Australia radically down-sized it's forces after Vietnam, RAAF has maintained 4x operational fighter/strike Squadrons.

We currently have 3x Hornet Squadrons and 1x F-111 Squadron as our operational force. RAAF will transition from the F-111 Squadron (1 Squadron as it so happens) to the F/A-18F Super Hornet from 2010 under current plans.

The current Hornet Squadrons will remain equipped with Hornets until the F-35A becomes available.

As a part of AIR-6000, RAAF has conducted numerous examinations of it's requirements in coming years, in order to maintain it's position as the pre-eminent regional air power, within South East Asia /Oceania. RAAF has decided on the basis of this study that the F-35A is the aircraft most likely to allow us to continue this.

People like Dr Carlo Kopp etc, generally argue such things as platform types (in this case F-18 and F-111) are what put RAAF into this enviable position.

In actual fact it is the capability that RAAF can generate that makes it the force it is. What's an F-18 or F-111 without a pilot to fly it for instance?

RAAF capability therefore cannot be judged by a basic comparison of various aircraft attributes. RAAF however argue that in order to fulfill Government's requirements of it, that they require a minimum of 4x operational fighter Squadrons to do so. (A fighter Squadron in RAAF service generally operating 18x aircraft).

In addition to that, RAAF requires aircraft to train upon (and equip it's operational conversion unit - 2OCU), aircraft to undergo testing and development (ie: to equip ARDU to all for the integration of RAAF specific weapons, sensor capabilities etc) and "attrition" aircraft, in case any aircraft crash, or are required for extended maintenance etc.

2OCU is basically a squadron sized formation, so when you add this to the operational Squadrons you are closing in on 90 odd aircraft, plus the ARDU and attrition aircraft. Basically this adds up to 100 aircraft.

Now RAAF argues that it needs 4x operational Squadrons, because it is required to provide Defence of Australia operations capability AND deployment capability simultaneously.

I personally think 4x operational Squadrons is the bare minimum RAAF should be operating, due to the size of our Country, but as always it comes down to money.

Senior RAAF officers testifed to a Senate Committee in 2006 that the actual aircraft only makes up around 70% of the total cost of acquiring an air combat capability, as any aircraft requires maintenance / storage facilities, simulators, weapons etc.

RAAF has been provided with a $15.5 Billion dollar budget for AIR-6000. As seen by recent acquistions (the Air Warfare Destroyers most notably) this is hardly "fixed" (they increased by $2 Billion over their original estimates) however it is a useful starting point for guestimating the type of capability that can be acquired.

70% of $15.5B is around $10.85b. This means that if we are to acquire 100 aircraft they can't cost much more than around $108 million per aircraft. There is a contingency (around 10% I believe) built into this funding.

The F-35 meets this cost at present, the F-22 has never met this cost.

Out of the current generation of fighters, the F-22 and the F-35 seem far and away the most capable. They are the only 5th generation fighters currently in existence and they are the only stealthy fighters as well.

As pointed out above, the F-22 has NEVER met the cost, Australia is willing to pay for it's next generation fighter.

This doesn't quite matter though, as all reports seem to indicate the F-22 is not for sale to anyone else besides the USAF anyway.

Given the F-35 is therefore the only 5th generation aircraft that is available, affordable and possesses the other characteristics that seem desirable to RAAF (stealth, advanced networking capability, AESA radar system etc), you can probably begin to see why RAAF is so interested in it?

Now this is an EXTREMELY generalised overview, but hopefully it meets with your satisfaction?

More bad news for those who think Australia might be able to purchase the F-22 one day...

U.S. bill puts F-22 Raptor out of reach

07/27/2007

THE ASAHI SHIMBUN

Japan's plan to replace its aging squadron of fighter jets with state-of-the-art F-22 Raptors was dealt a serious blow by the passage of a defense appropriations bill in Washington.

The U.S. House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday passed the defense appropriations bill for fiscal 2008 with a provision banning F-22 sales to any foreign nation.

A Defense Ministry official in Tokyo indicated the bill would likely mean Japan must revise its schedule for buying the F-22 or set its sights on another fighter jet to replace the Air Self-Defense Force's F-4 jets.

"We were fully prepared for the latest decision by the United States," a Defense Ministry official said. "If the United States had issued a message now by selling (the F-22) to Japan, it would have been difficult for the United States to explain that decision to China and South Korea."

Many military experts consider the F-22 the most capable fighter jet available today. China and South Korea have raised concerns about why Japan would need such a fighter when Tokyo maintains that it will stick to an exclusively defensive posture.

The Defense Ministry official also said: "Japan has not decided on purchasing the F-22, and at present it would be difficult to reach an agreement on the price. A realistic option would be to delay the timing of the selection (of the next-generation fighter jet)."

Among Japan's options are extending the shelf life of the F-4 while delaying the acquisition of the F-22 or buying an alternative fighter jet.

In addition to the F-22, the Defense Ministry has been considering: the F-15FX and F/A-18, both manufactured in the United States; the F-35, made jointly by the United States, Britain and others; and the Eurofighter, produced by a consortium of four European nations.

In Washington, John Murtha, chairman of the defense subcommittee within the Appropriations Committee, told reporters that members of Congress were unwilling at present to sell the F-22 to foreign nations because of the advanced nature of its technology.

While the appropriations bill still needs to win passage through the entire House as well as undergo debate in the Senate, Congressional sources said it was highly unlikely that the ban on exporting the F-22 would be removed.

Japanese government officials had been asking their U.S. counterparts for information on the F-22 so they could include the Raptor among candidate jets to replace the F-4.

Under the Defense Ministry's Midterm Defense Program for fiscal 2005 to 2009, seven fighter jets will be purchased to replace the F-4s.

In order to acquire those jets under the program, a decision on which fighter jet to buy must be made by the summer of 2008 at the latest. The ASDF introduced the F-4s in 1973. (IHT/Asahi: July 27,2007)

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

"One day"... all of this of course is on the whim of politics.

What this is really about...being that you posted this in the RAAF thread, is Defence and Defence cheerleaders having a sigh of relief over the "letter" that Dr. Nelson supposedly got by a U.S. asst. Sec Def saying the F-22 wasn't available. Laughing

Be a whole lot of explaining to do.... in an election year no less if the coin had flipped the other way on the Japan issue. Would have been very interesting.

Don't worry. F-22 not being available for Australia is more about the promised JSF workshare to Australian home industry. Look at all the conference talking points in the JSF get together in Melbourne last month. Laughing

F-22 home workshare would be a huge unknown if there was much at all. Add to that: Lord Lockheed won't tolerate any JSF "quitters" while on the cattle drive. (ref. John Wayne playing Tom Dunson in the Movie: "Red River" ) Laughing

A little different here. Not like some forums where the Defence cheerleader puts in their comment and then locks the thread again. Wink

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1035 Status: Offline

Quote:

dwightlooi wrote:
Even if the F-22 is available, the F-35 is the better aircraft.

Oh my God...The Air Force disagree's with you.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 01, 2006 Posts: 1003 Status: Offline

checksixx wrote:

Quote:

dwightlooi wrote:
Even if the F-22 is available, the F-35 is the better aircraft.

Oh my God...The Air Force disagree's with you.

Well, let me rephrase it...

Even when you can buy the F-22, you get more combat capability by spending the same amount of money on the F-35. In this sense, it is the better aircraft for a given amount of expenditure.

The USAF is currently slated to buy ~183 F-22s and ~1768 F-35s. Even though they are trying to drag the F-22 production on for as long as they can . If they get their way, they'll like to have ~150 more F-22s in all (possibly at the expense of about ~450 F-35s), they are looking to fill the vanguard of the USAF fighter force with F-35s (~1200). The reason is that giving up the entire F-35 fleet for 600 extra Raptors will give them far less capability.

For Australia or any other country looking at 5th generation fighters, they will get more capabilities for any given budget by buying the F-35 over the F-22. This is especially true when the budget is relatively modest and the country is in for about 100 F-35s not 1000. Of course, a given number of F-22s will be better than an equal number of F-35s in A2A missions, but for a given amount of money you'll get three to six F-35s for one F-22! Each F-35A is expected to cost $48.5 million to build, each F-22 is about $130 right now. The R&D tag on the F-35 is expected to be about $16 million per airframe. That of the F-22 is around $200 million each. If the buyer is asked to pay zero R&D share, the ratio of F-35 to F-22 cost is about 2.5:1, if they are asked to pay the full share of R&D costs it is about 5.1:1. This is just airframe costs. The F-22 will come with more support gear, spares, etc. So basically the range is 3:1 to 6:1. Realistically, Uncle Sam will be nuts to forgive the majority of the R&D bill, so it is probably closer to 6:1 than it is to 3:1.

elp wrote:

"One day"... all of this of course is on the whim of politics.

As is EVERY major defence acquisition. Except on this issue BOTH sides of American politics seem to be against exporting the Raptor.

Quote:

What this is really about...being that you posted this in the RAAF thread, is Defence and Defence cheerleaders having a sigh of relief over the "letter" that Dr. Nelson supposedly got by a U.S. asst. Sec Def saying the F-22 wasn't available. Laughing

Be a whole lot of explaining to do.... in an election year no less if the coin had flipped the other way on the Japan issue. Would have been very interesting.

Actually that letter went to Japan and Israel as well, at the same time. Never let the facts get in the way of your opinion though, like any "good" editor...

I'd like to know why you have such a strong opinion about Australian Domestic politics though. You're not actually Australian yourself are you?

Quote:

Don't worry. F-22 not being available for Australia is more about the promised JSF workshare to Australian home industry. Look at all the conference talking points in the JSF get together in Melbourne last month. Laughing

F-22 home workshare would be a huge unknown if there was much at all. Add to that: Lord Lockheed won't tolerate any JSF "quitters" while on the cattle drive. (ref. John Wayne playing Tom Dunson in the Movie: "Red River" ) Laughing

Would L-M actually care about whether Australia bought 100 F-22's or 100 F-35's? I guess if you are going to look at this with simplistic notions it'd come down to whichever would deliver the biggest profit margin.

Wonder why Boeing didn't push hard for Australia to buy the F-15E then?

Quote:

A little different here. Not like some forums where the Defence cheerleader puts in their comment and then locks the thread again. Wink

Nicely spotted. I did indeed lift this article from defence-talk.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2862

Conan wrote:

elp wrote:

"One day"... all of this of course is on the whim of politics.

As is EVERY major defence acquisition. Except on this issue BOTH sides of American politics seem to be against exporting the Raptor.

Winds of change. Not like less than 10 years ago when there was a more positive outlook on it. Be interesting to see what happens in the next 10.

Quote:

What this is really about...being that you posted this in the RAAF thread, is Defence and Defence cheerleaders having a sigh of relief over the "letter" that Dr. Nelson supposedly got by a U.S. asst. Sec Def saying the F-22 wasn't available. Laughing

Be a whole lot of explaining to do.... in an election year no less if the coin had flipped the other way on the Japan issue. Would have been very interesting.

Actually that letter went to Japan and Israel as well, at the same time. Never let the facts get in the way of your opinion though, like any "good" editor...

Yes of course. That is why some in USAF had positive thoughts about it over a year ago and why Japan asked recently. That "letter" isn't especially useful or even heavy in weight. Also Israel isn't an ABC, so they aren't on the same page including they sell weapons tech worldwide.

Quote:

Don't worry. F-22 not being available for Australia is more about the promised JSF workshare to Australian home industry. Look at all the conference talking points in the JSF get together in Melbourne last month. Laughing

F-22 home workshare would be a huge unknown if there was much at all. Add to that: Lord Lockheed won't tolerate any JSF "quitters" while on the cattle drive. (ref. John Wayne playing Tom Dunson in the Movie: "Red River" ) Laughing

Would L-M actually care about whether Australia bought 100 F-22's or 100 F-35's? I guess if you are going to look at this with simplistic notions it'd come down to whichever would deliver the biggest profit margin.

L.M. is not going to muddy the waters on an already existing JSF team player. The profit is certainly part of it. Including look at how LM is publishing new ideas to help JSF production numbers so LM doesn't eat large costs in F-35. {1}. The job of the CEO of LM is to make a profit for shareholders. {2}Then of course... and this is only one thing, have a look back on all the pied piper promises of JSF home Aus workshare...with continued comments up till recently from Defence to Defence vedors. Upsetting that gravy train isn't going to happnen. And there are only so many billions to go around even if there is consistent budget surplus for the past few years. So yes, it is in fact a business plan.

Wonder why Boeing didn't push hard for Australia to buy the F-15E then?

Not part of Project Archangel. Part goal is to help reduce cost of Super Hornets by getting production numbers up on foreign sales. In turn making costs lower for more U.S. Navy buys, which btw are going to happen. The goal is about making a sale, not what platform is best for the job. I.E. every legacy Hornet customer is automatically a potential Super customer. Helps the sales pitch. Given the way the decision was make in Aus Def to get a stop gap, against the advice of the club pro... any form of logic for what weapons system is the best doesn't apply very well in this situation. In this case the hook line and sinker approach used on Dr. Nelson was an effective quick sale. Misery Accomplished.

Quote:

A little different here. Not like some forums where the Defence cheerleader puts in their comment and then locks the thread again. Wink

Nicely spotted. I did indeed lift this article from defence-talk.

{1} http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/187408.html

Quote:

Lockheed Martin and Defense Department officials overseeing the F-35 joint strike fighter development program are trying to come up with a plan to entice other nations to buy new jets sooner rather than later.

{2}http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/07/30/215793/lockheed-steps-up-multi-year-sales-pitch-for-jsf.html

Quote:

Lockheed Martin has formed a "tiger team" to study how to implement a new financing scheme to help international F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) customers afford the aircraft in the early years of production.However, that approach may create a shortfall in revenue for Lockheed during the early years of production, so the tiger team will investigate how to keep the company's cashflows stable if the sale price does not match costs at the front end of the multi-year deal, says Tom Burbage, Lockheed's vice-president for JSF.

Burbage adds that Lockheed has no intention to absorb the upfront costs of a multi-year financing scheme internally, but a variety of financing and accounting methods exist to possibly address the revenue gap.

....

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35's for the RAAF?