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

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

count_to_10

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2089
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post16 Mar 2012, 02:13

Ultor:
What about Indonesia? It's closer, and, in the event of a conflict, is probably more likely to be sporting the kind of 4th gen fighters (or worse) that the F-35 would fair quite well against.
Offline

munny

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 589
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 01:39

Unread post16 Mar 2012, 03:16

spazsinbad wrote: prohibt the sale of F-22 aircraft to any foreign government.


Ha, well put. I think Jeffb should probably lookup some facts before continuing his spouting.

Seems he hasn't even read APA's articles with some of the comments he makes ... eg. the difference between acquisition and engagement radars. APA have pages of content on this subject.
Offline

jeffb

Banned

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 08:00
  • Location: Australia
Offline

jeffb

Banned

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 08:00
  • Location: Australia
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1000
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post16 Mar 2012, 04:15

jeffb wrote:http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/10/leaked-f22-brief-raises-questi.html


If the F-22 was exportable, which it currently is not,


Source:

Eric Palmer...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11273
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Mar 2012, 04:19

'jeffb' how is the F-16.net article relevant when it admits this: "...If the F-22 was exportable, which it currently is not..." Date 23 May 2008. And in the text this is stated also: "...U.S. Obey Amendment, is a decade old law [2008-10=1998] that prohibits U.S. taxpayer funds from being used to set up an F-22 export program...."

The other FlightGlobal article "...The ['elp'] article, which did not city any sources..." then references the other article - nice little circle there. AND did this happen? "...Stay tuned for more information as the story develops ..." Nah - don't bother. I'm tuning out dood. :roll: :D
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

jeffb

Banned

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 08:00
  • Location: Australia

Unread post16 Mar 2012, 05:21

This press release countering early criticism of the selection of the Super Hornet mentions the F-22 as a contender for the AIR 6000 project. But I suppose you can't trust the DMO either right?
Page 3.

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/ceo/record/CACC.pdf
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11273
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Mar 2012, 05:34

Thanks for that info. However a lot of aircraft are mentioned with no reason given for their rejection. One can easily imagine that for example the F-22 was rejected - because it was unavailable and not likely to be so available whatever claims are made otherwise [OBEY Amendment]. Here is a quote:

Consolidated Air Combat Capability [CACC]
Extent of consideration of alternatives for AIR 6000
page 3 Date 31 Oct 2007

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/ceo/record/CACC.pdf

"...• Project AIR 6000 was established in 1999 to consider options leading to acquisition of new air combat capabilities when the F/A-18 and F-111 aircraft are phased out of service.

• The project developed qualitative measures to identify the potential advantages and disadvantages of the various AIR 6000 options.

• Non-JSF contenders included the F-22, F-15E, F/A-18 E/F, Eurofighter Typhoon, F-16 Block 60, Dassault Rafale and the SAAB Grippen.

• The JSF emerged as the likely solution for meeting Australia’s future air combat needs and presented the ADF with an opportunity to leap a generation of aircraft and
also participate in its development.

• With the exception of the JSF and F-22, all cost data was derived from responses to AIR 6000’s Request For Information in December 2001 - JSF cost data has been made available through participation in the JSF Program.

• The JSF price was/and still is, well towards the bottom end of the original AIR 6000 contenders.

• AIR 6000 analysis indicated that JSF was certainly more capable than the contenders.

• Non-JSF contenders offered far lower aircraft production numbers and limited Australian industry involvement in design, development and production of aircraft systems.

The decision to join the JSF Program
Australia joined the JSF Program in October 2002 to obtain access to F-35 Air System information,..."

Now wouldn't it be nice to have that Air System information? :-)
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

jeffb

Banned

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 08:00
  • Location: Australia

Unread post16 Mar 2012, 06:11

spazsinbad wrote:Thanks for that info. However a lot of aircraft are mentioned with no reason given for their rejection. One can easily imagine that for example the F-22 was rejected - because it was unavailable and not likely to be so available whatever claims are made otherwise [OBEY Amendment]. Here is a quote:

Consolidated Air Combat Capability [CACC]
Extent of consideration of alternatives for AIR 6000
page 3 Date 31 Oct 2007

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/ceo/record/CACC.pdf

"...• Project AIR 6000 was established in 1999 to consider options leading to acquisition of new air combat capabilities when the F/A-18 and F-111 aircraft are phased out of service.

• The project developed qualitative measures to identify the potential advantages and disadvantages of the various AIR 6000 options.

• Non-JSF contenders included the F-22, F-15E, F/A-18 E/F, Eurofighter Typhoon, F-16 Block 60, Dassault Rafale and the SAAB Grippen.

• The JSF emerged as the likely solution for meeting Australia’s future air combat needs and presented the ADF with an opportunity to leap a generation of aircraft and
also participate in its development.

• With the exception of the JSF and F-22, all cost data was derived from responses to AIR 6000’s Request For Information in December 2001 - JSF cost data has been made available through participation in the JSF Program.

• The JSF price was/and still is, well towards the bottom end of the original AIR 6000 contenders.

• AIR 6000 analysis indicated that JSF was certainly more capable than the contenders.

• Non-JSF contenders offered far lower aircraft production numbers and limited Australian industry involvement in design, development and production of aircraft systems.

The decision to join the JSF Program
Australia joined the JSF Program in October 2002 to obtain access to F-35 Air System information,..."

Now wouldn't it be nice to have that Air System information? :-)


Why? It would have been all fiction anyway Spazsinbad. 2002 is pre-SWAT and nearly pre-block 0.5 of the software.

It's difficult to track down the documentation about the air 6000 contenders and their respective evaluations (such as they were). I found a number of links to DMO documents but all of them are dead now. There is this old article from the Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politic ... 5834053074

That mentions the reason for the F-22s rejection was it's extreme expense - NOT it's unavailability. But who's going to believe the DSTO I mean come on. But if the F-22 was banned from export in 1998 then how could it be a too expensive contender in 2009 and if it was a contender surely Lockheed would have sent out a sales team.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11273
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Mar 2012, 06:28

'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. :D All no named sources and no-shows.
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1000
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post16 Mar 2012, 06:40

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...
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 761
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post16 Mar 2012, 08:11

jeffb wrote:Australian military planners think whatever the US want them to think for the most part. Most of the time this isn't really a problem except of course when it requires us to do something stupid as part of a long term strategic or economic goal of the United States.

APA looked at the proposal to buy the JSF when it first came up back in 2002-2004 and said wait a minute, this is just a design for a stealthy strike aircraft that someone scribbled down on the back of a bar napkin with a note below it saying "hey, this would be cooool!" Naturally, as people with aviation backgrounds and several retired senior RAAF types they said well, that's very nice but a bunch of things you're assuming it's going to be able to deliver are going to expensive and tricky to carry off, some of the basic thinking behind it seems floored and the price quoted is just ridiculous.

They proposed that Australia buy the F-22A instead (this was before the Obey F-35 Marketing Bill had been passed into law), extend the life of the F-111s as a stopgap (because it is a pretty excellent bomb truck in terms of speed, payload and range) and then reconsider the F-35 in the 2020 timeframe when the design was matured, the bugs had been worked out and, if everything went ahead as the marketing pukes hoped it would, the price would be nice and low.

This they argued was just common sense because signing up to an aircraft project that was just a laundry list of unknowns was IDIOTIC. We had the money; the US had offered the F-22A. It promised exceptional proven capability etc. It seemed a clear choice.

Instead we signed up for 100 JSFs at considerably more cost than the F-22/F-111 proposal.


There is no chance that that the F-22 and F-111 combination would be "cheaper" than the F-35 option. Actually its almost certain to cost twice that amount.

Even with the worst case F-35 scenarios (NAVAIR study), the F-35's operational cost will be just over half the current F-22's cost, with the latter likely to increase in the next decade as its legacy electronics start to require costly updates.

Second the F-111 was always a extremely costly aircraft to operate and reports had it that it was horrendous to operate near the end. This would almost certainly increase even with a "full refurbishment." Case studies suggest that aircraft age will increase despite refurbishment and major depot level work.

http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/ ... 289.A2.pdf
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG486.pdf
(I have another study somewhere on the effect of major depot level work, but I can't find it.)

Furthermore, any major refurbishment will be cost prohibitive. Fitting in new engines, avionics, and defensive systems is a truly massive change. I think the best comparison would be the Nimrod MRA4 failure, but there are a number of others that show these major problems.And it would not decrease, only delay the inexorable march that aging aircraft face.
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1000
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post16 Mar 2012, 09:18

hb_pencil wrote:
jeffb wrote:Australian military planners think whatever the US want them to think for the most part. Most of the time this isn't really a problem except of course when it requires us to do something stupid as part of a long term strategic or economic goal of the United States.

APA looked at the proposal to buy the JSF when it first came up back in 2002-2004 and said wait a minute, this is just a design for a stealthy strike aircraft that someone scribbled down on the back of a bar napkin with a note below it saying "hey, this would be cooool!" Naturally, as people with aviation backgrounds and several retired senior RAAF types they said well, that's very nice but a bunch of things you're assuming it's going to be able to deliver are going to expensive and tricky to carry off, some of the basic thinking behind it seems floored and the price quoted is just ridiculous.

They proposed that Australia buy the F-22A instead (this was before the Obey F-35 Marketing Bill had been passed into law), extend the life of the F-111s as a stopgap (because it is a pretty excellent bomb truck in terms of speed, payload and range) and then reconsider the F-35 in the 2020 timeframe when the design was matured, the bugs had been worked out and, if everything went ahead as the marketing pukes hoped it would, the price would be nice and low.

This they argued was just common sense because signing up to an aircraft project that was just a laundry list of unknowns was IDIOTIC. We had the money; the US had offered the F-22A. It promised exceptional proven capability etc. It seemed a clear choice.

Instead we signed up for 100 JSFs at considerably more cost than the F-22/F-111 proposal.


There is no chance that that the F-22 and F-111 combination would be "cheaper" than the F-35 option. Actually its almost certain to cost twice that amount.

Even with the worst case F-35 scenarios (NAVAIR study), the F-35's operational cost will be just over half the current F-22's cost, with the latter likely to increase in the next decade as its legacy electronics start to require costly updates.

Second the F-111 was always a extremely costly aircraft to operate and reports had it that it was horrendous to operate near the end. This would almost certainly increase even with a "full refurbishment." Case studies suggest that aircraft age will increase despite refurbishment and major depot level work.

http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/ ... 289.A2.pdf
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG486.pdf
(I have another study somewhere on the effect of major depot level work, but I can't find it.)

Furthermore, any major refurbishment will be cost prohibitive. Fitting in new engines, avionics, and defensive systems is a truly massive change. I think the best comparison would be the Nimrod MRA4 failure, but there are a number of others that show these major problems.And it would not decrease, only delay the inexorable march that aging aircraft face.


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.

Real world costing shows that simply purchasing the engines (GE F110-129) alone would have cost more than $600m.

Then you have to add radar, EW, EO/IR, avionics, weapons, engineering, support, training and infrastructure costs.

All that for $400m? Er, yeah, okay...

The 37 Litening targetting pods for our Hornets cost $150m and a handful more for the 50 planned F-111S would near $200m.

How about those APG-80 radars? I'm sure you could buy 50-55, plus the avionics, weapons, integrations, support etc for less than $200m...

Maybe Goonie could have worked on it for free and delivered these upgraded aircraft eh?
Offline

delvo

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 579
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2011, 04:06

Unread post16 Mar 2012, 09:33

Conan wrote:On top of which RAAF has stated any number of times it doesn't want the F-22.
That's a pretty important detail right there!

Even if Australia could buy F-22, it just isn't the best fighter for them. Its higher costs compared to F-35 would mean fewer bodies for a given budget, which means fewer flights in any given amount of time, fewer backups and a greater fraction of the force down if anything goes wrong with some number of planes, less flexibility to redistribute forces to different locations. Or, keeping the number of planes roughly the same so their budgets are different, the smaller F-35 budget lets you use the money you saved on something else like AWACS or more surface ships, to complement the fighter jet force so you get more for your money than fighter jets alone. (Or, just don't spend the extra money on anything!)

And, even strictly comparing 1 plane to 1 plane as if their force sizes and costs were the same, APA ignores much of the function that Australia's next new fighter would need to serve, when they focus entirely on fighting other planes. If anybody were to attack Australia or even attack its nearby allies or harass civilian traffic in the region, they'd be using ships, and F-35 is a better plane for fighting ships with than F-22. F-22 doesn't have F-35's air-to-surface sensors, and its internal weapon bays can't carry anti-ship weapons like F-35's can. And Australia's government knows this, since they have some role (together with Norway) in the development of one of the two latest kinds of advanced anti-ship weapons in F-35's arsenal.
Offline

jeffb

Banned

  • Posts: 438
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2010, 08:00
  • Location: Australia

Unread post16 Mar 2012, 10:06

hb_pencil wrote:
jeffb wrote:Australian military planners think whatever the US want them to think for the most part. Most of the time this isn't really a problem except of course when it requires us to do something stupid as part of a long term strategic or economic goal of the United States.

APA looked at the proposal to buy the JSF when it first came up back in 2002-2004 and said wait a minute, this is just a design for a stealthy strike aircraft that someone scribbled down on the back of a bar napkin with a note below it saying "hey, this would be cooool!" Naturally, as people with aviation backgrounds and several retired senior RAAF types they said well, that's very nice but a bunch of things you're assuming it's going to be able to deliver are going to expensive and tricky to carry off, some of the basic thinking behind it seems floored and the price quoted is just ridiculous.

They proposed that Australia buy the F-22A instead (this was before the Obey F-35 Marketing Bill had been passed into law), extend the life of the F-111s as a stopgap (because it is a pretty excellent bomb truck in terms of speed, payload and range) and then reconsider the F-35 in the 2020 timeframe when the design was matured, the bugs had been worked out and, if everything went ahead as the marketing pukes hoped it would, the price would be nice and low.

This they argued was just common sense because signing up to an aircraft project that was just a laundry list of unknowns was IDIOTIC. We had the money; the US had offered the F-22A. It promised exceptional proven capability etc. It seemed a clear choice.

Instead we signed up for 100 JSFs at considerably more cost than the F-22/F-111 proposal.


There is no chance that that the F-22 and F-111 combination would be "cheaper" than the F-35 option. Actually its almost certain to cost twice that amount.

Even with the worst case F-35 scenarios (NAVAIR study), the F-35's operational cost will be just over half the current F-22's cost, with the latter likely to increase in the next decade as its legacy electronics start to require costly updates.

Second the F-111 was always a extremely costly aircraft to operate and reports had it that it was horrendous to operate near the end. This would almost certainly increase even with a "full refurbishment." Case studies suggest that aircraft age will increase despite refurbishment and major depot level work.

http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/ ... 289.A2.pdf
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG486.pdf
(I have another study somewhere on the effect of major depot level work, but I can't find it.)

Furthermore, any major refurbishment will be cost prohibitive. Fitting in new engines, avionics, and defensive systems is a truly massive change. I think the best comparison would be the Nimrod MRA4 failure, but there are a number of others that show these major problems.And it would not decrease, only delay the inexorable march that aging aircraft face.


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
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest