F22 Raptor V's F35 Joint Strike Fighter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too simple.
Consider the failure rates for flight critical systems on each aircraft. The Cessna is still more dangerous.
At the risk of sounding like a zealot, do you honestly believe that Lockheed are wandering around, completely oblivious to your well reasoned concerns?
Technology moves on, heaven forbid that we'd ever have aircraft flown "by wire"!
Consider the failure rates for flight critical systems on each aircraft. The Cessna is still more dangerous.
At the risk of sounding like a zealot, do you honestly believe that Lockheed are wandering around, completely oblivious to your well reasoned concerns?
Technology moves on, heaven forbid that we'd ever have aircraft flown "by wire"!
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US Air Force took delivery of its last F-16 Fighting Falcon on March 18, 2005, the last of 2,231 F-16s produced for the Air Force. The first delivery was in 1978.
The year 2000 was one of the F-16's best years for export orders. Firm export orders totaled 220 aircraft as follows: Israel (50), Greece (50), UAE (80), Korea (20) and Singapore (20).
I'm sure there's more, but one site quotes only three F-16 losses and in every case "...the pilot ejected safely from the single-seat aircraft..."
Seems to be a better record than Australia's F-18's?
Last edited by Air Ace; 30th Dec 2005 at 13:11.
Statistics & apples versus oranges. How do you compare safety of an F16 operator versus, say the RAAF's twin engine F18's? And then enter this into the one engine versus two debate? Too many variables including whether they fly predominantly high or low altitude, training quality and training tempo, aswell as maintenance. So an Arab F16 operator, with contracted American engineers, limited operational expectations and rarely flying outside of a flight level band in a training area, is going to come out statistically in favour in a single engine argument. Despite the occassional aberration where the well connected Prince may test the ejection seat.
As the JSF is a stealth fighter, doesn't that mean it will operate in the Flight Levels? Flying low may enhance it's stealth but it certainly won't fly low over a battlefield where two versus one engine survivability may come into play. A new generation of technology, simulators etc, perhaps negating the argument. Besides, what else has two engines and is/will be available?
Precious ( JSF ) & cargo, comes in undetected, delivers a bomb from the safety of a flight level, on a target with a turban & AK47- with an ejection seat as back up. Gotta feel for those Army Aviation types in the wartime.
As the JSF is a stealth fighter, doesn't that mean it will operate in the Flight Levels? Flying low may enhance it's stealth but it certainly won't fly low over a battlefield where two versus one engine survivability may come into play. A new generation of technology, simulators etc, perhaps negating the argument. Besides, what else has two engines and is/will be available?
Precious ( JSF ) & cargo, comes in undetected, delivers a bomb from the safety of a flight level, on a target with a turban & AK47- with an ejection seat as back up. Gotta feel for those Army Aviation types in the wartime.
Re: F22 Raptor V's F35 Joint Strike Fighter
Interesting week of developments.
Firstly, a Saudi purchase of Eurofighter has ended any possibility, however unlikely it was, of cheap, unwanted RAF Eurofighters being made available to the RAAF as an interim fighter.
JSF development hitches and F22 low numbers would suggest the Americans would have a shortage of combat aircraft if we look forward a decade aswell.
Good news.The F15E production line has been extended with a Singaporian order. However, a common sense replacement of F111 with this aircraft unlikely.
So, in a few years time "if" an interim fighter is essential due JSF development problems and cost overuns, I am sure the politicians of the day will find a second hand option such as upgraded ex-Canadian F18's or the like!
It could get real ugly for the RAAF. From today's Australian.
Costs hit fighter jet order
John Kerin
January 04, 2006
AUSTRALIA may halve its order for US F-35 joint strike fighter jets to 50 planes because of continuing cost blowouts on the $256billion project, a move that could threaten regional air superiority.
Australia had pledged to buy 100 of the radar-evading stealth aircraft to replace an ageing air wing of 71 F/A-18 attack aircraft and 26 F-111 tactical fighter bombers.
The first of the US-built Lockheed Martin joint strike fighter aircraft are due to be delivered to Australia in 2014.
Australia has joined its allies in the project to build the planes, which has enabled the order to be purchased for a reduced total of $16billion, including maintenance, spare-parts and other costs.
But a senior Defence official has warned a parliamentary inquiry in Canberra that Australia could be forced to reduce its target order if the US slashes the number of planes it plans to build, because this would further drive up costs of the troubled F-35 project.
The price of the aircraft has reportedly already blown out from $45million to $60million per plane, but this could rise further if the US slashes its order of 2500 aircraft by one-fifth, as some US reports have suggested.
"The (Defence) white paper from 2000 says (we buy) 100 ... but depending on who you speak to ... some other people think 50 would be good," deputy Defence secretary Shane Carmody has told an inquiry into Australia's defence relationship with the US.
"A factor in the cost blowout, I think, would be if the US decided to reduce the number of aircraft it is acquiring.
"We certainly have some concerns if the (joint strike fighter) gets very expensive ... and ultimately, sometimes you have to cut your cloth, but we are a long way short of that at this point."
The US Congress has already recommended slashing $270million from the Pentagon's joint strike fighter budget next year.
Under the project, Lockheed aims to build 2500 stealth fighter aircraft for the US and several hundred more for its allies in the most ambitious defence project of its kind.
Australia is interested in buying the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) version for delivery by 2014 to replace its F/A-18 fleet.
But US Defence News has cited Pentagon sources as saying the US Air Force may be forced to scrap the CTOL version and opt for a smaller number of the more expensive navy version of the fighter.
Mr Carmody told the Australian inquiry that Canberra had still "not committed on aircraft type or numbers".
"I think there is a lot of analysis going on within Defence at the moment by Air Force, the project office and DSTO (the Defence Science and Technology Organisation) to ... look at the numbers we need, how many missions they need to carry out," he said.
Aldo Borgu, author of a report for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute on the joint strike fighter, saidbuying only 50 would leave Australia's air defences "very vulnerable". "With 50 fighters, you simply would not have enough to provide for Australia's air defences or to deploy fighters on combat missions overseas," he said.
Mr Borgu said there was now talk that, as part of the US Quadrennial Defence Review due to be completed next month, Washington might axe the CTOL version and force the US Air Force to buy the navy version.
Firstly, a Saudi purchase of Eurofighter has ended any possibility, however unlikely it was, of cheap, unwanted RAF Eurofighters being made available to the RAAF as an interim fighter.
JSF development hitches and F22 low numbers would suggest the Americans would have a shortage of combat aircraft if we look forward a decade aswell.
Good news.The F15E production line has been extended with a Singaporian order. However, a common sense replacement of F111 with this aircraft unlikely.
So, in a few years time "if" an interim fighter is essential due JSF development problems and cost overuns, I am sure the politicians of the day will find a second hand option such as upgraded ex-Canadian F18's or the like!
It could get real ugly for the RAAF. From today's Australian.
Costs hit fighter jet order
John Kerin
January 04, 2006
AUSTRALIA may halve its order for US F-35 joint strike fighter jets to 50 planes because of continuing cost blowouts on the $256billion project, a move that could threaten regional air superiority.
Australia had pledged to buy 100 of the radar-evading stealth aircraft to replace an ageing air wing of 71 F/A-18 attack aircraft and 26 F-111 tactical fighter bombers.
The first of the US-built Lockheed Martin joint strike fighter aircraft are due to be delivered to Australia in 2014.
Australia has joined its allies in the project to build the planes, which has enabled the order to be purchased for a reduced total of $16billion, including maintenance, spare-parts and other costs.
But a senior Defence official has warned a parliamentary inquiry in Canberra that Australia could be forced to reduce its target order if the US slashes the number of planes it plans to build, because this would further drive up costs of the troubled F-35 project.
The price of the aircraft has reportedly already blown out from $45million to $60million per plane, but this could rise further if the US slashes its order of 2500 aircraft by one-fifth, as some US reports have suggested.
"The (Defence) white paper from 2000 says (we buy) 100 ... but depending on who you speak to ... some other people think 50 would be good," deputy Defence secretary Shane Carmody has told an inquiry into Australia's defence relationship with the US.
"A factor in the cost blowout, I think, would be if the US decided to reduce the number of aircraft it is acquiring.
"We certainly have some concerns if the (joint strike fighter) gets very expensive ... and ultimately, sometimes you have to cut your cloth, but we are a long way short of that at this point."
The US Congress has already recommended slashing $270million from the Pentagon's joint strike fighter budget next year.
Under the project, Lockheed aims to build 2500 stealth fighter aircraft for the US and several hundred more for its allies in the most ambitious defence project of its kind.
Australia is interested in buying the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) version for delivery by 2014 to replace its F/A-18 fleet.
But US Defence News has cited Pentagon sources as saying the US Air Force may be forced to scrap the CTOL version and opt for a smaller number of the more expensive navy version of the fighter.
Mr Carmody told the Australian inquiry that Canberra had still "not committed on aircraft type or numbers".
"I think there is a lot of analysis going on within Defence at the moment by Air Force, the project office and DSTO (the Defence Science and Technology Organisation) to ... look at the numbers we need, how many missions they need to carry out," he said.
Aldo Borgu, author of a report for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute on the joint strike fighter, saidbuying only 50 would leave Australia's air defences "very vulnerable". "With 50 fighters, you simply would not have enough to provide for Australia's air defences or to deploy fighters on combat missions overseas," he said.
Mr Borgu said there was now talk that, as part of the US Quadrennial Defence Review due to be completed next month, Washington might axe the CTOL version and force the US Air Force to buy the navy version.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: F22 Raptor V's F35 Joint Strike Fighter
Gnadenburg, Sssshhh, we have bought second hand from the US in the past, what with F-111G and troop ships, let alone tanks now, and what did those babies cost us to get up and running.
The F-15 in Taiwanese form on paper looks good and the F-18E/F is the Hornet the USN wanted in the first place. With the cost esculations as they are now, are not these aircraft worth consideration?
The F-15 in Taiwanese form on paper looks good and the F-18E/F is the Hornet the USN wanted in the first place. With the cost esculations as they are now, are not these aircraft worth consideration?
Re: F22 Raptor V's F35 Joint Strike Fighter
Bobster
That's my point. The only aircraft available as an interim capability, are brand new. I don't think anyone in defence would push an upgrading of 2nd hand fighters.
The love affair with the F111 , and the gamble on JSF technology, will leave Australia considerably exposed in a decade.
At any stage in the last decade, a small F15E purchase to replace F111, would have held the RAAF ( with upgraded F18's ) in good stead. Until new technology proven and available. Surely such a purchase cost effective considering the cash in expensive upgrades of airframe and weapons, to keep a few flights of F111's operational? Pundits of the F111 should be tarred and feathered for their short sightedness.
Forward to 2015. No F111's. 40 worn out Hornets and a similarily tired P3's. And maybe no JSF!
Not viable for the nation with the biggest mouth in the region.
That's my point. The only aircraft available as an interim capability, are brand new. I don't think anyone in defence would push an upgrading of 2nd hand fighters.
The love affair with the F111 , and the gamble on JSF technology, will leave Australia considerably exposed in a decade.
At any stage in the last decade, a small F15E purchase to replace F111, would have held the RAAF ( with upgraded F18's ) in good stead. Until new technology proven and available. Surely such a purchase cost effective considering the cash in expensive upgrades of airframe and weapons, to keep a few flights of F111's operational? Pundits of the F111 should be tarred and feathered for their short sightedness.
Forward to 2015. No F111's. 40 worn out Hornets and a similarily tired P3's. And maybe no JSF!
Not viable for the nation with the biggest mouth in the region.
Re: F22 Raptor V's F35 Joint Strike Fighter
Originally Posted by Gnadenburg
Bobster
The love affair with the F111 , and the gamble on JSF technology, will leave Australia considerably exposed in a decade.
Forward to 2015. No F111's. 40 worn out Hornets and a similarily tired P3's. And maybe no JSF! Not viable for the nation with the biggest mouth in the region.
The love affair with the F111 , and the gamble on JSF technology, will leave Australia considerably exposed in a decade.
Forward to 2015. No F111's. 40 worn out Hornets and a similarily tired P3's. And maybe no JSF!
Not viable for the nation with the biggest mouth in the region.What will our threat be in 2015? I'm pretty sure a JSF won't be able to pick a suicude bomber out of the crowd at Darling Harbour! I've lived in Indonesia for 2 1/2 years now & I can say that the small percentage of radical muslims won't be coming over the Timor sea in landing craft, they'll be coming via Bali on Garuda, & most of them already have a post office box in Bankstown. The US are the super power of the day(that may change in the future) & won't allow anyone to invade Australia due to their facilities here, so why waste our limited resources on 100 fighters when our limited resources can be more effective in other areas? The ADF are good at supplying quality, not quantity. Why not do a deal with the US - we'll supply the SAS & aircrew, they supply the planes. With a population of 20 million it's pretty hard to find enough tax payers to be a stand alone force in an ever shrinking world, so surely an expansion of our alliance with the US can't hurt. I believe we need to concentrate on a 2 pronged strategy - 1. Border protection, i.e. helicopters, spotter planes, intercept marine craft, international airport security, laws to allow the border protection crews to be effective. Stop the buggers coming in.
2. Internal security, i.e. a concerted effort to weed out the undesirables already entrenched in our society that are determined to get us all fighting amongst ourselves by killing civilians. Get the buggers out who are already here.
"But it will make us a target for terrorists!" I hear you say. We already are, & when they blow the lid off Lucas heights or let off a bomb at the Grand Final it won't matter how many we have or who paid for the planes sitting on the ground at Williamtown!
Rant over.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: F22 Raptor V's F35 Joint Strike Fighter
Heliduck, I understand what you are saying, but our government has wants to be a global player and integrate into coalition operations with a meaningful capability. You suggest that we can supply the aircrew and they (the US) supply to aircraft. This may be model that can be used with tanks, but given airworthiness (operational and technical) and other issues, this would very hard to achieve.
Apart from a small contribution to the air campaign 2 years ago, we have not achieved a very good return on our Mirages, A4’s, F/A 18’s and F111’s in terms of operational sorties. But the point is you don’t know you need a capability until you need it. We saw how unprepared we were in almost all our previous conflicts, particularly WW1 and WW2, but also our most recent – East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq.
My guess is 100 aircraft is a pipe dream – simply based on cost. I would guess we will end up with about 60-70. I would like the commanders to think outside the box a bit. I am not convinced the F35 offers the best capability for the cost of the aircraft. I think it would be worth considering other contenders – Eurofighter (now that it has achieved a major export, the unit cost may go down significantly), F15E (+?) or F18E/F.
The issue of single versus twin. No doubt today’s engines are very reliable, and there would be a factor calculated to include losses due to engine failures and thus more attrition aircraft would be needed. But the one thing not mentioned about single engine in a combat environment is battle damage. Think air defence (AAA or guided missile) and small arms fire – this can all damage an engine. In this case I would like the luxury of a second, thanks very much.
Apart from a small contribution to the air campaign 2 years ago, we have not achieved a very good return on our Mirages, A4’s, F/A 18’s and F111’s in terms of operational sorties. But the point is you don’t know you need a capability until you need it. We saw how unprepared we were in almost all our previous conflicts, particularly WW1 and WW2, but also our most recent – East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq.
My guess is 100 aircraft is a pipe dream – simply based on cost. I would guess we will end up with about 60-70. I would like the commanders to think outside the box a bit. I am not convinced the F35 offers the best capability for the cost of the aircraft. I think it would be worth considering other contenders – Eurofighter (now that it has achieved a major export, the unit cost may go down significantly), F15E (+?) or F18E/F.
The issue of single versus twin. No doubt today’s engines are very reliable, and there would be a factor calculated to include losses due to engine failures and thus more attrition aircraft would be needed. But the one thing not mentioned about single engine in a combat environment is battle damage. Think air defence (AAA or guided missile) and small arms fire – this can all damage an engine. In this case I would like the luxury of a second, thanks very much.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: F22 Raptor V's F35 Joint Strike Fighter
Old rule and still relevant:
Single engine is cheaper in wartime and two engines are cheaper in peacetime.
In fighters where the two engines are co-located, battle damage generally does for both.
Single engine is cheaper in wartime and two engines are cheaper in peacetime.
In fighters where the two engines are co-located, battle damage generally does for both.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: F22 Raptor V's F35 Joint Strike Fighter
Interesting article in the Australian today about the possibility of the Poms pulling out of the program due to problems with the Yanks exporting the stealth technology. Apparently it was proposed the legislation would be passed in 2003 in order to allow the technology to be exported to the UK and Aus but it is now in danger of not happening, hence the UK withdrawing from the program and thus not purchasing 150 acft.
I guess the implication for the ADF would be that any reduction of orders is likely to increase per unit costs. Furthermore, with the possible sanctions of the stealth technology, the whole premise of the program is questionable.
I guess the implication for the ADF would be that any reduction of orders is likely to increase per unit costs. Furthermore, with the possible sanctions of the stealth technology, the whole premise of the program is questionable.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: F22 Raptor V's F35 Joint Strike Fighter
How about this for a scenario for our 'blue collar' air force...?
2007 to 2012
2OCU - retires its 8 worst 'classic' Hornets in 07 and inducts 8 x F/A-18F with APG-79/JASSM/JDAM in 08/09.
6SQN - retires its F-111Gs and transfers its F-111Cs to 1SQN in 08. Disbanded.
10 & 11SQNs - Best 12 AP-3Cs retained for LockMart re-wing program (complete with databus to hardpoints) in 09/010 and consolidated into one SQN. Remaining SQN converts to 12 x GA Mariner UAV from 09.
1SQN - retires its F-111Cs in 010 and converts to 16 x F/A-18F & 4 x EA-18G in 011.
3, 75 & 77SQNs - Disband one SQN (3 or 77?) in 010 and consolidate best of 'classic' Hornet fleet into two remaining SQNs.
33SQN - Three additional A330 MRTTs acquired in FY09. All A330s upgraded with 'smart tanker' data relay capability in 010/011.
Orbat at end 2012: 24 x F/A-18F, 4 x EA-18G, 50ish F/A-18A/B+, 8 x A330, 6 x Wedgetail, 12 x AP-3C+, 12 x Mariner UAV
2012 to 2018
2OCU - retires remaining 'classic' Hornets in 014 and takes first of 16 F-35Cs from 015.
76 & 79SQNs - Hawk 127 fleet undergoes MLU from 013 to 016 to better represent F-35C.
77SQN - Reformed in 013. Takes first of 24 F-35Cs from late 015.
3 & 75SQNs - both SQNs retire balance of 'classic' Hornet fleet in 013 & 015 and introduce 24 x F-35Cs each from 015 & 017.
Orbat at 2018: 24 x F/A-18F, 4 x EA-18G, 72 x F-35C, 8 x A330, 6 x Wedgetail, 12 x AP-3C+, 12 x Mariner UAV
Yes, it means we'll be operating two combat types, but it also gives us a lower risk transition to the F-35 (I suggest the C model due to more robust airframe/landing gear and longer range of bigger wing), provides a capable, networked platform with which to replace the F-111, and allows the 'hugged' F/A-18A/B fleet to be wound down gracefully without having to resort to replacing any centre barrels @ >$12M and 12+ months downtime per airframe.
Thoughts?
Magoo
2007 to 2012
2OCU - retires its 8 worst 'classic' Hornets in 07 and inducts 8 x F/A-18F with APG-79/JASSM/JDAM in 08/09.
6SQN - retires its F-111Gs and transfers its F-111Cs to 1SQN in 08. Disbanded.
10 & 11SQNs - Best 12 AP-3Cs retained for LockMart re-wing program (complete with databus to hardpoints) in 09/010 and consolidated into one SQN. Remaining SQN converts to 12 x GA Mariner UAV from 09.
1SQN - retires its F-111Cs in 010 and converts to 16 x F/A-18F & 4 x EA-18G in 011.
3, 75 & 77SQNs - Disband one SQN (3 or 77?) in 010 and consolidate best of 'classic' Hornet fleet into two remaining SQNs.
33SQN - Three additional A330 MRTTs acquired in FY09. All A330s upgraded with 'smart tanker' data relay capability in 010/011.
Orbat at end 2012: 24 x F/A-18F, 4 x EA-18G, 50ish F/A-18A/B+, 8 x A330, 6 x Wedgetail, 12 x AP-3C+, 12 x Mariner UAV
2012 to 2018
2OCU - retires remaining 'classic' Hornets in 014 and takes first of 16 F-35Cs from 015.
76 & 79SQNs - Hawk 127 fleet undergoes MLU from 013 to 016 to better represent F-35C.
77SQN - Reformed in 013. Takes first of 24 F-35Cs from late 015.
3 & 75SQNs - both SQNs retire balance of 'classic' Hornet fleet in 013 & 015 and introduce 24 x F-35Cs each from 015 & 017.
Orbat at 2018: 24 x F/A-18F, 4 x EA-18G, 72 x F-35C, 8 x A330, 6 x Wedgetail, 12 x AP-3C+, 12 x Mariner UAV
Yes, it means we'll be operating two combat types, but it also gives us a lower risk transition to the F-35 (I suggest the C model due to more robust airframe/landing gear and longer range of bigger wing), provides a capable, networked platform with which to replace the F-111, and allows the 'hugged' F/A-18A/B fleet to be wound down gracefully without having to resort to replacing any centre barrels @ >$12M and 12+ months downtime per airframe.
Thoughts?
Magoo
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: F22 Raptor V's F35 Joint Strike Fighter
I'm thinking buy another 24 Hercs or transport aircraft. More useful for what we are doing now-adays 
Then the Army could almost expect us to act like Unimogs. ( I said Almost )
Then the Army could almost expect us to act like Unimogs. ( I said Almost )
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: F22 Raptor V's F35 Joint Strike Fighter
Well they did have an option for another 24 J's that they let expire. Silly I think, given how much more a J model costs now. Still though, buy 24 more 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: F22 Raptor V's F35 Joint Strike Fighter
Originally Posted by W800i
I like MAGOODOTCOMS suggestion.
The RAAF having an electronic attack capability with 4 G model Super Hornets would be interesting
The RAAF having an electronic attack capability with 4 G model Super Hornets would be interesting
If we're talking transports, I'd also like to see another squadron of Js added to the fleet, especially now that we've sorted out the first batch of Js and they're now earning their keep. As much as I love the Hs, four of them are almost knackered and the rest of the fleet may require a new wing carry-through box before 2012, so it might be time to trade them in while they're still worth something.
As for C-17s - really nice idea but it's an expensive aircraft to acquire (>$250m each), and expensive to run if you're only running four or six of them! Anecdotal evidence suggests that, although the Brits love the aircraft, the lease is not necessarily the most cost effective way of operating them. Meanwhile, the A400M is still a long way away from being a reality (2010+ delivery), and the only nations to sign up to date have been industrial partners.
Maybe we can spend a bit of Costello's 05/06 surplus on six C-17s instead of a $10/week tax cut! But then again, the hospital waitlists are up, the roads need fixing, and my kid's school still has to raise its own funds for a hall and classroom air conditioning...hmmm....
Magoo