F22 Raptor V's F35 Joint Strike Fighter
Re: F22 Raptor V's F35 Joint Strike Fighter
If we are opting for a fleet of "stealth" fighters, why would we need an "electronic attack" capability? Perhaps we should be playing hardball with the Yanks- which the Pom's now seem to be doing- ensuring access to something more than export quality stealth.
With a million Australians now working abroad with dependants, and half again touring the planet at any one time, there is real justification for a long range transport aircraft ( on top of current evolving ADF airlift requirements ).
Personally, if I was being evacuated, C17's with hot galley equipment and more seat pitch and less noise, definately preference to a C130, with it's canvas seats and those awful ration packs.
With a million Australians now working abroad with dependants, and half again touring the planet at any one time, there is real justification for a long range transport aircraft ( on top of current evolving ADF airlift requirements ).
Personally, if I was being evacuated, C17's with hot galley equipment and more seat pitch and less noise, definately preference to a C130, with it's canvas seats and those awful ration packs.
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 Gnadenburg
If we are opting for a fleet of "stealth" fighters, why would we need an "electronic attack" capability?
Originally Posted by Gnadenburg
Perhaps we should be playing hardball with the Yanks- which the Pom's now seem to be doing- ensuring access to something more than export quality stealth.
Originally Posted by Gnadenburg
With a million Australians now working abroad with dependants, and half again touring the planet at any one time, there is real justification for a long range transport aircraft ( on top of current evolving ADF airlift requirements ).
Originally Posted by Gnadenburg
Personally, if I was being evacuated, C17's with hot galley equipment and more seat pitch and less noise, definately preference to a C130, with it's canvas seats and those awful ration packs.
Magoo
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ADELAIDE
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: F22 Raptor V's F35 Joint Strike Fighter
Replacing the 12 C-130H herky birds would seem to me to be a sensible idea, considering their various ages and conditions. The J model line was apparently nearly shut down recently thus Lockheed Martin may be ready to price them very competitively. I dont remember where I read it but I do recall that the RAAF werent entirely impressed with the technical back up they received from Lockheed sorting out the various software and propellor bugs the J model initially had. If this is true then the RAAF might be a little reluctant to purchase new J model herc's?
Having walked thru a C-17 at Avalon I would say that having them in the RAAF inventory would without doubt be a plus. I remember an announcement saying that the C-17 could land on the grass strip at the back of Avalon if it were 20 metres longer. This ability to get into tight and short runways would be of great tactical benefit to the army in particular. I have to say that I am uncomfortable seeing ADF personnel & equipment being transported in Russian airlifters thus just on this point I believe a C-17 purchase is justified.
Two questions to finish on. I believe that the new A330 tankers will be delivered without a main deck cargo capability, is this correct?
Also I have discovered podcasting on my new phone, does anyone know of any aviation or military podcasts. I found the aero news newtork daily podcast but would like to hear of any others out there please!
Having walked thru a C-17 at Avalon I would say that having them in the RAAF inventory would without doubt be a plus. I remember an announcement saying that the C-17 could land on the grass strip at the back of Avalon if it were 20 metres longer. This ability to get into tight and short runways would be of great tactical benefit to the army in particular. I have to say that I am uncomfortable seeing ADF personnel & equipment being transported in Russian airlifters thus just on this point I believe a C-17 purchase is justified.
Two questions to finish on. I believe that the new A330 tankers will be delivered without a main deck cargo capability, is this correct?
Also I have discovered podcasting on my new phone, does anyone know of any aviation or military podcasts. I found the aero news newtork daily podcast but would like to hear of any others out there please!
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 believe that the new A330 tankers will be delivered without a main deck cargo capability, is this correct?
Magoo
Re: F22 Raptor V's F35 Joint Strike Fighter
Magoo
It was in jest, my creature comforts reference to C17's. But again, personally, I think there is real justification for a very long range jet transport aircraft- the numbers of Australians abroad now is staggering.
Your proposed order of battle for the RAAF is, in the decade of the army, beyond budget and beyond the personnel resources. We will never see a 100 aircraft combat fleet- how many operational fighter & bomber crews do we have anyway? Work with 16 interim fighters and a JSF order for 50 to 60.
It was in jest, my creature comforts reference to C17's. But again, personally, I think there is real justification for a very long range jet transport aircraft- the numbers of Australians abroad now is staggering.
Your proposed order of battle for the RAAF is, in the decade of the army, beyond budget and beyond the personnel resources. We will never see a 100 aircraft combat fleet- how many operational fighter & bomber crews do we have anyway? Work with 16 interim fighters and a JSF order for 50 to 60.
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 Gnadenburg
Magoo
It was in jest, my creature comforts reference to C17's. But again, personally, I think there is real justification for a very long range jet transport aircraft- the numbers of Australians abroad now is staggering.
It was in jest, my creature comforts reference to C17's. But again, personally, I think there is real justification for a very long range jet transport aircraft- the numbers of Australians abroad now is staggering.
Originally Posted by Gnadenburg
Your proposed order of battle for the RAAF is, in the decade of the army, beyond budget and beyond the personnel resources. We will never see a 100 aircraft combat fleet- how many operational fighter & bomber crews do we have anyway? Work with 16 interim fighters and a JSF order for 50 to 60.
However, look for some radical solutions in the next decade or so which may allow us to afford, if not sustain 100-odd combat aircraft.
Magoo
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
Magoo, I am interested in what you think is the problem with "the whole aircrew recruitment and retention policy". You may be aware we have just had a review of ADF flight pay, and given the current numbers (I think you will find the ADF is actually surplus), I am not optimistic of a favourable outcome. I am not sure that FLTLT is middle management in the fast jet ranks - you rarely come across anything less, expect brand new bogies.
We will never see a hundred combat acft again.
We will never see a hundred combat acft again.
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 griffinblack
Magoo, I am interested in what you think is the problem with "the whole aircrew recruitment and retention policy". You may be aware we have just had a review of ADF flight pay, and given the current numbers (I think you will find the ADF is actually surplus), I am not optimistic of a favourable outcome.
Originally Posted by griffinblack
I am not sure that FLTLT is middle management in the fast jet ranks - you rarely come across anything less, expect brand new bogies.
Originally Posted by griffinblack
We will never see a hundred combat acft again.
Magoo
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
I am not really “in the know”, but I just don’t see, or have not heard of any great issues recently with out SQNLDR, QFI or pilot numbers. Given numbers are stable, would it not follow then that there is no issue with recruitment or retention? What you are talking about is natural attrition. A 2 year posting cycle is probably on the rareish side and many would do back to back postings in the same locality. Mot postings are of greater length than 2 years.
A line QFI is not a manager, irrespective of which school or unit he/she is in. Unfortunately, if you upright and breathing now a days, you are qualified to go to war. Most cat D's, after SQN induction, are taken - Bougainville, Afghanistan, Iraq and East Timor. I agree, QFI's are best described as supervisors.
In respect to the F35 - “Whether that level of [stealth] performance is less than that which the US is getting is neither relevant nor is it likely to be known by the partner nation/export customer”. I disagree, it is vital.
A line QFI is not a manager, irrespective of which school or unit he/she is in. Unfortunately, if you upright and breathing now a days, you are qualified to go to war. Most cat D's, after SQN induction, are taken - Bougainville, Afghanistan, Iraq and East Timor. I agree, QFI's are best described as supervisors.
In respect to the F35 - “Whether that level of [stealth] performance is less than that which the US is getting is neither relevant nor is it likely to be known by the partner nation/export customer”. I disagree, it is vital.
Re: F22 Raptor V's F35 Joint Strike Fighter
Magoo
I would only be drawing the long bow, if the large numbers of expat's & travellers abroad, was the only justification I had used for strategic airlift. I always stated it was in addition to current and evolving ADF airlift requirments. Perhaps, with consideration to both the humanitarian reach of a C17 fleet and a responsibility to Oz expatriates and tourists, there could be extra funding alocated to defence for this new capability.
What non-core assets can the RAAF strip, to get anywhere near a respectable fighter fleet? Caribous, Hawks, Roulettes, airfield defence palmed of to the army? They still got a marching band?
I would only be drawing the long bow, if the large numbers of expat's & travellers abroad, was the only justification I had used for strategic airlift. I always stated it was in addition to current and evolving ADF airlift requirments. Perhaps, with consideration to both the humanitarian reach of a C17 fleet and a responsibility to Oz expatriates and tourists, there could be extra funding alocated to defence for this new capability.
What non-core assets can the RAAF strip, to get anywhere near a respectable fighter fleet? Caribous, Hawks, Roulettes, airfield defence palmed of to the army? They still got a marching band?
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
Gnadenburg,
I tend to agree with you in respect to a C17 purchase, but not perhaps with your reasons why. But that is neither here nor there.
Your hit list of non core assets are interesting. My personal opinion is that the RAAF does have quite a bit of fat able to be trimmed, however the RAAF are very good at justifying and protecting what it has. However, as I’ve stated in another post, Caribou, although not a high priority perhaps for the RAAF, is integral to the land forces ability to conduct manoeuvre. Tactical lift (rather than C130 role of theatre/strat lift) may not need to be conducted by the Caribou or indeed the RAAF, but it is a vital component of land manoeuvre. The Roulettes have no tactical or strategic role, but they are an integral component of recruitment (which is vital). Likewise the Hawks are our lead in fighter – again vital. Airfield defence is not an army role, therefore is not core role of army – at the end of the day if you want airfield defence you have to rob Peter to pay Paul, and the RAAF are best served to do the role. None of the capabilities you have identified will purchase or sustain a fighter fleet of 100 jets. And all of the capabilities are in there own way vital.
I tend to agree with you in respect to a C17 purchase, but not perhaps with your reasons why. But that is neither here nor there.
Your hit list of non core assets are interesting. My personal opinion is that the RAAF does have quite a bit of fat able to be trimmed, however the RAAF are very good at justifying and protecting what it has. However, as I’ve stated in another post, Caribou, although not a high priority perhaps for the RAAF, is integral to the land forces ability to conduct manoeuvre. Tactical lift (rather than C130 role of theatre/strat lift) may not need to be conducted by the Caribou or indeed the RAAF, but it is a vital component of land manoeuvre. The Roulettes have no tactical or strategic role, but they are an integral component of recruitment (which is vital). Likewise the Hawks are our lead in fighter – again vital. Airfield defence is not an army role, therefore is not core role of army – at the end of the day if you want airfield defence you have to rob Peter to pay Paul, and the RAAF are best served to do the role. None of the capabilities you have identified will purchase or sustain a fighter fleet of 100 jets. And all of the capabilities are in there own way vital.
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
Back to the F-35 question, back in 2002 Boeing was quoting a flyaway price of $US65-70M for the F-15E and about $US50-53M for the F-18E/F. As stated earlier with the F-35 going past $US60M and esculating, Australia would have a competetive mix with a Strike Eagle/Super Hornet fleet mix (logistics aside). As Fragnasty said, you fly against the man, not the platform. Korea, considering its security issues, has opted for the F-15 and now Singapore has commited to the type.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ADELAIDE
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: F22 Raptor V's F35 Joint Strike Fighter
As Bobster points out there are other options in the market place in the short term instead of the F-35. As I have said before I am not qualified to say whether the F-35 will or wont be a success. However I am uncomfortable in putting all of our eggs in one basket. I just wonder whether the RAAF are backed into a corner regarding this however. The RAAF have spent alot of money on the current F-18 fleet to bring it up to a better standard. The decision to retire the F111 fleet is made and decisions for stand off weapons and new FLIR pods are either made or close to it. I understand that the RAAF will be joining the centre barrell effort set up by the Canadians(I think) which is by all accounts a huge job on each air frame. All this says to me that the decision to go with the F-35 is set in stone.
As Bobster and others have pointed out, there are current aircraft that are muture and available now. I just wonder had the RAAF purchased the Super Hornet instead of Hugging the hornet fleet they could of joined the SDD phase of the JSF but had 20 years with a new airframe to sit off and watch. Hopefully all goes well with the F-35 and the government of the day of whichever pursuasion supports a full 100 aircraft buy for the RAAF!
As Bobster and others have pointed out, there are current aircraft that are muture and available now. I just wonder had the RAAF purchased the Super Hornet instead of Hugging the hornet fleet they could of joined the SDD phase of the JSF but had 20 years with a new airframe to sit off and watch. Hopefully all goes well with the F-35 and the government of the day of whichever pursuasion supports a full 100 aircraft buy for the RAAF!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ADELAIDE
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an excerpt of an interview with Dr Stephen Gumley, CEO of the DMO. The full transcript is at
http://www.yaffa.com.au/defence/current/source.htm
ADM: Which projects keep you awake at night if any?
Gumley: The Joint Strike Fighter is keeping me awake at the moment, specifically the Quadrennial Defence Review in America and what the impacts of that might be to the program. You could talk to 20 different senior people in government in America and get 20 different conclusions at the moment where that might head. We have all got to, over the next few weeks, watch very carefully where the American program goes.
ADM: Are you particularly afraid of reduced JSF numbers for the US putting the price up for us?
Gumley: That could happen. In any of these airplane programs if you reduce the quantity the unit price goes up because you have to amortise the development and mobilisation costs over a smaller quantity. What could happen out of the QDR has a couple of impacts. It really could impact costs but it could also impact schedule and we are just watching again how the flow of funds from the US Congress to the project goes.
http://www.yaffa.com.au/defence/current/source.htm
ADM: Which projects keep you awake at night if any?
Gumley: The Joint Strike Fighter is keeping me awake at the moment, specifically the Quadrennial Defence Review in America and what the impacts of that might be to the program. You could talk to 20 different senior people in government in America and get 20 different conclusions at the moment where that might head. We have all got to, over the next few weeks, watch very carefully where the American program goes.
ADM: Are you particularly afraid of reduced JSF numbers for the US putting the price up for us?
Gumley: That could happen. In any of these airplane programs if you reduce the quantity the unit price goes up because you have to amortise the development and mobilisation costs over a smaller quantity. What could happen out of the QDR has a couple of impacts. It really could impact costs but it could also impact schedule and we are just watching again how the flow of funds from the US Congress to the project goes.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ADELAIDE
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.afa.org/magazine/jan2006/0106edit.asp
This link is to the US Air force association. The prediction at the end of the article is that the planned USAF buy of F-35's will be cut. The QDR is apparently due for release in February.
This link is to the US Air force association. The prediction at the end of the article is that the planned USAF buy of F-35's will be cut. The QDR is apparently due for release in February.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember when I did a course on C3I systems the quote something along the lines of "95% of C3I systems are either not delivered [cancelled], or are delivered either over budget or not inline with what the user expected".
I think modern aircraft will begin to follow a similar path as more and more complex avionics / mission systems are included. Just take a look at the crusty old C-130 crews in the US who complain about the cost of the J model and how long it's perceived to have taken to get online. However I suspect I know what crew role these people occupied
If you want a quality, modern aircraft you have to expect it to cost well in excess of what you think, and late.
I think modern aircraft will begin to follow a similar path as more and more complex avionics / mission systems are included. Just take a look at the crusty old C-130 crews in the US who complain about the cost of the J model and how long it's perceived to have taken to get online. However I suspect I know what crew role these people occupied
If you want a quality, modern aircraft you have to expect it to cost well in excess of what you think, and late.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: ADELAIDE
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont disagree with your central premise that complex software integration tasks are prone to difficulties. The F-22's software problems are a case in point. The Americans have essentially the money to fix these issues regardless of cost.
I would state that many of the programme difficulties that the ADF has experienced particularly in the last 10 or so years have been with cutting edge integrations and systems. Most specifically when designing and integrating very specific Australian based requirements eg The Super Sea Sprite helicopter. Lack of political support and of course financial insecurity havent helped either. Australia doesnt have the limitless funding pool that the Americans appear to have. Although this may change in the near future.
The encouraging signs within defence are firstly Stephen Gumleys attitude of not wanting to be quite at the cutting edge of things. The other encouraging sign is project Wedgetail. So far so good. The political support for this project has shown hopefully to politicians that political and long term financial stability and support for projects is an absolute requirement.
My concern regarding the F-35 is that we are counting on it from a very early point in its design phase. Unlike Wedgetail the RAAF are a very small partner in a very big project. I only hope that the F-35 involvment is not being driven by a political requirement to be involved in a very large international project rather than selecting the absolute best system for the RAAF.
The F-35 may very well be that system, but thats the point it may. As some of the posters have pointed out, there are aircraft systems available now eg the Super Hornet, that are a known quantity, could be delivered on time and for an agreed price.
Sorry for the length of reply!!
I would state that many of the programme difficulties that the ADF has experienced particularly in the last 10 or so years have been with cutting edge integrations and systems. Most specifically when designing and integrating very specific Australian based requirements eg The Super Sea Sprite helicopter. Lack of political support and of course financial insecurity havent helped either. Australia doesnt have the limitless funding pool that the Americans appear to have. Although this may change in the near future.
The encouraging signs within defence are firstly Stephen Gumleys attitude of not wanting to be quite at the cutting edge of things. The other encouraging sign is project Wedgetail. So far so good. The political support for this project has shown hopefully to politicians that political and long term financial stability and support for projects is an absolute requirement.
My concern regarding the F-35 is that we are counting on it from a very early point in its design phase. Unlike Wedgetail the RAAF are a very small partner in a very big project. I only hope that the F-35 involvment is not being driven by a political requirement to be involved in a very large international project rather than selecting the absolute best system for the RAAF.
The F-35 may very well be that system, but thats the point it may. As some of the posters have pointed out, there are aircraft systems available now eg the Super Hornet, that are a known quantity, could be delivered on time and for an agreed price.
Sorry for the length of reply!!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F/A35 waste of money; F22 massive waste of money (i read they called it F and not F/A cause it cant heandle a2g ordnance).
Keep the F18's and F111's for fly pasts and dump and burns.
Why waste more money on expensive combat airframes that will never be used (yes the F18's were used ever so briefly in GW2 and Diego Garcia).
I hear our boys being transported on 3rd world airliners and freighters on regular basis cause the d..heads in Canberra in and out of blue suits blew $150 million of promise at a look at of a JSF.
Lets give our services something they really need not what looks good for a flypast or in the movies.
Keep the F18's and F111's for fly pasts and dump and burns.
Why waste more money on expensive combat airframes that will never be used (yes the F18's were used ever so briefly in GW2 and Diego Garcia).
I hear our boys being transported on 3rd world airliners and freighters on regular basis cause the d..heads in Canberra in and out of blue suits blew $150 million of promise at a look at of a JSF.
Lets give our services something they really need not what looks good for a flypast or in the movies.
Last edited by Funk; 28th Jan 2006 at 16:01.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Keep the F18's and F111's for fly pasts and dump and burns." - how much will this increasing antique "capability" cost in support and maintenance?
“Why waste more money on expensive combat airframes that will never be used” – I hope we never use them, that is what deterrence and diplomacy is all about. However, if we have to go to war at least make sure we are equipped and prepared. The F18 and F111 are not combat aircraft that can compete on a future battlefield, Furthermore, they will become unsupportable and unsustainable at some point in time.
What about one of the later Tranches of Typhoon?
“Why waste more money on expensive combat airframes that will never be used” – I hope we never use them, that is what deterrence and diplomacy is all about. However, if we have to go to war at least make sure we are equipped and prepared. The F18 and F111 are not combat aircraft that can compete on a future battlefield, Furthermore, they will become unsupportable and unsustainable at some point in time.
What about one of the later Tranches of Typhoon?
You don't have to be Napolean, to realise the RAAF needs a big, heavy fighter-bomber, that can fly the length and breadth of Indonesia from northern bases, with refuelling, and with a capability to fend of developing nations' air threats and deliver a good load of munitions.
Such a capability will be relevant in a war on terror, aswell as conventional threats in the region that people seem to blissfully believe no longer exist- power and resource hungry Tiger economies, in an Asia with an inevitable, declining US influence.
The only plane available is the Strike Eagle.
So hop to it! Scrap F111's. Replace with a squadron of F15's and disband a Hornet squadron. That should see the RAAF through until a reduced JSF buy available. F15's replaced long term by emerging technologies. RAAF maintains regional superiority.
I note Beazley launching into this debate recently. Will become more of a hot political issue if the RAAF crashes an F111 in the next few years.
Such a capability will be relevant in a war on terror, aswell as conventional threats in the region that people seem to blissfully believe no longer exist- power and resource hungry Tiger economies, in an Asia with an inevitable, declining US influence.
The only plane available is the Strike Eagle.
So hop to it! Scrap F111's. Replace with a squadron of F15's and disband a Hornet squadron. That should see the RAAF through until a reduced JSF buy available. F15's replaced long term by emerging technologies. RAAF maintains regional superiority.
I note Beazley launching into this debate recently. Will become more of a hot political issue if the RAAF crashes an F111 in the next few years.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 26th Jan 2006 at 02:00.