Data On Restarting the F-22 Line Is Slowly leaking out and the news is not good

a reply to: FredT

Which is why the RCO/SCO is taking over major programs for the Air Force.

a reply to: C0bzz

I think the issue with Australia is that we can run into the quantity has its own quality threat from our neighbors, pity we are about to scrap our original Hornets, although they are probably worn out, I just like the autonomous Bomb Truck idea.

Question regarding the cost, if you sink $X billion into F-22s now, why would that come at the expense of a next gen platform? Its not like you will be ready to invest this money anyway until there is a design ready, so its going to be in another budget in another few years, it would not stop you developing and selecting the replacement F-22, then making the development aircraft and then replacing the F-22 line with the next gen once the production line was closed?

What is the cost offset of retiring F-15 and F-16 for each new F-22?

Develop some drones that can literally make the skies into a minefield and those big expensive planes will be obsolete.

Barrage balloons worked well enough in WW2.

a reply to: FredT

The Australian DOD decided that the F-35 was the way to go in 2002 - unfortunately the decision making process was not open. This was what the Australian DOD was referring to in my previous post. In 2007, the government then decided to buy 24 Super Hornets to replace aging F-111's and because of F-35 delays, this was controversial so the next government ordered a review into the RAAF's combat procurement plans. In 2008 the government decided to proceed.

In any event since 2008 there have been government hearings every couple of years, the most recent were the 2016 senate hearings on the F-35. While the majority of submissions from the public that were "pitching" an alternative aircraft were pro-F-22, some were pro-Gripen (one even suggested the Gripen is more capable than the F-22), and some suggested the Rafale or Eurofighter. It's also worth noting that the senate hearings were held, I believe, because the Australian Greens (who generally would rather Australia reduce defence spending) requested it. The majority of the pro-F-35 submissions were industry or think-tank.

The recommendations from these hearings were:

Australia should follow the Canadian lead with respect to this program.
Whilst remaining in the program, Australia should run a competition (including a fly
off) to sanity check its decision making. Although the Committee found that none of
the alternate aircraft would exactly meet Australia's requirements, neither will an F-35
that will not achieve full combat capability.

Australia should follow the Canadian lead with respect to this program.
Whilst remaining in the program, Australia should run a competition (including a fly
off) to sanity check its decision making. Although the Committee found that none of
the alternate aircraft would exactly meet Australia's requirements, neither will an F-35
that will not achieve full combat capability.
Recommendation 1
1.28 Whilst remaining in the F-35 program, Australia should (in cooperation
with the Canadians, who are running a competition) re-open and compete for the
New Combat Air Capability.
Recommendation 2
1.29 In the event that the F-35 wins the competition:
• A hedging strategy to mitigate the capability gap that could result from
further schedule slippage, as recommended by the Committee, should be
sought.
• A fixed price contract for the aircraft should be negotiated with
liquidated damages to be passed through the US Government to
Lockheed Martin in the event that the company does not deliver in
accordance with contracted performance or schedule.
• The Department of Defence develop a sovereign industrial capability
strategy for the F-35 to ensure that Australian Aircraft can be
maintained and supported without undue reliance on other nations. This
strategy should include the negotiation of intellectual property rights (in
similar scope and terms to that which we have for Collins Class
submarine sustainment purposes) with Lockheed Martin, prior to any
further purchases, which would facilitate such a sovereign capability.
• The government endeavour to establish Australia as the Asia-Pacific
maintenance and sustainment hub for the F-35.

Since then, recommendation #1 has not occurred and is extremely unlikely to occur. I wish it did. Recommendation 2A hedging strategy would likely be to buy the Advanced Super Hornet. I don't know what the contract details of 2B are. Recommendation 2C has been acknowledged as a risk by DOD and is to an extent (probably not the fullest extent) being worked on. Recommendation 2D has happened and in many ways this helps the previous recommendation. Since then the F-35A has also reached IOC and we aren't too far away from Block 3F.

I have no doubt all of that is true however, I assume that the AUS government is run much in the way of the US with each side crafting operational requirements that suit not only the actual needs of the country but rather the needs of parties and/or politicians as well to keep various political bases happy.

This is true although it does not seem to be as bad here as it is in the US, but that may be because we tend to buy off-the-shelf designs as opposed to develop our own from scratch. Defense in Australia is generally not hugely political or controversial and usually has strong bi-partisan support - the F-35 certainly falls in this category. This is much different to Canada for example where, as I understand the government was elected on the promise not to buy the F-35. The most controversial part however is naval shipbuilding, probably because it employs a lot of people and we can actually do it here.

As far as who supports who, there is some support for the F-22 among a controversial think tank, maybe a senator or two, and others (I have gone from most significant to least significant). Lockheed Martin and Boeing are the only major defense contractors with a significant presence in Australia that make fighter aircraft and Lockheed doesn't particularly want to export the F-22 at the expense of the F-35. Contractors have already been awarded F-35 project, even BAE SYSTEMS is supporting it. The pressure from the US Government is likely going to be for the F-35. Defense itself has indicated that it requires a multi-role aircraft and strongly supports the F-35, but recently has purchased the Super Hornet & Growler. Both major parties would probably be okay with anything as long as the previous stakeholders such as DOD, industry were happy.

My point mainly is that other countries have decision making processes of their own. Even if the F-22 were available for export and still being manufactured it's not assured that Australia would buy it. The ADF is also transitioning to what they call a "fifth generation force" which is basically network centric and integrated between the services. So you can bet that either upgraded communications or BACN (integrate this into Wedgetail?) would be required as well. I'll never say never, though, depends how the region goes, if the US restarts production and wants to pressure Australia into buying it, how our existing Super Hornets and F-35's fair over the 10-15 years. Maybe it could make sense then but not now. US$200 million is also probably too expensive.

I think if NACC were repeated, now or 2002, even if the F-22A was still being manufactured the likely winners would be the F-35A or Advanced Super Hornet. The F-22A would, if available, receive brownie points for being a superb A2A fighter and the Gripen for being cheap. Had we of known how F-35A development would have panned out, then maybe an Advanced Super Hornet and F-22A combination would have made sense as well.

a reply to: C0bzz

Excellent post. One thing to consider is that the aircraft is already in the hands of their pilots, pilots that have also flown super hornets and most probably a wide variety of American and Allied aircraft through pilot exchange or joint training. The Australian DoD knows the same thing that the American DoD knows; when the F-35 hits the theatre it's impact will be known immediately. At this point it's a waiting game that is over.

The good news is the growlers and super hornets that your government bought are not in vein. They are excellent aircraft and will be very complimentary to their F-35 companions. Honestly, the F-35C makes sense for Australia with it's extended range.Plus you could deploy on American carriers. I don't know why that hasn't been pushed more.

a reply to: Caughtlurking

The problem with the F-35C is it's 20% heavier, 17.5% more expensive, and has 6% more fuel. It also doesn't have a gun, is 7.5 G capable instead of 9.0 G, and while in some cases it turns better, its acceleration is slower. So it's really not going to fly much further. The idea of the JSF was to build 3 common fighters, but they didn't turn out to be as common as hoped, so the F-35C might be separate from the majority of the F-35 fleet and therefore slightly harder to maintain. I'm also not sure if weapons need to be integrated into the F-35C separately from the F-35A but that could add cost in the future as well.

It is the best looking F-35 though.

The idea of cross-decking is interesting. I wonder what situation would warrant that? I assume that keeping pilots qualified for carriers is difficult and expensive however.

Australia recently received two LHD's (Canberra Class), my understanding is this is the first amphibious capability of its kind for the ADF so it will take some time to get it up to speed and learn how to use it. A small F-35B purchase to be decked on the Canberra Class has been repeatedly shot down (heh) and DOD doesn't want it. But in the future a small F-35B purchase would allow cross-decking with the USMC and Royal Navy while also operating from our own ships. I assume training to operate from a LHD is cheaper and easier than a proper carrier. That said, Canberra Class is mainly aimed at low intensity conflict.

Australia could also eventually get the MQ-25A Stingray to extend the range of the F-35A (after modification for drogue and hose refueling which LM has confirmed is possible). This could be done at the expense of procuring additional KC-30A's or MQ-4C Triton's. Also I hope Block 4 F-35 gets a thrust increase, fuel burn reduction, 6 AAM missiles, and jettisonable external fuel tanks. Actually I think this paragraph is my fantasy right now, especially if those 6 AAM missiles are MBDA Meteor. Just think of the range...

I think we're getting too off-topic.

Not sure you can add the F-35b option to the LHD. The designs have to be pretty specific to allow BAE to claim completion and the costs are fairly controlled, ie. A lift for a helo will not necessarily be a simple retrofit to carry the weight of a F-35b.

I was surprised at the F35 choice, I think it is going to be a great force multiplier but I still think Aus should go for range and two engines.

Agree off topic.

a reply to: Forensick
The RAN has made prior noises about a third LHD that would be optimised for F-35B operations. That is almost certainly the real reason the ski ramps were left on the design of Adelaide and Canberra. There would need to be some structural reinforcement of the deck to allow continuous operations and below decks would need rearranging to allow meaningful storage and workshops for that kind of operation, similar to what the USMC needed to do for the America class.

As for the F-22, even if this idea does get any legs, it would no longer be relevant for the RAAF and probably not for Canada, UK or Japan either. Like it or loath it the future RAAF is going to be SH, Growler and F-35A. At least they have ended up by default departing from the initial stupid plan of putting all their eggs in one basket and solely relying on the F-35 to replace the legacy Hornet and F-111. Seems operating a split force is not beyond their budget means after all.

The US may be better off teaming and fast tracking any one of a number of advanced designs currently in early development by Japan, Korea, UK and Turkey. Those would bring opportunities a Raptor line restart wont. I still say retire all your worst legacy airframes and use the money saved on operating costs and upgrades towards a buy of Block 60/70 Vipers, F-15 advanced models and/or Block 3 SH. Fixed price contract, minimum number of at least 150-200 each, not more than 500-600 total and fast track PCA.

a reply to: C0bzz

I try to stay away from performance numbers with the F-35 because they're mostly outdated in my opinion. The F-135 is capable of producing more than the 28,000/43,000lbf that it's rated at in the standard spec sheets. Just my guess that the F-35 has a little more performance in it than we know.

a reply to: Forensick

I was surprised at the F35 choice, I think it is going to be a great force multiplier but I still think Aus should go for range and two engines.

RAAF have not lost an aircraft in over 15 years despite operating 33 single engined Hawk 127 aircraft which fly ~7000 hours per year (combined) and 65 single engined PC-9 aircraft which fly ~16,000 hours per year (combined). The 71 Classic Hornet's, which the F-35A is replacing, fly ~12,000 hours per year (note that 12,000 hours was planned, but they actually flew 16,000 hours possibly due to fighting ISIS) (source). Now obviously the F-35A will operate further from base compared to trainer aircraft and will potentially be shot at, but the point remains. It's quiet likely that RAAF will never lose a F-35A to engine failure and possible that RAAF will never lose an F-35A ever. RAAF have only lost 4 F/A-18's - the last crash was 25 years ago.

If the F-35 engine explosion occurred in a two engined aircraft, the aircraft would have been lost anyway. And two engines doesn't guarantee safety in the event of an engine failure.





Now granted, those crashes were probably only possible at airshows because there wasn't enough altitude to recover and the vertical stabilizer isn't effective at low speed high alpha. But the point remains. I also don't recall an F-16 crashing at an airshow due to engine failure.

I would also say the Australian countryside is relatively benign. And at least the water in the north is tropical and not cold, effectively the pilot could be fully submerged in the water and never reach hypothermia. Regarding the wildlife, the pilots can be supplied with firearms if they have to eject - which is already the case.

I think the the whole single engine vs twin engine should be evaluated in the context of overall attrition and survivability. The F-35 definitely wins the latter. I really hope the whole "we need two engines" stays confined to Canada, which seems to be where it originates from. Buying an otherwise inferior jet because it has two engines, because you might lose a single engined aircraft over several decades, with the pilot probably surviving, is suicide. Buy the wrong aircraft and you might lose a conflict, which is the reason the jets exist in the first place.

Regarding range, F-35A range is relatively good and is only beat by other aircraft when they are carrying a significant number of external tanks. If it were that important, RAAF could acquire external fuel tanks, and in the future an upgraded engine. The F-35 is fairly likely to be the first existing fighter to be upgraded with a next generation engine.

Im hoping the Grey Nurse sharks aren't listening..

a reply to: Blackfinger

I know you're joking, but you realize Grey Nurse sharks are relatively harmless?

This might be of note:

Of the 880 who had survived the sinking, only 321 men came out of the water alive; 317 ultimately survived.[18] They suffered from lack of food and water (leading to dehydration and hypernatremia; some found rations, such as Spam and crackers, amongst the debris), exposure to the elements (leading to hypothermia and severe desquamation), and shark attacks, while some killed themselves or other survivors in various states of delirium and hallucinations.[19][20]

"Ocean of Fear", a 2007 episode of the Discovery Channel TV documentary series Shark Week, states that the Indianapolis sinking resulted in the most shark attacks on humans in history, and attributes the attacks to the oceanic whitetip shark species. Tiger sharks might have also killed some sailors. The same show attributed most of the deaths on Indianapolis to exposure, salt poisoning and thirst, with the dead being dragged off by sharks.[21]

en.wikipedia.org...(CA-35)#Sinking

Of course, in that case there was blood in the water.

Also it appears that I was incorrect about being able to survive indefinitely without hypothermia in the region, but in the above case rescue arrived 3 1/2 days after sinking.