Re: RAAF releases jet fighter back-up plan

[JD]

rec.aviation.military added.
"Brash" > wrote in message >...
> They should lease 24 F-15E's until JSF come on-line.

JSF = F-35?

The Air Force should lease F-16Es (http://tinyurl.com/2vdm7) as a
replacement for the F/A-18 until the F-35 is ready for production,
which may take a decade longer than anticipated based on the F-22
experience.

To replace the capability of the F-111, simply lease F-15Ts, which is
a vastly more capable long range strike aircraft than the F-35 anyway.

Any concerns over range are immediately dispelled now that we are
getting refuelling capability.

These aircraft are proven, modern and cheaper.

As always, we won't get the best, most cost effective solution as ego
and politics intervene.

A really good analysis of the JSF is located at
http://tinyurl.com/yvxkn

[Ron the Barbarian]

(JD) wrote in
om:

> rec.aviation.military added.
> "Brash" > wrote in message
> >...
>> They should lease 24 F-15E's until JSF come on-line.
>
> JSF = F-35?
>
> The Air Force should lease F-16Es (http://tinyurl.com/2vdm7) as a
> replacement for the F/A-18 until the F-35 is ready for production,
> which may take a decade longer than anticipated based on the F-22
> experience.
>
> To replace the capability of the F-111, simply lease F-15Ts, which is
> a vastly more capable long range strike aircraft than the F-35 anyway.
>
> Any concerns over range are immediately dispelled now that we are
> getting refuelling capability.
>
> These aircraft are proven, modern and cheaper.
>
> As always, we won't get the best, most cost effective solution as ego
> and politics intervene.

The ADF won't buy that!

Civilians rule Defence, the cheapest quote will win, as always....

[Kevin Brooks]

"JD" > wrote in message
om...
> rec.aviation.military added.
> "Brash" > wrote in message
>...
> > They should lease 24 F-15E's until JSF come on-line.
>
> JSF = F-35?
>
> The Air Force should lease F-16Es (http://tinyurl.com/2vdm7) as a
> replacement for the F/A-18 until the F-35 is ready for production,
> which may take a decade longer than anticipated based on the F-22
> experience.

How many Block 60's have you seen offered for "lease"? The only lease deal
for F-16's that I know of is the Italian one, for refurbished old F-16 ADF
variants.

>
> To replace the capability of the F-111, simply lease F-15Ts, which is
> a vastly more capable long range strike aircraft than the F-35 anyway.

Again, how many F-15's of *any* type, much less the Tango, have been leased,
or offered for lease?

>
> Any concerns over range are immediately dispelled now that we are
> getting refuelling capability.
>
> These aircraft are proven, modern and cheaper.

An F-15T is cheaper than what the F-35 is supposed to cost?

>
> As always, we won't get the best, most cost effective solution as ego
> and politics intervene.

But you may get a more realistic one than the lease of late model variants
that are the least likely to be offered on lease.

Brooks

>
> A really good analysis of the JSF is located at
> http://tinyurl.com/yvxkn

[DC]

JD said the following on 9/06/2004 9:47 AM:
> JSF = F-35?
>
> The Air Force should lease F-16Es (http://tinyurl.com/2vdm7) as a
> replacement for the F/A-18 until the F-35 is ready for production,
> which may take a decade longer than anticipated based on the F-22
> experience.

The RAAF originally selected the F/A-18 over the F16. I don't see
them acquiring any F16s.

> To replace the capability of the F-111, simply lease F-15Ts, which is
> a vastly more capable long range strike aircraft than the F-35 anyway.
>
> Any concerns over range are immediately dispelled now that we are
> getting refuelling capability.
>
> These aircraft are proven, modern and cheaper.

The Mustang was proven, modern and cheaper at the end of WWII but it
was still outclassed by the latest jet technology.

> As always, we won't get the best, most cost effective solution as ego
> and politics intervene.

Isn't the F22 the best. Cost effective - that depends on what the
opposing force has. Mustangs would be pretty cost effective if the
other side has Sopwith Camels. However, if the other guy is in an
F35 then I'd feel more cost effective in an F22.

[JD]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> "JD" > wrote in message
> om...
> > rec.aviation.military added.
> > "Brash" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > They should lease 24 F-15E's until JSF come on-line.
> >
> > JSF = F-35?
> >
> > The Air Force should lease F-16Es (http://tinyurl.com/2vdm7) as a
> > replacement for the F/A-18 until the F-35 is ready for production,
> > which may take a decade longer than anticipated based on the F-22
> > experience.
>
> How many Block 60's have you seen offered for "lease"? The only lease deal
> for F-16's that I know of is the Italian one, for refurbished old F-16 ADF
> variants.

But we have a special relationship. It is something we should be
considering. Only a fool thinks that the F-35 will be delivered on
time.

> > To replace the capability of the F-111, simply lease F-15Ts, which is
> > a vastly more capable long range strike aircraft than the F-35 anyway.
>
> Again, how many F-15's of *any* type, much less the Tango, have been leased,
> or offered for lease?

Off hand i don't know, but that doesn't prevent us asking for them.

> > Any concerns over range are immediately dispelled now that we are
> > getting refuelling capability.
> >
> > These aircraft are proven, modern and cheaper.
>
> An F-15T is cheaper than what the F-35 is supposed to cost?

Certainly. The latest F-15 is in production for less than half of the
production cost of the F-22, which is marginally more expensive than
the proposed cost for the F-35.

> > As always, we won't get the best, most cost effective solution as ego
> > and politics intervene.
>
> But you may get a more realistic one than the lease of late model variants
> that are the least likely to be offered on lease.

Granted, but it doesn't hurt to ask and it is a better plan than
putting missiles on Orions!

[JD]

DC > wrote in message >...
> JD said the following on 9/06/2004 9:47 AM:
> > JSF = F-35?
> >
> > The Air Force should lease F-16Es (http://tinyurl.com/2vdm7) as a
> > replacement for the F/A-18 until the F-35 is ready for production,
> > which may take a decade longer than anticipated based on the F-22
> > experience.
>
> The RAAF originally selected the F/A-18 over the F16. I don't see
> them acquiring any F16s.

Did that have something to do with HMAS Melbourne, or is that a furphy?

> > To replace the capability of the F-111, simply lease F-15Ts, which is
> > a vastly more capable long range strike aircraft than the F-35 anyway.
> >
> > Any concerns over range are immediately dispelled now that we are
> > getting refuelling capability.
> >
> > These aircraft are proven, modern and cheaper.
>
> The Mustang was proven, modern and cheaper at the end of WWII but it
> was still outclassed by the latest jet technology.

False analogy.

[Kevin Brooks]

"JD" > wrote in message
om...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > "JD" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > rec.aviation.military added.
> > > "Brash" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > They should lease 24 F-15E's until JSF come on-line.
> > >
> > > JSF = F-35?
> > >
> > > The Air Force should lease F-16Es (http://tinyurl.com/2vdm7) as a
> > > replacement for the F/A-18 until the F-35 is ready for production,
> > > which may take a decade longer than anticipated based on the F-22
> > > experience.
> >
> > How many Block 60's have you seen offered for "lease"? The only lease
deal
> > for F-16's that I know of is the Italian one, for refurbished old F-16
ADF
> > variants.
>
> But we have a special relationship. It is something we should be
> considering.

I don't think our "special relationship" has much to do with it. As long as
LMCO can keep finding *buyers* for the F-16 Block 60 they are not going to
be too interested in doing a lease deal with anyone unless it is one that
offers them an end outcome as favorable as purchasing does. Purchase price
for a Block 60 is over $30 million per--not too awful far from the estimated
price range of the F-35.

Only a fool thinks that the F-35 will be delivered on
> time.

When is "on time"? Yeah, the originally projected schedule has slipped a
year or so, IIRC--no big surprise there. But the USAF, and especially the
USMC, are facing a real timecrunch in the future as to replacing some of
their older airframes (especially F/A-18 early mods and AV-8B's), so I sort
of see a lot of pressure to keep the F-35 schedule in the current ballpark.


>
> > > To replace the capability of the F-111, simply lease F-15Ts, which is
> > > a vastly more capable long range strike aircraft than the F-35 anyway.
> >
> > Again, how many F-15's of *any* type, much less the Tango, have been
leased,
> > or offered for lease?
>
> Off hand i don't know, but that doesn't prevent us asking for them.

The answer is "none". The only US manufactured combat aircraft currently
available for lease are older F-16 versions. The USAF does not have an
overabundance of E models just sitting around, so that source is a
non-starter. Boeing is going to keep the F-15 line going for as long as they
can sell them, but they would be unlikely to agree to a lease deal
(especially for the paltry number you are talking about) unless they can
plan on recouping a roughly similar profit margin from the deal. What you
are proposing appears to be quite a bit different from the Boeing proposal
to lease 767's to the USAF, where they have been keen to keep the current
assembly line operating; the F-15 production line is in its twilight years
( I doubt there will be much chance of selling new-builds to anyone else
after the Singapore selection is done with).

>
> > > Any concerns over range are immediately dispelled now that we are
> > > getting refuelling capability.
> > >
> > > These aircraft are proven, modern and cheaper.
> >
> > An F-15T is cheaper than what the F-35 is supposed to cost?
>
> Certainly. The latest F-15 is in production for less than half of the
> production cost of the F-22, which is marginally more expensive than
> the proposed cost for the F-35.

Estimates I have seen for the F-35 start at around $38 million
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35.htm) and run
to $45 million per (http://tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=777). Cost for an
F-15 back in the late 98 was running around $43 million (according to FAS)
per, IIRC--the F-15K is costing the ROKAF some $3.2 billion for 40 aircraft,
which is around $80 million per copy. So I am not sure your solution is the
slam-dunk "cheaper" option that you portray it as being ($80 million per
leaves a LOT of expansion room for the F-35 unit cost to expand and still
come in under the F-15K).

>
> > > As always, we won't get the best, most cost effective solution as ego
> > > and politics intervene.
> >
> > But you may get a more realistic one than the lease of late model
variants
> > that are the least likely to be offered on lease.
>
> Granted, but it doesn't hurt to ask and it is a better plan than
> putting missiles on Orions!

If the RAAF really had its back to the wall in terms of replacing the F-111
with a similarly capable strike platform in the near term, and leasing is
the way you want to go, I'd suggest that a more realistic way of taking
advantage of that "special relationship" would be to talk the US into
loaning (or leasing at nominal/symbolic rate) about four B-1B's. That way
you only require a minimum of 16 rated aircrew (and IIRC keeping aircrew for
the current F-111 fleet has been a significant problem) to keep them mission
capable, and each one hauls a lot of munitions. Getting an older aircraft
like that at good terms would be a lot more likely than your F-15T at
similarly good terms option, IMO. Scratch the F-16 proposal at the get-go;
keep your F/A-18's flying and updated until the F-35 is available.

Brooks

[Peter]

In article >,=20
says...
> > The RAAF originally selected the F/A-18 over the F16. I don't see=20
> > them acquiring any F16s.
>=20
> Did that have something to do with HMAS Melbourne, or is that a furphy?

Can't operate fixed wing aircraft off a frigate, but presuming you're=20
talking about our old aircraft carrier, she was way too small for=20
Hornets. A loaded Hornet weighs about half as much again as a Skyhawk -=20
in the region of ten tonnes - and to launch and recover these aircraft=20
safely you need a correspondingly longer catapult and arrestor stroke.

Melbourne's single small catapult would have had to be replaced again,=20
this time with something stretching over half her length. Her launching=20
and recovery areas would have been much the same place, pretty much=20
negating any advantage of having an angled deck (which was only 6=BA=20
anyway) and making the forward elevator useless for much of the time.

I'm not saying it couldn't have been done, but the cost of refitting=20
what was already an elderly ship to operate a very small complement of=20
Hornets wouldn't have been worthwhile.

[Michael Kelly]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
[Snip]

> If the RAAF really had its back to the wall in terms of replacing the F-111
> with a similarly capable strike platform in the near term, and leasing is
> the way you want to go, I'd suggest that a more realistic way of taking
> advantage of that "special relationship" would be to talk the US into
> loaning (or leasing at nominal/symbolic rate) about four B-1B's. That way
> you only require a minimum of 16 rated aircrew (and IIRC keeping aircrew for
> the current F-111 fleet has been a significant problem) to keep them mission
> capable, and each one hauls a lot of munitions. Getting an older aircraft
> like that at good terms would be a lot more likely than your F-15T at
> similarly good terms option, IMO. Scratch the F-16 proposal at the get-go;
> keep your F/A-18's flying and updated until the F-35 is available.
>
> Brooks
>
>

Kevin,

Doubt you'd only want a fleet of 4 of any aircraft. I've had the
experience of trying to support 3 customers with a squadron of only 6
Bones (6 + 1 in depot), and it wasn't pretty. This is at a base with
two other squadrons flying another 24 planes, 4 would be unworkable.
Furthermore, there aren't enough Bones left to lease four unless
congress backs off from bringing the 23 out of retirement (7 are gone
for good). Even at that not sure you'd want the ones at DM, pretty
picked over.

That said, it could be workable with a fleet size of 10 or 11 if the US
follows through with the plans to stand up a squadron in Guam. Although
that would depend on us only bringing back 11-12.

Cheers,

Michael Kelly
Bone Maintainer

[Kevin Brooks]

"Michael Kelly" > wrote in message
m...
>
>
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> [Snip]
>
> > If the RAAF really had its back to the wall in terms of replacing the
F-111
> > with a similarly capable strike platform in the near term, and leasing
is
> > the way you want to go, I'd suggest that a more realistic way of taking
> > advantage of that "special relationship" would be to talk the US into
> > loaning (or leasing at nominal/symbolic rate) about four B-1B's. That
way
> > you only require a minimum of 16 rated aircrew (and IIRC keeping aircrew
for
> > the current F-111 fleet has been a significant problem) to keep them
mission
> > capable, and each one hauls a lot of munitions. Getting an older
aircraft
> > like that at good terms would be a lot more likely than your F-15T at
> > similarly good terms option, IMO. Scratch the F-16 proposal at the
get-go;
> > keep your F/A-18's flying and updated until the F-35 is available.
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> >
>
> Kevin,
>
> Doubt you'd only want a fleet of 4 of any aircraft. I've had the
> experience of trying to support 3 customers with a squadron of only 6
> Bones (6 + 1 in depot), and it wasn't pretty. This is at a base with
> two other squadrons flying another 24 planes, 4 would be unworkable.
> Furthermore, there aren't enough Bones left to lease four unless
> congress backs off from bringing the 23 out of retirement (7 are gone
> for good). Even at that not sure you'd want the ones at DM, pretty
> picked over.
>
> That said, it could be workable with a fleet size of 10 or 11 if the US
> follows through with the plans to stand up a squadron in Guam. Although
> that would depend on us only bringing back 11-12.

Good and valid points. The only way something like this would work is if the
maintenance/spares chain remained tied to the USAF. I'd still think a
nominal force (i.e., that figure of four, or even six, for example) could
work (albeit with extra money appropriated to procure spares, but if the
aircraft procurement cost is negligable, that makes the spending for spares
more palatible), especially if they had a maintenace relationship with the
USAF at Guam. But hey, this was all a "what if" inspired only by what I saw
as an even more implausible proposal (that whole leased F-15/F-16 idea).

I guess one way around these problems would be a more radical proposal, but
one that could serve both US and Aussie needs. That would be an agreement
that put a rotating detachment of USAF B-1B's at some RAAF base, with the
USAF in turn handing off the requisite four aircraft to the RAAF and
agreeing to handle their higher level maintenance in conjunction with our
own detachment's aircraft. The USAF gains another forward operating base in
an area that it does not have much in now, and the RAAF maintains its own
strike capability at minimal cost. Even if we did something like that and
took the aircraft "out of hide" it would likely not be a loss of capability,
as we and they tend to follow the same general course in that part of the
world. Of course, this is all fantasy play--not a chance in hell of
something like that ever actually happening, I'd think.

Brooks


>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael Kelly
> Bone Maintainer
>

[Prowlus]

Speaking of a possible hornet/f-11 sucessor, why didn't the RAAF
choose the Rafale instead? Currently the F.2 block of rafales seem to
match the hornet and possibly the aardvark's strike capability plus i
think dassualt really need some buyers for their jet

[Kevin Brooks]

"Prowlus" > wrote in message
om...
> Speaking of a possible hornet/f-11 sucessor, why didn't the RAAF
> choose the Rafale instead? Currently the F.2 block of rafales seem to
> match the hornet and possibly the aardvark's strike capability plus i
> think dassualt really need some buyers for their jet

Have they actually got the multi-role version in service, or even flying?
Last i heard all they had were the air-to-air only naval variants.

Brooks

[DC]

Michael Kelly said the following on 10/06/2004 12:04 PM:
>
> Doubt you'd only want a fleet of 4 of any aircraft. I've had the
> experience of trying to support 3 customers with a squadron of only 6
> Bones (6 + 1 in depot), and it wasn't pretty. This is at a base with
> two other squadrons flying another 24 planes, 4 would be unworkable.
> Furthermore, there aren't enough Bones left to lease four unless
> congress backs off from bringing the 23 out of retirement (7 are gone
> for good). Even at that not sure you'd want the ones at DM, pretty
> picked over.
>
> That said, it could be workable with a fleet size of 10 or 11 if the US
> follows through with the plans to stand up a squadron in Guam. Although
> that would depend on us only bringing back 11-12.

How would the B1B and B2 compare? Would a force consisting of F-22
fighters and B-1B or B-2 bombers be feasible for the RAAF (as
compared to the F-35) or would it be way too expensive?

[Kevin Brooks]

"DC" > wrote in message
. au...
> Michael Kelly said the following on 10/06/2004 12:04 PM:
> >
> > Doubt you'd only want a fleet of 4 of any aircraft. I've had the
> > experience of trying to support 3 customers with a squadron of only 6
> > Bones (6 + 1 in depot), and it wasn't pretty. This is at a base with
> > two other squadrons flying another 24 planes, 4 would be unworkable.
> > Furthermore, there aren't enough Bones left to lease four unless
> > congress backs off from bringing the 23 out of retirement (7 are gone
> > for good). Even at that not sure you'd want the ones at DM, pretty
> > picked over.
> >
> > That said, it could be workable with a fleet size of 10 or 11 if the US
> > follows through with the plans to stand up a squadron in Guam. Although
> > that would depend on us only bringing back 11-12.
>
> How would the B1B and B2 compare? Would a force consisting of F-22
> fighters and B-1B or B-2 bombers be feasible for the RAAF (as
> compared to the F-35) or would it be way too expensive?

So expensive as to be complete and utter fantasy; the B-2, which is not in
production any longer, came it at around $1 billion per copy IIRC, and the
F/A-22 is a pricey item too, depending on how the pricing is worked out (the
$100 million per figure has been tossed around IIRC, but if you take the
total program cost and divide it out by the currently planned total number
of airframes you get something closer to the $150 million plus figure). The
RAAF is not going to be looking at either of those platforms, that is for
sure.

Brooks

[Brash]

"Prowlus" > wrote in message
om...
> Speaking of a possible hornet/f-11 sucessor, why didn't the RAAF
> choose the Rafale instead? Currently the F.2 block of rafales seem to
> match the hornet and possibly the aardvark's strike capability plus

> i think dassualt really need some buyers for their jet

I think you just answered your own question.

--
"The code of the warrior class has room for fallibility but there is no room
for a lack of integrity."

[The Raven]

"DC" > wrote in message
. au...
> Michael Kelly said the following on 10/06/2004 12:04 PM:
> >
> > Doubt you'd only want a fleet of 4 of any aircraft. I've had the
> > experience of trying to support 3 customers with a squadron of only 6
> > Bones (6 + 1 in depot), and it wasn't pretty. This is at a base with
> > two other squadrons flying another 24 planes, 4 would be unworkable.
> > Furthermore, there aren't enough Bones left to lease four unless
> > congress backs off from bringing the 23 out of retirement (7 are gone
> > for good). Even at that not sure you'd want the ones at DM, pretty
> > picked over.
> >
> > That said, it could be workable with a fleet size of 10 or 11 if the US
> > follows through with the plans to stand up a squadron in Guam. Although
> > that would depend on us only bringing back 11-12.
>
> How would the B1B and B2 compare? Would a force consisting of F-22
> fighters and B-1B or B-2 bombers be feasible for the RAAF (as
> compared to the F-35) or would it be way too expensive?

Australia could not afford to own/operate B2 aircraft, perhaps a handful of
B1's if given a massive "friendly" discount . Even reaching for F-22's would
mean buying no more than a dozen or so before the budget ran dry.....

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[The Raven]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "DC" > wrote in message
> . au...
> > Michael Kelly said the following on 10/06/2004 12:04 PM:
> > >
> > > Doubt you'd only want a fleet of 4 of any aircraft. I've had the
> > > experience of trying to support 3 customers with a squadron of only 6
> > > Bones (6 + 1 in depot), and it wasn't pretty. This is at a base with
> > > two other squadrons flying another 24 planes, 4 would be unworkable.
> > > Furthermore, there aren't enough Bones left to lease four unless
> > > congress backs off from bringing the 23 out of retirement (7 are gone
> > > for good). Even at that not sure you'd want the ones at DM, pretty
> > > picked over.
> > >
> > > That said, it could be workable with a fleet size of 10 or 11 if the
US
> > > follows through with the plans to stand up a squadron in Guam.
Although
> > > that would depend on us only bringing back 11-12.
> >
> > How would the B1B and B2 compare? Would a force consisting of F-22
> > fighters and B-1B or B-2 bombers be feasible for the RAAF (as
> > compared to the F-35) or would it be way too expensive?
>
> So expensive as to be complete and utter fantasy; the B-2, which is not in
> production any longer, came it at around $1 billion per copy

So if Australia shut down the rest of the defence force it could buy
(assuming availability) about 6 per year, allowing for exchange rates etc.

> IIRC, and the
> F/A-22 is a pricey item too, depending on how the pricing is worked out
(the
> $100 million per figure has been tossed around IIRC, but if you take the
> total program cost and divide it out by the currently planned total number
> of airframes you get something closer to the $150 million plus figure).

Which is about half the oft bandied price of $75M AUD for a Hornet. So
Australia could get 30 odd for the same price....assuming the operation
costs remain the same (doubt it).

> The
> RAAF is not going to be looking at either of those platforms, that is for
> sure.

B1's only if it's a fire sale. B2's in your dreams. F-22 only if Australia
needs a handful of those and nothing else.


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.