Kh-31P antiradiation missile
Евгений Ожогин
Shrike. Wondering if both are effective against AWACS-type aircraft? It
might be an interesting way of using them.
Ivan the Bear
=Nothing per-r-rsonal, just business=
D. Scott Ferrin
<siber...@mtu-net.ru> wrote:
>AFAIK, the Kh-31P is an antiradiation air-to-ground missile like the US-made
>Shrike. Wondering if both are effective against AWACS-type aircraft? It
>might be an interesting way of using them.
Shrike is a POS compared to HARM. I think the Kh-31p is probably far
better than Shrike :-) Anyway the good ARMs are designed to home on
to the radar's location even after it shuts down *as long as it's not
moving*. Wouldn't work against an AWACS because they could shut down
and move. Now if you just changed out the seeker. . .
Dweezil Dwarftosser
> Shrike. Wondering if both are effective against AWACS-type aircraft? It
> might be an interesting way of using them.
If it has the range of a Shrike, any fighter jock would prefer to use his
short-range missiles or the gun.
- John T.
g_al...@hotmail.com
There has been considerable talk of an anti-AWACS version of the Kh-31P,
as well as several of the Russian AAMs, but it's unclear if any
actually exists yet. The Kh-31 is a lot longer-ranged than a Shrike -
it's ramjet-powered. See
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/as-17.htm
which claims a 200km range for one version.
Guy
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Carlo Kopp
>
> In article <WzGM4.689$fV1....@news1.atl>,
> Dweezil Dwarftosser <wc...@usa.net> wrote:
> is an antiradiation air-to-ground missile like the US-made
> > > Shrike. Wondering if both are effective against AWACS-type aircraft?
> It
> > > might be an interesting way of using them.
> >
> > If it has the range of a Shrike, any fighter jock would prefer to use
> his
> > short-range missiles or the gun.
> >
> > - John T.
>
> There has been considerable talk of an anti-AWACS version of the Kh-31P,
> as well as several of the Russian AAMs, but it's unclear if any
> actually exists yet. The Kh-31 is a lot longer-ranged than a Shrike -
> it's ramjet-powered. See
>
> http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/as-17.htm
>
> which claims a 200km range for one version.
>
> Guy
>
The X-31P (or Kh-31R in English) is one of a complete family of
missiles, including ARM variants. Usually the range is listed at about
60 NMI, but this would vary significantly with the profile eg using it
for ASuW or "AWACS-killing". It is best compared to the Martel ARM, but
a bit heavier and longer legged.
I have seen plenty of pictures of Kh-31 variants carried on the
Su-27/30, typically on the two inlet stations.
There have been persistent reports of the PLA-AF acquiring this missile,
specifically in the AWACS-killer version. However this has never been
confirmed and may well be media BS or propaganda.
If you wanted to go hunting AWACS you would probably require a dual mode
seeker, with the anti-radiation seeker for long range acquisition and
homing and an established AAM seeker for terminal homing. None of this
is rocket science needless to say :-) The nose of the Kh-31 is sized for
an active radar anti-shipping seeker so fitting in an interferometer
package and say an IR seeker from an R-27T would not be unusually hard
to do. If we ever see any public disclosures this is the kind of package
I'd expect to see.
Hope this is helpful.
Cheers,
Carlo
Eni23
>is an antiradiation air-to-ground missile like the US-made
>> > Shrike. Wondering if both are effective against AWACS-type aircraft?
>It
>> > might be an interesting way of using them.
>>
>> If it has the range of a Shrike, any fighter jock would prefer to use
>his
>> short-range missiles or the gun.
>>
>> - John T.
>
>There has been considerable talk of an anti-AWACS version of the Kh-31P,
>as well as several of the Russian AAMs, but it's unclear if any
>actually exists yet. The Kh-31 is a lot longer-ranged than a Shrike -
>it's ramjet-powered. See
>
>http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/as-17.htm
>
>which claims a 200km range for one version.
>
>Guy
I think they already have anti-radiation AA missiles. I remember reading
somewhere that they used to carry out mock attacks with Mig-23s carrying AA
anti-radiation missiles against AWACS.
g_al...@hotmail.com
Carlo Kopp <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
> g_al...@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> > There has been considerable talk of an anti-AWACS version of the
Kh-31P=
> ,
> > as well as several of the Russian AAMs, but it's unclear if any
> > actually exists yet. The Kh-31 is a lot longer-ranged than a Shrike
-
> > it's ramjet-powered. See
> > =
>
> > http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/as-17.htm
> > =
>
> > which claims a 200km range for one version.
> > =
>
> > Guy
> > =
>
> Guy,
>
> The X-31P (or Kh-31R in English) is one of a complete family of
> missiles, including ARM variants. Usually the range is listed at about
> 60 NMI, but this would vary significantly with the profile eg using it
> for ASuW or "AWACS-killing". It is best compared to the Martel ARM,
but
> a bit heavier and longer legged.
>
> I have seen plenty of pictures of Kh-31 variants carried on the
> Su-27/30, typically on the two inlet stations. =
>
> There have been persistent reports of the PLA-AF acquiring this
missile,
> specifically in the AWACS-killer version. However this has never been
> confirmed and may well be media BS or propaganda.
>
> If you wanted to go hunting AWACS you would probably require a dual
mode
> seeker, with the anti-radiation seeker for long range acquisition and
> homing and an established AAM seeker for terminal homing. None of this
> is rocket science needless to say :-) The nose of the Kh-31 is sized
for
> an active radar anti-shipping seeker so fitting in an interferometer
> package and say an IR seeker from an R-27T would not be unusually hard
> to do. If we ever see any public disclosures this is the kind of
package
> I'd expect to see.
>
> Hope this is helpful.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carlo
Hi, Carlo, good to see you back. Here's an excerpt from the fas sight
on the ARM version:
"The State Scientific Production Center Zvezda-Strela has upgraded the
air-to-surface supersonic ASM Kh-31A NATO:
AS-17 Krypton). Recently a variant of the air-to-air class based on the
Kh-31 was made available, equipped with a hybrid
active-passive guidance head for use against nonmaneuvering airborne
targets such as AWACS (passive guidance) from far
distances. The range of this missile is 200 km. The unofficial
designation of this missile is 'mini-Moskit'. The Kh-31A missile has
been developed from the technologies of the 1970-80s. "
I make no claims as to the accuracy of the above.
Ken Duffey
> g_al...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <WzGM4.689$fV1....@news1.atl>,
> > Dweezil Dwarftosser <wc...@usa.net> wrote:
> > > "Евгений Ожогин" <siber...@mtu-net.ru> writes: > AFAIK, the Kh-31P
> > is an antiradiation air-to-ground missile like the US-made
> > > > Shrike. Wondering if both are effective against AWACS-type aircraft?
> > It
> > > > might be an interesting way of using them.
> > >
> > > If it has the range of a Shrike, any fighter jock would prefer to use
> > his
> > > short-range missiles or the gun.
> > >
> > > - John T.
> >
> > There has been considerable talk of an anti-AWACS version of the Kh-31P,
> > as well as several of the Russian AAMs, but it's unclear if any
> > actually exists yet. The Kh-31 is a lot longer-ranged than a Shrike -
> > it's ramjet-powered. See
> >
> > http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/as-17.htm
> >
> > which claims a 200km range for one version.
> >
> > Guy
> >
> Guy,
>
> The X-31P (or Kh-31R in English) is one of a complete family of
> missiles, including ARM variants. Usually the range is listed at about
> 60 NMI, but this would vary significantly with the profile eg using it
> for ASuW or "AWACS-killing". It is best compared to the Martel ARM, but
> a bit heavier and longer legged.
>
> I have seen plenty of pictures of Kh-31 variants carried on the
> Su-27/30, typically on the two inlet stations.
>
> There have been persistent reports of the PLA-AF acquiring this missile,
> specifically in the AWACS-killer version. However this has never been
> confirmed and may well be media BS or propaganda.
>
> If you wanted to go hunting AWACS you would probably require a dual mode
> seeker, with the anti-radiation seeker for long range acquisition and
> homing and an established AAM seeker for terminal homing. None of this
> is rocket science needless to say :-) The nose of the Kh-31 is sized for
> an active radar anti-shipping seeker so fitting in an interferometer
> package and say an IR seeker from an R-27T would not be unusually hard
> to do. If we ever see any public disclosures this is the kind of package
> I'd expect to see.
>
> Hope this is helpful.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carlo
I have a publicity handout from Zveda Strela - the manufacturers of the X-31A
'High-speed Anti-ship missile'
Relevant stats listed are :-
Launch Range km 10-70
Launch weight kg 610
Warhead weight kg 95
Missile length m 4.7
Missile diameter m 0.36
It lists the 'purpose' as :- "The X-31A high-speed missile is intended to
destroy guided-missile boats, torpedo boats, gun-boats, surface ships such as
destroyers and frigates."
I know that this is not the anti-radar/AWACS version - but the dimensions are
the same.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers - http://www.flankerman.fsnet.co.uk/
S-37 Model - http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/5634/
Genuine E-mailers - remove the x after uk
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlo Kopp
> <snip>
>
> Hi, Carlo, good to see you back.
Guy,
Thanks, my presence is likely to be sporadic and transient, since I am
up to my eyeballs in work :-)
> Here's an excerpt from the fas sight
> on the ARM version:
>
> "The State Scientific Production Center Zvezda-Strela has upgraded the
> air-to-surface supersonic ASM Kh-31A NATO:
> AS-17 Krypton). Recently a variant of the air-to-air class based on the
> Kh-31 was made available, equipped with a hybrid
> active-passive guidance head for use against nonmaneuvering airborne
> targets such as AWACS (passive guidance) from far
> distances. The range of this missile is 200 km. The unofficial
> designation of this missile is 'mini-Moskit'. The Kh-31A missile has
> been developed from the technologies of the 1970-80s. "
>
> I make no claims as to the accuracy of the above.
>
I haven't seen the FAS sheet, sometimes they are accurate and sometimes
not. I am curious about the guidance package they have used, the missile
is big enough to easily accommodate a hybrid package.
Ken Duffey has posted specs for the ASM variant (thanks Ken) -
Launch Range km 10-70
Launch weight kg 610
Warhead weight kg 95
Missile length m 4.7
Missile diameter m 0.36
The diameter of the missile is easily good enough to fit the R-27T
seeker or either of the newer AGAT ARH seekers, and still retain cross
section to fit a coaxial cluster of interferometer antennas for S-band
operation. I am not sure they have enough space for a conventional dual
baseline package, but I suspect that a circular array of eight antennas
with some clever use of interferometry would allow them to resolve the
phase ambiguity. Must give this some further thought - a thinned array
with 6 elements might just do the trick :-)
The 70 km range for an ASM variant suggests that the cited 60 NMI range
for an A/A AWACS killer version is reasonable, especially if the missile
is programmed to climb up to 40 kft+.
I am not sure that you would need a 95 kg / 210 lb warhead to kill an
AWACS, especially with a half decent AAM seeker - so it may well be that
the AWACS killer version has a smaller warhead and more fuel instead.
How much extra range this gives them is a little difficult to estimate
without having a number for the existing fuel load in the baseline
missile, but I am a little sceptical about a 200 km / 108 NMI range -
maybe :-)
It is also not clear whether they can loft the missile at launch, since
that might give them an bit of extra range as well. The F-4Gs frequently
did this with Shrike and HARM range known shots.
If the Kh-31R works as advertised it is a formidable missile and ought
to be taken seriously by all users of AEW&C aircraft. I am not in the
slightest pleased with reports the PRC has bought it - the Israelis
selling them essentially the same Phalcon derived AEW&C package they
offered to us for AIR 5077 / Wedgetail is also not good news.
Cheers,
Carlo
g_al...@hotmail.com
Carlo Kopp <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
> g_al...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> >
> > Hi, Carlo, good to see you back.
>
> Guy,
>
> Thanks, my presence is likely to be sporadic and transient, since I am
> up to my eyeballs in work :-)
>
> > Here's an excerpt from the fas sight
> > on the ARM version:
> >
> > "The State Scientific Production Center Zvezda-Strela has upgraded
the
> > air-to-surface supersonic ASM Kh-31A NATO:
> > AS-17 Krypton). Recently a variant of the air-to-air class based on
the
> > Kh-31 was made available, equipped with a hybrid
> > active-passive guidance head for use against nonmaneuvering airborne
> > targets such as AWACS (passive guidance) from far
> > distances. The range of this missile is 200 km. The unofficial
> > designation of this missile is 'mini-Moskit'. The Kh-31A missile has
> > been developed from the technologies of the 1970-80s. "
> >
> > I make no claims as to the accuracy of the above.
> >
> I haven't seen the FAS sheet, sometimes they are accurate and
sometimes
> not.
Yup. which is why I included the disclaimer:-) In this particular case,
it sounds like a translated quote from product literature, or maybe
something that appeared in MilParade (almost the same thing).
I sort of figured 200km referred to a head-on shot, and assumed lofting
with high cruise. I'd imagine practical range would be around half
- two thirds of that, which puts us right back to 60nm or so.
>
> If the Kh-31R works as advertised it is a formidable missile and ought
> to be taken seriously by all users of AEW&C aircraft. I am not in the
> slightest pleased with reports the PRC has bought it - the Israelis
> selling them essentially the same Phalcon derived AEW&C package they
> offered to us for AIR 5077 / Wedgetail is also not good news.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carlo
Yeah, I've been waiting for the penny to drop for years re anti-AWACS
ARMs. ISTR that the Russians claimed they've had an Anti-AWACS ARM in
service for some time, but forget the details. An R-33 would seem to be
a pretty good starting point, prior to the Kh-31. And an S-400 would be
pretty nasty too, in fact I think it's claimed to have active/passive
homing now. Maybe the navy's been right all these years, and UHF is the
answer:-)
Carlo Kopp
>
<snip>
>
> Yup. which is why I included the disclaimer:-) In this particular case,
> it sounds like a translated quote from product literature, or maybe
> something that appeared in MilParade (almost the same thing).
Guy, hard to tell with salesy brochures, the Russian ones vary
enormously in quality, some I have seen are very detailed, others verge
on the trivial.
>
<snip>
>
> I sort of figured 200km referred to a head-on shot, and assumed lofting
> with high cruise. I'd imagine practical range would be around half
> - two thirds of that, which puts us right back to 60nm or so.
If they have used a head on a-pole/f-pole type model the number is
almost irrelevant methinks, since the typical geometry would be a beam
aspect shot against an AWACS orbit, ie a "pseudo-stationary" target.
>
> >
> > If the Kh-31R works as advertised it is a formidable missile and ought
> > to be taken seriously by all users of AEW&C aircraft. I am not in the
> > slightest pleased with reports the PRC has bought it - the Israelis
> > selling them essentially the same Phalcon derived AEW&C package they
> > offered to us for AIR 5077 / Wedgetail is also not good news.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Carlo
>
> Yeah, I've been waiting for the penny to drop for years re anti-AWACS
> ARMs. ISTR that the Russians claimed they've had an Anti-AWACS ARM in
> service for some time, but forget the details. An R-33 would seem to be
> a pretty good starting point, prior to the Kh-31. And an S-400 would be
> pretty nasty too, in fact I think it's claimed to have active/passive
> homing now. Maybe the navy's been right all these years, and UHF is the
> answer:-)
>
Well, even with a UHF radar you can do interferometry, and the span of a
Kh-31R might just be enough to put the interferometer antennas on the
wingtips, which gets you into the required order of magnitude separation
to measure a half decent phase difference.
I think the key problem with beating this sucker is that stopping
radiating on first detection, turning tail and diving like hell on an
offset heading, say 20-60 degrees off the missile boresight to get out
of the active seeker basket, may not work. The snag is that the 707 RCS
at J/K band is of the order of 20 dBSM which gives you an acquisition
range for the AGAT 9B-1103 and 9B-1348E seekers of the order of 40-60
NMI, and at that range the AWACS is above the clutter horizon. You may
just be able to break lock since the cited lock range for the seeker is
cca 20-25 NMI at that RCS, but flying a breakaway may not save your
bacon with this sucker, especially if you detect late.
The RAAF has initiated a study into the use of the ASRAAM to defend
AEW&C/AWACS against ARMs and that may be your most reliable terminal
defence. Of course swatting down the Su-27/30 with an F-22 before he
launches is the safest play here.
It is a genuine headache and if I was an E-3 crewmember I would not be
comfortable until the F-22 is fielded :-)
Cheers,
Carlo
Jussi Saari
>
> I sort of figured 200km referred to a head-on shot, and assumed
> lofting with high cruise. I'd imagine practical range would be
> around half - two thirds of that, which puts us right back to
> 60nm or so.
At least unless it would be based on the heavier Kh-31U(?) variant,
which is supposed to have about twice the range of the original... Just
comparing at the weights, if a missile would be heavier than Phoenix and
used a ramjet rather than rocket, one would expect it to have longer
range than the Phoenix which IIRC has flown 150km or so in the
longest-range intercepts...
> Yeah, I've been waiting for the penny to drop for years re
> anti-AWACS ARMs. ISTR that the Russians claimed they've had
> an Anti-AWACS ARM in service for some time, but forget the
> details. An R-33 would seem to be a pretty good starting point,
> prior to the Kh-31.
I've been told that when the Russians themselves speak about this
anti-AWACS Kh-31, it's usually with phrases like "Kh-31 would be an
excellent starting point", "is under consideration", "could be deployed
within", etc. This plus the fact that they've never marketed it, even
though they're trying to sell things that aren't even production-ready
yet let alone in RuAF service, would IMHO make it seem like they
probably don't have such a missile, yet anyway.
Jussi
Yama
> I think they already have anti-radiation AA missiles. I remember reading
> somewhere that they used to carry out mock attacks with Mig-23s carrying AA
> anti-radiation missiles against AWACS.
AFAIK Russians have various kinds of anti-radiation missiles: I've
seen models R-60P and R-27P mentioned (AA-8 and AA-10 respectively).
R-60 would be useless against AWACS but R-27 is more like potential
threat, especially if fired in mixed salvo (with radar and IR guided
variants).
Then there is large KS-172, reputed to have range of 400km and
active radar guidance: does anyone know status of this project?
I have also sometimes toyed with the idea of hybrid seekers; I guess
R-27 might be too small for that, but KS-172 might be different.
AWACS and J-STAR aircraft are so valuable targets that even small
inventory of lousy-pk-anti-AWACS missiles is a threat.
Jussi Saari
>
> I have also sometimes toyed with the idea of hybrid seekers; I guess
> R-27 might be too small for that, but KS-172 might be different.
OTOH, if the passive radar part is used only for mid-course guidance and
terminal homing is done with IR or active radar seeker, then the missile
doesn't necessarily have to be all that big; if passive radar / IR
hybrid can work in a missile as small as RAM then R-27 should be plenty
big...
Jussi
Carlo Kopp
Jussi, I have seen numerous reports of the Kh-31R being sold to the PRC,
but none of them come from waht I would regard as trustworthy sources.
Certainly there are no reasons why a dual mode seeker version could not
be built, since they have the seeker technology and the volume in the
missile nose is generous to say the least for this application. All it
takes is the engineering time and clearance / flight trial costs.
One of the reports claimed that the PRC purchased an initial batch from
stocks held in ByeloRussia, which would suggest that the missile was in
service around the time the EE broke up.
I rather assume the missile exists since I know they are competent to
build it, than fly around assuming that my AWACS is invulnerable. Too
nasty a surprise if some two bit banana republic scrambles a MiG-29 or
Su-27 and takes out an AWACS.
Cheers,
Carlo
Carlo Kopp
>
> Eni23 wrote:
>
> > I think they already have anti-radiation AA missiles. I remember reading
> > somewhere that they used to carry out mock attacks with Mig-23s carrying AA
> > anti-radiation missiles against AWACS.
>
> AFAIK Russians have various kinds of anti-radiation missiles: I've
> seen models R-60P and R-27P mentioned (AA-8 and AA-10 respectively).
> R-60 would be useless against AWACS but R-27 is more like potential
> threat, especially if fired in mixed salvo (with radar and IR guided
> variants).
Tommi, an ARM/AAM is a weapon you would use in the opening pre-merge
phase of an engagement to spoil the other guy's geometry and force him
to go cold nose, so he loses his track. An R-27 or R-77 variant would be
your best choice for the application.
>
> Then there is large KS-172, reputed to have range of 400km and
> active radar guidance: does anyone know status of this project?
Since the original reports and loud public release I have seen nothing
more published.
>
> I have also sometimes toyed with the idea of hybrid seekers; I guess
> R-27 might be too small for that, but KS-172 might be different.
It depends on the seeker technology, the R-27 is actually big enough.
Don't forget that if your ARM/AAM is designed for fighter vs fighter,
then the microwave passive homing seeker can be narrowband for I/J/K
bands and this allows you to use smaller antenna elements (like the RAM
interferometer) in comparison with something designed for killing mid to
low band radars liek E-2C and E-3.
>
> AWACS and J-STAR aircraft are so valuable targets that even small
> inventory of lousy-pk-anti-AWACS missiles is a threat.
You are dead right there. People assume that since the Iraqis were too
dumb to use their Foxbats to go after the E-3s, that others will be
equally dumb. Other than enormous propaganda value, whoever manages to
kill an E-3 also manages to completely disrupt Allied air ops until they
can get another E-3 on station.
The E-3 is a single point of failure in our Western air power
model/system/strategy. The value of the target becomes greater every
time we piggyback another function on to it.
In the beginning E-3 was APY-1 + comms package, then it acquired JTIDS
to provide datalink support, now they are installing ESM for passive
surveillance, I expect to see a satcom bulge soon for comms relay, and
then there is the RSIP to extend the radar coverage footprint and allow
the tracking of cruise missiles and low RCS targets.
If you knock out the E-3 now you take down the radar coverage, a JTIDS
master (possibly the only one in the area), and if there is no RC-135
nearby, also the ESM surveillance. If it picks up a comms relay
function, then you may lose your high data rate feed into that sector of
the FEBA.
The Wedgetail/MESA we are getting is less vulnerable since the active
phased array can be made to use other scan patterns than a simple
circular scan which you are stuck with on an APY-1/2 style arrangement.
Also the active array has potentially lower sidelobes and is easier to
power manage. That makes it harder for an ARM to lock on, but it still
doesn't make you invulnerable.
The best strategy is of course to sortie F-22s 300 NMI past the FEBA to
knock down the launch aircraft before they even get close enough to
think about it.
The USAF now has no choice than to go F-22 since other fighters are
likely to be engaged by SAMs if they stray too deep beyond the FEBA. I
keep wondering about how the UK and the French intend to deal with this
issue.
Wouldn't it be funny if they ended up ordering F-22s in 2010 to provide
"AWACS protective CAPs" :-)
Anyhow, I am not aiming to start a flame war so let's leave it at that
:-)
Cheers,
Carlo
Yama
Carlo Kopp wrote:
> Yama wrote:
> > I have also sometimes toyed with the idea of hybrid seekers; I guess
> > R-27 might be too small for that, but KS-172 might be different.
>
> It depends on the seeker technology, the R-27 is actually big enough.
> Don't forget that if your ARM/AAM is designed for fighter vs fighter,
> then the microwave passive homing seeker can be narrowband for I/J/K
> bands and this allows you to use smaller antenna elements (like the RAM
> interferometer) in comparison with something designed for killing mid to
> low band radars liek E-2C and E-3.
Ok, I am rather clueless about these technical details so I try to be conservative
in my guesses. If R-27 can house hybrid seeker, then all the better (or worse).
Does anyone have any info what kind of seeker R-27P actually has?
> > AWACS and J-STAR aircraft are so valuable targets that even small
> > inventory of lousy-pk-anti-AWACS missiles is a threat.
>
> You are dead right there.
Simplified example, if opponent has inventory of 500 anti-AWACS missiles and they
have pk of just 0.05, then that means 25 dead AWACS planes. Of course these
missiles aren't probably that cheap, but neither are AWACS a/c's.
I suppose however, that AWACS would be able to detect such missile, at least cruise
missile sized Kh-31?
> The E-3 is a single point of failure in our Western air power
> model/system/strategy. The value of the target becomes greater every
> time we piggyback another function on to it.
Yeps. It's not just matter of AAM ARMS's, putting all eggs to same basket makes you
more vulnerable also to accidents, sabotage and such.
> The USAF now has no choice than to go F-22 since other fighters are
> likely to be engaged by SAMs if they stray too deep beyond the FEBA. I
> keep wondering about how the UK and the French intend to deal with this
> issue.
>
> Wouldn't it be funny if they ended up ordering F-22s in 2010 to provide
> "AWACS protective CAPs" :-)
Well I don't think that's all that likely:)
I think that if and when the threat proves real enough, they will just adapt more
cautious AWACS tactics and put more effort to protecting them. Because Eurodarts
have IRST, they might be less dependant from JTIDS.
Also, I think that in near future, AEW helicopters will become more popular for
small nations and navies to replace and complement AWACS. IIRC there already is AEW
variant of Cougar? and then there is Ka-31. It's somewhat matter of how ADS is
designed. That ACS part in the AWACS may not be absolutely necessary.
Carlo Kopp
>
> Carlo Kopp wrote:
>
> > Yama wrote:
> > > I have also sometimes toyed with the idea of hybrid seekers; I guess
> > > R-27 might be too small for that, but KS-172 might be different.
> >
> > It depends on the seeker technology, the R-27 is actually big enough.
> > Don't forget that if your ARM/AAM is designed for fighter vs fighter,
> > then the microwave passive homing seeker can be narrowband for I/J/K
> > bands and this allows you to use smaller antenna elements (like the RAM
> > interferometer) in comparison with something designed for killing mid to
> > low band radars liek E-2C and E-3.
>
> Ok, I am rather clueless about these technical details so I try to be conservative
> in my guesses. If R-27 can house hybrid seeker, then all the better (or worse).
> Does anyone have any info what kind of seeker R-27P actually has?
The R-27 is arguably obsolete - I'd expect most production will soon
shift to the R-77 and R-77M or variants.
>
> > > AWACS and J-STAR aircraft are so valuable targets that even small
> > > inventory of lousy-pk-anti-AWACS missiles is a threat.
> >
> > You are dead right there.
>
> Simplified example, if opponent has inventory of 500 anti-AWACS missiles and they
> have pk of just 0.05, then that means 25 dead AWACS planes. Of course these
> missiles aren't probably that cheap, but neither are AWACS a/c's.
Yup, the old shotgun argument. However, this will depend on whether you
assume consecutive or concurrent ARM shots :-) But I do agree, if you
throw enough metal at the AWACS sooner or later it goes.
>
> I suppose however, that AWACS would be able to detect such missile, at least cruise
> missile sized Kh-31?
The basic missile ought to have a head on RCS of around 0.1 m^2 possibly
more in the centimetric bands, due to the big nose bay and ramjet
inlets. So an APY-2 RSIP or MESA ought to detect it at least 100-150 NMI
out, moreso since it is not a lookdown geometry.
>
> > The E-3 is a single point of failure in our Western air power
> > model/system/strategy. The value of the target becomes greater every
> > time we piggyback another function on to it.
>
> Yeps. It's not just matter of AAM ARMS's, putting all eggs to same basket makes you
> more vulnerable also to accidents, sabotage and such.
A sad truth and one which seems not to be well understood by Congressman
Lewis and his intrepid band of followers. The model is now so dependent
upon the AWACS that it becomes the prime target for enemy action, if the
enemy has any brains (and balls).
>
> > The USAF now has no choice than to go F-22 since other fighters are
> > likely to be engaged by SAMs if they stray too deep beyond the FEBA. I
> > keep wondering about how the UK and the French intend to deal with this
> > issue.
> >
> > Wouldn't it be funny if they ended up ordering F-22s in 2010 to provide
> > "AWACS protective CAPs" :-)
>
> Well I don't think that's all that likely:)
Europolitics being what they are, extremely unlikely :-)
> I think that if and when the threat proves real enough, they will just adapt more
> cautious AWACS tactics and put more effort to protecting them.
The question is how much more cautious before you start losing
significant depth of AWACS coverage, and can you really protect them
against an ARM with a 100 NMI range ? The problem is that by pulling the
AWACS back you lose covergae inside enemy airspace, and by not having
stealth you cannot penetrate deep without running up fighter losses to
SAMs. This creates an environment where the bad guy can get his ARM
shooter within the 100 NMI of the AWCAS to take a shot, protected by his
SAMs.
> Because Eurodarts have IRST, they might be less dependant from JTIDS.
That does not follow. JTIDS provides you with a means of passively
collecting a wide area picture with target tracks fused from AWACS and
ultimately any large network of platforms, such as Rivet Joints (AFAIK
they are not doing this yet) and ground platforms. An IRS&T gives you a
"soda straw" view of the world, and you have to sweep continuously in
the hope of detecting a target. Any clouds get in the way, or even haze,
you immediately lose coverage in that sector. There is no comparison
here.
>
> Also, I think that in near future, AEW helicopters will become more popular for
> small nations and navies to replace and complement AWACS. IIRC there already is AEW
> variant of Cougar? and then there is Ka-31. It's somewhat matter of how ADS is
> designed. That ACS part in the AWACS may not be absolutely necessary.
The problem with helos and even turboprops is the coverage footprint. An
AWACS at 40 kft has a radar horizon of about 220-250 NMI, a TP at 25 kft
cca 150 NMI and a helo at 15 kft even lower than that. With any
AEW&C/AWACS capability what matters is footprint, which of course goes
up with the square of detection range (ie radar horizon for low and med
alt tgts).
A single AWACS can do the job of many smaller platforms, and because it
can look deeper beyond the FEBA, can provide coverage which the smaller
platforms simply cannot.
If you put a MESA radar or such on a Global Hawk and flew it at 60,000
ft you would do even better than an AWACS for depth of ooverage - but
you would need one hell of a datalink to carry that stream of radar
video to the processing platform :-)
The reason why the trend is toward big AWACS with serious players (USAF,
RAF, French) is that the total cost of one big AWACS per footprint is
better than the total cost of N smaller platforms, which are further
limited by the depth looking across the FEBA.
The reason the RAAF went for the MESA is that it provides E-3 class
radar performance (arguably even better) with E-3 class station
altitude, but fits on a 737-700 airframe. So it is a "pocket AWACS",
delivering similar radar performance but with lesser C3 and crewing
demands.
The Euro-trend toward "baby-AEW&C" like the Erieye and the various naval
helo schemes might be OK for a "knife-fight-in-a-phone-booth" border to
border air war in Europe, but it is not very useful for a large scale
expeditionary air war like you would expect in the Middle East or South
East Asia.
Cheers,
Carlo
Yama
>
> Yama wrote:
> >
> > Ok, I am rather clueless about these technical details so I try to be conservative
> > in my guesses. If R-27 can house hybrid seeker, then all the better (or worse).
> > Does anyone have any info what kind of seeker R-27P actually has?
>
> The R-27 is arguably obsolete - I'd expect most production will soon
> shift to the R-77 and R-77M or variants.
Production of R-77 airframes might be somewhat limited now, and
arguably you don't need best possible maneuverability for ARM/AAM,
especially if it's against AWACS. R-27P apparently already
exists, and I am sure Russians would gladly export it (if they
already haven't). I don't recall seeing any mention about passive
version of R-77, but IR variant has been mentioned, so hybrid
seeker R-77 certainly is a possibility.
> > Simplified example, if opponent has inventory of 500 anti-AWACS missiles and they
> > have pk of just 0.05, then that means 25 dead AWACS planes. Of course these
> > missiles aren't probably that cheap, but neither are AWACS a/c's.
>
> Yup, the old shotgun argument. However, this will depend on whether you
> assume consecutive or concurrent ARM shots :-) But I do agree, if you
> throw enough metal at the AWACS sooner or later it goes.
Of course, based on how cautious Nato was on Kosovo campaign, I
think first hint of an AWACS-killer missile would cause USA
transport all the AWACS aircraft to the other side of the globe:)
which of course would be huge victory for the Bad Guy.
>
> A sad truth and one which seems not to be well understood by Congressman
> Lewis and his intrepid band of followers. The model is now so dependent
> upon the AWACS that it becomes the prime target for enemy action, if the
> enemy has any brains (and balls).
I also happen to think that F-22 is only option for USAF, albeit
maybe from somewhat different reasons than you. It simply would be
insane to cancel it at such advanced state, when there is no
replacement in sight. It would take 15-20 years to design a new
plane.
>
> > Because Eurodarts have IRST, they might be less dependant from JTIDS.
>
> That does not follow. JTIDS provides you with a means of passively
> collecting a wide area picture with target tracks fused from AWACS and
> ultimately any large network of platforms, such as Rivet Joints (AFAIK
> they are not doing this yet) and ground platforms. An IRS&T gives you a
> "soda straw" view of the world, and you have to sweep continuously in
> the hope of detecting a target. Any clouds get in the way, or even haze,
> you immediately lose coverage in that sector. There is no comparison
> here.
No straight comparison, yes, but both are passive means of
detection (for user aircraft in case of JTIDS). If AWACS goes
away/boom, then say F-15 either uses it's radar or relies to Mk 1
Eyeball. Eurodart at least has one other option left. Also, I've
heard that JTIDS is not 100% realtime, is this true?
>
> The reason the RAAF went for the MESA is that it provides E-3 class
> radar performance (arguably even better) with E-3 class station
> altitude, but fits on a 737-700 airframe. So it is a "pocket AWACS",
> delivering similar radar performance but with lesser C3 and crewing
> demands.
>
> The Euro-trend toward "baby-AEW&C" like the Erieye and the various naval
> helo schemes might be OK for a "knife-fight-in-a-phone-booth" border to
> border air war in Europe, but it is not very useful for a large scale
> expeditionary air war like you would expect in the Middle East or South
> East Asia.
One must consider also the number game: is it really sensible to
invest to, say 3-4 AWACS platform? Bad guys deploy one Igla team
near to your airbase, Boom, there goes 25% of your AWACS
capability. AEW turboprop or helicopter is inferior, yes, but it's
still better than ground radar or no radar at all. Also, you can
deploy your helicopter around with much less fuss and support
insallations than your E-3.
Australia is kinda special case with it's very large area and
isolated position, so I agree that European models might not work
there. Also USA/Nato have large enough AWACS fleet that loss of
one would probably not be critical (although embarrassing). That
might not be case for, say, India, Iran or Iraq :) (what btw
happened to those Iraqi Il-76 AEW aircraft? Were they used? Still
around?)
Jussi Saari
>
> R-27P apparently already
> exists, and I am sure Russians would gladly export it (if they
> already haven't).
Are you sure about this? The Russians have usually been very eager to
advertise all the missiles they've got or are planning to produce, but
I've never seen an actual picture or advertisement or real performance
figures or anything on R-27P except for rumours that it might at least
be planned... Or have I just missed the news?
Jussi
g_al...@hotmail.com
> > One must consider also the number game: is it really sensible to
> > invest to, say 3-4 AWACS platform? Bad guys deploy one Igla team
> > near to your airbase, Boom, there goes 25% of your AWACS
> > capability. AEW turboprop or helicopter is inferior, yes, but it's
> > still better than ground radar or no radar at all. Also, you can
> > deploy your helicopter around with much less fuss and support
> > insallations than your E-3.
>
> Depends on your scenario. HVAs like AWACS you do not deploy into areas
> which are insecure so people can shoot MANPADS at them, period.
Anybody
> who does that deserves what happens to them :-(
>
> Redundancy is great if you can afford it, however in terms of depth of
> coverage over the FEBA which is what really wins air battles, dinky
> little "toy-AWACS" simply can't do it. Only if you bolt the radar onto
a
> Global Hawk and hoist it up to a 50 kft station altitude :-)
In certain scenarios, at least for the first day of the war, heliostat
mounted radars probably make sense, from the cost perspective anyway.
Of course, once the shooting starts you'd better have something more
mobile to back it up with, but a mix of heliostats/airships for normal
surveillance and a few AWACS for gapfillers/the real thing might be
the most cost-effective approach for many countries.
Guy
TJ
Yama <tj...@paju.oulu.fi> wrote in message
news:390AB362...@paju.oulu.fi...
<snip for brevity>
>what btw happened to those Iraqi Il-76 AEW aircraft? Were they used? Still
> around?
One Adnan was severely damaged during the strikes and two were flown to
Iran. Despite repeated requests from Iraq, none of the aircraft have been
returned by Iran.
TJ.
Carlo Kopp
>
> Carlo Kopp wrote:
> >
> > Yama wrote:
> > >
> > > Carlo Kopp wrote:
> > > Ok, I am rather clueless about these technical details so I try to be conservative
> > > in my guesses. If R-27 can house hybrid seeker, then all the better (or worse).
> > > Does anyone have any info what kind of seeker R-27P actually has?
> >
> > The R-27 is arguably obsolete - I'd expect most production will soon
> > shift to the R-77 and R-77M or variants.
>
> arguably you don't need best possible maneuverability for ARM/AAM,
> exists, and I am sure Russians would gladly export it (if they
> version of R-77, but IR variant has been mentioned, so hybrid
> seeker R-77 certainly is a possibility.
The ARM variant of the R-27 has been around for years, and I heard that
it was considered to be the fastest MRM in service prior to the ASRAAM
(which BTW would be a great candidate airframe for an ARM AAM).
If an ARM seeker exists for the R-27, adapting it to the R-77 is
primarily an exercise in repackaging, since the R-77 has a smaller
diameter. That is straight hack engineering work.
>
> > > Simplified example, if opponent has inventory of 500 anti-AWACS missiles and they
> > > have pk of just 0.05, then that means 25 dead AWACS planes. Of course these
> > > missiles aren't probably that cheap, but neither are AWACS a/c's.
> >
> > Yup, the old shotgun argument. However, this will depend on whether you
> > assume consecutive or concurrent ARM shots :-) But I do agree, if you
> > throw enough metal at the AWACS sooner or later it goes.
>
> Of course, based on how cautious Nato was on Kosovo campaign, I
> think first hint of an AWACS-killer missile would cause USA
> transport all the AWACS aircraft to the other side of the globe:)
> which of course would be huge victory for the Bad Guy.
I think it depends on how high the stakes are in a campaign. If you
stand to lose enough, even an E-3 becomes expendable. The Kosovo
campaign was very media-centric and some of the European countries just
a little queasy about the whole affair, so the politics became very
important. This may not be true in a future campaign.
>
> >
> > A sad truth and one which seems not to be well understood by Congressman
> > Lewis and his intrepid band of followers. The model is now so dependent
> > upon the AWACS that it becomes the prime target for enemy action, if the
> > enemy has any brains (and balls).
>
> I also happen to think that F-22 is only option for USAF, albeit
> maybe from somewhat different reasons than you. It simply would be
> insane to cancel it at such advanced state, when there is no
> replacement in sight. It would take 15-20 years to design a new
> plane.
That is also true, and to add to that, the dependency of the JSF on a
lot of F-22 technology means that it would be in jeopardy if the F-22
goes. The F119 for the JSF eg goes from being a mature in service engine
to an untried developmental engine. Same is true for a lot of other
stuff especially in the avionic architecture and the software. I share
the view held by several other analysts that killing the F-22 would do
to the US aerospace industry what killing the TSR.2 did to the UK. It
would be a disaster of enormous proportions, which could take decades to
recover from.
The F-22 is the aircraft which proves the technology base for the post
teen series generation of fighters, ie big active phased array,
integrated avionics built around the software, genuine sustained
supercruising engines, mature stealth materials, supersonic airframe
shaping designed for stealth, the first fighter to carry a genuine ESM
package rather than RWR etc. In a sense the the F-22 is in a similar
position to the F-111/TFX, which was also a testbed for many untried
ideas - afterburning low bypass fans, integrated nav attack, internal
ECM, swing wing, etc. Kill the F-22 and produce the same effect that
killing the F-111/TFX would have had, which is that there is no base of
experience to build the next generation from.
The USAF has no choice here, they have got to follow through. By 2010
much of the fighter fleet will be out of fatigue life.
>
> >
> > > Because Eurodarts have IRST, they might be less dependant from JTIDS.
> >
> > That does not follow. JTIDS provides you with a means of passively
> > collecting a wide area picture with target tracks fused from AWACS and
> > ultimately any large network of platforms, such as Rivet Joints (AFAIK
> > they are not doing this yet) and ground platforms. An IRS&T gives you a
> > "soda straw" view of the world, and you have to sweep continuously in
> > the hope of detecting a target. Any clouds get in the way, or even haze,
> > you immediately lose coverage in that sector. There is no comparison
> > here.
>
> No straight comparison, yes, but both are passive means of
> detection (for user aircraft in case of JTIDS). If AWACS goes
> away/boom, then say F-15 either uses it's radar or relies to Mk 1
> Eyeball. Eurodart at least has one other option left. Also, I've
> heard that JTIDS is not 100% realtime, is this true?
>
You are right that they are both passive, but that is not a strong
argument here. In counter-air, area/volume coverage is decisive, and
IRS&T is not the tool for it.
JTIDS is a TDMA system, so there is an inherent lag in a heavily loaded
net since you have to wait for your assigned slot before you can use it.
However, for distribution of track data and such several seconds of lag
may not matter that much - the bad guy is unlikely to escape your
engagement envelope in that time period. If you were using it to update
a missile during midcourse flight then this would indeed be an issue.
> >
> > The reason the RAAF went for the MESA is that it provides E-3 class
> > radar performance (arguably even better) with E-3 class station
> > altitude, but fits on a 737-700 airframe. So it is a "pocket AWACS",
> > delivering similar radar performance but with lesser C3 and crewing
> > demands.
> >
> > The Euro-trend toward "baby-AEW&C" like the Erieye and the various naval
> > helo schemes might be OK for a "knife-fight-in-a-phone-booth" border to
> > border air war in Europe, but it is not very useful for a large scale
> > expeditionary air war like you would expect in the Middle East or South
> > East Asia.
>
> One must consider also the number game: is it really sensible to
> invest to, say 3-4 AWACS platform? Bad guys deploy one Igla team
> near to your airbase, Boom, there goes 25% of your AWACS
> capability. AEW turboprop or helicopter is inferior, yes, but it's
> still better than ground radar or no radar at all. Also, you can
> deploy your helicopter around with much less fuss and support
> insallations than your E-3.
Depends on your scenario. HVAs like AWACS you do not deploy into areas
which are insecure so people can shoot MANPADS at them, period. Anybody
who does that deserves what happens to them :-(
Redundancy is great if you can afford it, however in terms of depth of
coverage over the FEBA which is what really wins air battles, dinky
little "toy-AWACS" simply can't do it. Only if you bolt the radar onto a
Global Hawk and hoist it up to a 50 kft station altitude :-)
>
> Australia is kinda special case with it's very large area and
> isolated position, so I agree that European models might not work
> there. Also USA/Nato have large enough AWACS fleet that loss of
> one would probably not be critical (although embarrassing). That
> might not be case for, say, India, Iran or Iraq :) (what btw
> happened to those Iraqi Il-76 AEW aircraft? Were they used? Still
> around?)
I am happy that you appreciate the uniqueness of our environment, I
frequently meet people (usually sales types) who seem to fervently
believe that what is good for Europe has got to be good for us down
here. More than often this is not true. Range and endurance are big
issues for us, as is radar range. This is a "low density" theatre, but
some of the assets in the Asia-Pacific are newer than what you see in
Europe and the ME, like Su-30MKI/MKK and A-50I.
I don't know what happened to Saddam's AWACS fleet, I thought they all
ended up eating Mk.82 snakes or CBUs :-)
Cheers,
Carlo
Carlo Kopp
> mounted radars probably make sense, from the cost perspective anyway.
> Of course, once the shooting starts you'd better have something more
> mobile to back it up with, but a mix of heliostats/airships for normal
> surveillance and a few AWACS for gapfillers/the real thing might be
> the most cost-effective approach for many countries.
>
dirigible I'd go for the fixed wing solution any day. You can deploy and
withdraw them faster, and they will tolerate nastier weather
environments. The operational track record of dirigibles is not
spectacular.
Cheers,
Carlo
haydar aziz
> ended up eating Mk.82 snakes or CBUs :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carlo
here is the breakdown of their (probable) fate
1 x Baghdad-1. current status:- Still in Iraq and undamaged, probably
grounded.
it is a first generation AEW with no control capability. used at the end
of the Iran-Iraq war. It is the only iraqi aew plane to ever see combat
service.
2 x Adnan-1. current status:- flew to Iran in '91, grounded.
Second generation with "rotodome" similar in appearance to A-50 but
without the A-50's distinctive tail mounted intake. had very basic
control capability using voice for mig-29 / mig-23 / F-1 and data-link
for mig-25 - only four aircraft at a time may be controlled afaik.
2 x Adnan-2. current status:- still in Iraq, one damaged in gulf war
(not direct hit) but subsequently repaired. currently grounded afaik but
may have flown yesterday at the "great leader's" birthday bash in
tikrit.
These were adnan-1 aircraft that had some modifications done to them
after the gulf war (improved control capability) and rebadged as
adnan-2s.
PS anyone heard about the rumours that iraqi engineers left after the
gulf war to assist india in their Il-76 based aew&c plane?
g_al...@hotmail.com
Carlo Kopp <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
> g_al...@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> > In certain scenarios, at least for the first day of the war,
heliostat
> > mounted radars probably make sense, from the cost perspective
anyway.
> > Of course, once the shooting starts you'd better have something more
> > mobile to back it up with, but a mix of heliostats/airships for
normal
> > surveillance and a few AWACS for gapfillers/the real thing might be
> > the most cost-effective approach for many countries.
> >
> Guy, given the choice of a Global Hawk or Proteus solution over a
> dirigible I'd go for the fixed wing solution any day. You can deploy
and
> withdraw them faster, and they will tolerate nastier weather
> environments. The operational track record of dirigibles is not
> spectacular.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carlo
Carlo, I'm not a big fan of dirigibles, except for some navy
applications, but tethered aerostats (not heliostats; my brain was on
lunch break when I wrote that) have been used for long-duration
surveillance for quite some time now, in this country as well as South
Korea, Kuwait, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia. I don't know how many of these
are currently still being used, or if more countries now use them, but
we've had multiple agencies operating them in this country for long-term
surveillance tasks (a lot of it drug interdiction).
It would seem to be a lot cheaper to keep a aerostat up for prolonged
periods (weeks), hauling it down and launching AWACS types when threats
appear. I don't know what kind of RCS a heliostat might have, but it
shouldn't have much of an IR signature, or at least not one that looks
like an a/c:-) You can put a really large radar aloft much cheaper than
you can manage with an a/c, and keep it there for far longer. Until a
lot more countries can afford to buy long range Anti-AWACS ARMs, a mix
of the two systems seems reasonable to me.
Carlo Kopp
The NK and DI scenarios are both "picket fence" models, where you are
aiming to deal with small numbers of low/slow hedgehoppers trying to
sneak in quietly. Looking deep beyond the FEBA is not a big issue. If
your tethered gasbag with attached radar can get up to 20kft you are
fine.
If you need depth of coverage for deep surveillance and early warning,
then the critical factor is station altitude. An RQ-4 derivative or
Proteus both give you that with a 50 kft+ altitude and HALE
characterstics. A Proteus is designed to climb up and then fly a
circular orbit for 8-24 hours, depending on payload and fuel capacity
(depends on the subtype), an RQ-4 gives you 24 hrs on station at
2,000-3,000 NMI range. In both instances the airframe is only able to
carry the radar head and limited signal processing, but gives you superb
footprint due to the station altitude.
Indeed the Proteus was designed with economics in mind, the intent is to
use it to hoist a microwave networking repeater (like a miniature comsat
package) above a major city, and have subscribers point their dishes at
it for high speed internet access. Therefore the cost of using a HALE +
radar solution is a tiny fraction of the AWACS solution cost, since the
expensive bits are mostly sitting in a van on the ground, talking to the
airborne radar head using a microwave dish.
The tethered solution is IMHO much less flexible in what you can do,
compared to the HALE scheme. It serves a specialised need. The HALE
solution gives you many genuine AWACS like characteristics, and arguably
better depth beyond the FEBA than an AWACS, but requires that you can
hold a chunk of territory near enough to park the ground station with
the operators. So it too is not a genuine AWACS substitute.
The ideal AWACS BTW from a coverage perspective would be one which could
orbit at 50-60 kft or more, since that gives you genuine depth of
coverage. One way to cheat is of course to put a MESA on an RQ-4 and
then have it orbit above the AWACS at 60 kft and datalink to the AWACS,
with the AWACS controlling it.
This is a very interesting problem area BTW, and makes for interesting
discussion.
Cheers,
Carlo
Yama
Carlo Kopp wrote:
> The USAF has no choice here, they have got to follow through. By 2010
> much of the fighter fleet will be out of fatigue life.
Of course anti-F-22 people will advertise modernized F-15. But to be nasty, in that case
USAF in 2020 would be in same situation than Romania now with their upgraded MiG-21 :P
> > One must consider also the number game: is it really sensible to
> > invest to, say 3-4 AWACS platform? Bad guys deploy one Igla team
> > near to your airbase, Boom, there goes 25% of your AWACS
> > capability. AEW turboprop or helicopter is inferior, yes, but it's
> > still better than ground radar or no radar at all. Also, you can
> > deploy your helicopter around with much less fuss and support
> > insallations than your E-3.
>
> Depends on your scenario. HVAs like AWACS you do not deploy into areas
> which are insecure so people can shoot MANPADS at them, period. Anybody
> who does that deserves what happens to them :-(
This was again a simplified example, but in Pearl Harbour -type surprise attack threat might
be real. How good security there is peacetime?
> Redundancy is great if you can afford it, however in terms of depth of
> coverage over the FEBA which is what really wins air battles, dinky
> little "toy-AWACS" simply can't do it.
Is it really that necessary? I maintain my view that sucky coverage is better than no
coverage:)
Of course if we talk about Australia or say Japan, I probably would not advertise
mini-AWACS, at least as a primary solution.
> > Australia is kinda special case with it's very large area and
> > isolated position, so I agree that European models might not work
> > there. Also USA/Nato have large enough AWACS fleet that loss of
> > one would probably not be critical (although embarrassing). That
> > might not be case for, say, India, Iran or Iraq :) (what btw
> > happened to those Iraqi Il-76 AEW aircraft? Were they used? Still
> > around?)
>
> I am happy that you appreciate the uniqueness of our environment, I
> frequently meet people (usually sales types) who seem to fervently
> believe that what is good for Europe has got to be good for us down
> here. More than often this is not true. Range and endurance are big
> issues for us, as is radar range. This is a "low density" theatre, but
> some of the assets in the Asia-Pacific are newer than what you see in
> Europe and the ME, like Su-30MKI/MKK and A-50I.
What I have followed the news lately, F-22 doesn't seem all that likely choice to Australia,
as the unit cost estimates have steadily climbed up. Most likely candidates seem to be
waiting, EF, SuperHornet and Rafale, in that order:) Even Sukhoi made very tempting offer
(and no, I don't think they have a chance).
Carlo Kopp
>
> Carlo Kopp wrote:
>
> > The USAF has no choice here, they have got to follow through. By 2010
> > much of the fighter fleet will be out of fatigue life.
>
> USAF in 2020 would be in same situation than Romania now with their upgraded MiG-21 :P
You are quite right there. The F-15 even with a phased array and F-119
engine is not competitive, since the airframe is optimised for a regime
other than supercruise (indeed the inlet geometry and tunnels may
require changes as well as the aft fuselage), also the core avionic
architecture is not really compatible with the APG-77 / CIP model of
processing, also the RCS can never be brought into the class of the
F-22. Simply not a consideration longer term.
>
> > > One must consider also the number game: is it really sensible to
> > > invest to, say 3-4 AWACS platform? Bad guys deploy one Igla team
> > > near to your airbase, Boom, there goes 25% of your AWACS
> > > capability. AEW turboprop or helicopter is inferior, yes, but it's
> > > still better than ground radar or no radar at all. Also, you can
> > > deploy your helicopter around with much less fuss and support
> > > insallations than your E-3.
> >
> > Depends on your scenario. HVAs like AWACS you do not deploy into areas
> > which are insecure so people can shoot MANPADS at them, period. Anybody
> > who does that deserves what happens to them :-(
>
> This was again a simplified example, but in Pearl Harbour -type surprise attack threat might
> be real. How good security there is peacetime?
The only real defence is to have your bases a long distance from
population centres where SF can hide out, and make sure you have good
enough surveillance to predict a hostile move.
>
> > Redundancy is great if you can afford it, however in terms of depth of
> > coverage over the FEBA which is what really wins air battles, dinky
> > little "toy-AWACS" simply can't do it.
>
> Is it really that necessary? I maintain my view that sucky coverage is better than no
> coverage:)
The deeper you can see into the other guy's airspace, the easier it is
to predict his moves, since the warning you get is earlier.
> Of course if we talk about Australia or say Japan, I probably would not advertise
> mini-AWACS, at least as a primary solution.
The geography is such that you need wide area coverage. This is one of
those facts of life you cannot escape. The geography is analogous to
what the USAF has to deal with in Alaska. High value infrastructure in
sparesly populated and remote areas. Big distances from airbases.
>
> > > Australia is kinda special case with it's very large area and
> > > isolated position, so I agree that European models might not work
> > > there. Also USA/Nato have large enough AWACS fleet that loss of
> > > one would probably not be critical (although embarrassing). That
> > > might not be case for, say, India, Iran or Iraq :) (what btw
> > > happened to those Iraqi Il-76 AEW aircraft? Were they used? Still
> > > around?)
> >
> > I am happy that you appreciate the uniqueness of our environment, I
> > frequently meet people (usually sales types) who seem to fervently
> > believe that what is good for Europe has got to be good for us down
> > here. More than often this is not true. Range and endurance are big
> > issues for us, as is radar range. This is a "low density" theatre, but
> > some of the assets in the Asia-Pacific are newer than what you see in
> > Europe and the ME, like Su-30MKI/MKK and A-50I.
>
> What I have followed the news lately, F-22 doesn't seem all that likely choice to Australia,
> as the unit cost estimates have steadily climbed up. Most likely candidates seem to be
> waiting, EF, SuperHornet and Rafale, in that order:) Even Sukhoi made very tempting offer
> (and no, I don't think they have a chance).
I am not that sure. The unit cost of an FMS sale F-22 derivative, if
existing FMS pricing protocols are followed, would be within 5% or so of
the USAF unit buy price, not the program cost which includes the RDT&E
cost structures. This means the aircraft would be sold, if it is
exported, for the nominal USD 75-85.00M or thereabouts unit cost. Also
I'd be careful about the costs cited in the press, most of what I see
seem to be hyped up total program costs, frequently based upon
assumptions of a further reduction in build numbers from 322 down. FMS
costs are not based on program costs, but unit build costs (I have heard
this from several vendors, one even told me that it is illegal for a US
contractor to sell fighters above or below the USAF unit buy cost -
whether this is true I do not know, perhaps a US poster can clarify the
legislation).
At this point in time I think it is premature to speculate which fighter
is the most likely to be bought. This is for several reasons:
a) as yet the RAAF have not worked through the formal requirements of
capabilities and numbers.
b) it is yet to be decided whether we will be buying a big batch between
2010-2020 and trashing the old F-111 and F-18 force, or alternately buy
the AIR 6000 fighter in several batches, spread over 20 years.
c) as yet we have not decided on the required numbers and size of the
intended new tankers.
d) the political situation in SEA is unclear, does Indonesia balkanise
into a real mess, dragging the PRC and India into the region, does it
stabilise, does the arms race between the PRC and India accelerate
further ? Lots of unanswered strategic questions.
e) there are unresolved long term issues surrounding the defence budget,
which the govt has been skimping on. The existing budget is not keeping
up with increasing personnel costs, and the Timor operation showed we
did not have enough people, equipment, supplies stocks etc. If the
budget stays at current GDP percentages, by 2005 or so there will be
money only for personnel salaries and no equipment buys, or so the
predictions go.
f) we don't know how soon the F-22 export embargo will be lifted. If the
Israelis succeed in breaking the legislative block, odds are the
aircraft becomes highly feasible.
g) the govt has said that it would like to evaluate the F-22 against
other types if the opportunity exists to buy.
Basically everything is in flux down here. Much will depend on the
strategic outlook. If there is a prospect that the PRC or India start
meddling in Indonesia and Malaysia, then odds are we will see a big
increase in capabilities since we cannot afford to have people parking
Su-30s and IRBMs within SEA.
Politically the situation down here is completely unpredictable, most of
our politicians are in denial over the situation in Asia and pretending
it isn't happening since they are allergic to the budgetary implications
of it. Spending 5% of GDP on defence (we spend 1.8% now) is their worst
nightmare.
In terms of capability the F-22 is the only type which can replace the
F-111 in the solo unescorted deep penetration strike mission, since it
has stealth and the range for the mission. Any other type we have to use
strike packaging, which pushes total force numbers up to do the same
job. What you save on unit costs you then lose on extra numbers. Bombs
on target is what ultimately matters.
I would be inclined to wait a couple of years before I start guessing
about who looks best. Eg we have no idea about the outcome of JSF at
this time, and it would have to be a leading contender. I personally
favour a mix of F-22 and JSF like the USAF intend to use, with a
different mix ratio to match our needs. However, since I am not running
the govt's purchasing operation, my view is hardly relevant.
In terms of who is unlikely to do well, I think Sukhoi are in a very
weak position because of their volume sales to the PRC and India, it
amounts to a conflict of interest. The Rafale's position is weakened
because of the poor political relationship between Oz and the French,
and some poor experiences in supporting the Mirage.
That really leaves the Typhoon, the F-18E/F and the F-16/B60, F-15E/K+
and F-22/JSF combo. Interoperability with the US whom we are most likely
to go into combat with favours the US types strongly over the Typhoon.
Long term supportability and length of service life favour new designs,
which puts F-22/JSF, Typhoon ahead of the US teen series, but buy price
favours the teen series since they are mature in production and support.
However we may not be buying until 2010 and the F-15/16 lines may be
closed by then.
Which way the govt will swing on this depends on so many variables it is
IMHO foolish to even try to guess.
Cheers,
Carlo
Mick
>
>At this point in time I think it is premature to speculate which fighter
>is the most likely to be bought. This is for several reasons:
>
>a) as yet the RAAF have not worked through the formal requirements of
>capabilities and numbers.
>
>b) it is yet to be decided whether we will be buying a big batch between
>2010-2020 and trashing the old F-111 and F-18 force, or alternately buy
>the AIR 6000 fighter in several batches, spread over 20 years.
I'm sure they announced that i would be in three batches, hopefully of
one type (haha), first order in 2005, with delivery in 2012, secon
order in 2015, with delivery in 2020, and third contract in 2023, with
delivery in 2025 (numbers might not be right, but they're close). Why
the government would want one figher to replace the F-111 and F-18
over a 20 year period is beyond me.
>c) as yet we have not decided on the required numbers and size of the
>intended new tankers.
>
>d) the political situation in SEA is unclear, does Indonesia balkanise
>into a real mess, dragging the PRC and India into the region, does it
>stabilise, does the arms race between the PRC and India accelerate
>further ? Lots of unanswered strategic questions.
>
>e) there are unresolved long term issues surrounding the defence budget,
>which the govt has been skimping on. The existing budget is not keeping
>up with increasing personnel costs, and the Timor operation showed we
>did not have enough people, equipment, supplies stocks etc. If the
>budget stays at current GDP percentages, by 2005 or so there will be
>money only for personnel salaries and no equipment buys, or so the
>predictions go.
They hav aleady said it will go up, to be determined by the white
paper (but, they've said that every time)
>f) we don't know how soon the F-22 export embargo will be lifted. If the
>Israelis succeed in breaking the legislative block, odds are the
>aircraft becomes highly feasible.
Who in congress would have any reason to say no?
>g) the govt has said that it would like to evaluate the F-22 against
>other types if the opportunity exists to buy.
>
>Basically everything is in flux down here. Much will depend on the
>strategic outlook. If there is a prospect that the PRC or India start
>meddling in Indonesia and Malaysia, then odds are we will see a big
>increase in capabilities since we cannot afford to have people parking
>Su-30s and IRBMs within SEA.
>
>Politically the situation down here is completely unpredictable, most of
>our politicians are in denial over the situation in Asia and pretending
>it isn't happening since they are allergic to the budgetary implications
>of it. Spending 5% of GDP on defence (we spend 1.8% now) is their worst
>nightmare.
5%, $30 billion to spend on 50,000 men, sounds unnaceptable to the
polititians and diplomats
>In terms of capability the F-22 is the only type which can replace the
>F-111 in the solo unescorted deep penetration strike mission, since it
>has stealth and the range for the mission. Any other type we have to use
>strike packaging, which pushes total force numbers up to do the same
>job. What you save on unit costs you then lose on extra numbers. Bombs
>on target is what ultimately matters.
Sadly the US wont release software codes, so our own strike version
might not b possile, can it carry harpoon/raptor (the missile)
internally?, i assume it could externally
>I would be inclined to wait a couple of years before I start guessing
>about who looks best. Eg we have no idea about the outcome of JSF at
>this time, and it would have to be a leading contender. I personally
>favour a mix of F-22 and JSF like the USAF intend to use, with a
>different mix ratio to match our needs. However, since I am not running
>the govt's purchasing operation, my view is hardly relevant.
>
>In terms of who is unlikely to do well, I think Sukhoi are in a very
>weak position because of their volume sales to the PRC and India, it
>amounts to a conflict of interest. The Rafale's position is weakened
>because of the poor political relationship between Oz and the French,
>and some poor experiences in supporting the Mirage.
>
>That really leaves the Typhoon, the F-18E/F and the F-16/B60, F-15E/K+
>and F-22/JSF combo. Interoperability with the US whom we are most likely
>to go into combat with favours the US types strongly over the Typhoon.
>Long term supportability and length of service life favour new designs,
>which puts F-22/JSF, Typhoon ahead of the US teen series, but buy price
>favours the teen series since they are mature in production and support.
>However we may not be buying until 2010 and the F-15/16 lines may be
>closed by then.
With up to $20 billion to spend over 20 years, i don't see he RAAF
accepting F-16's or F-18's (we picked F-18 over F-16's in the first
place)
David Bromage
> >f) we don't know how soon the F-22 export embargo will be lifted. If the
> >Israelis succeed in breaking the legislative block, odds are the
> >aircraft becomes highly feasible.
> Who in congress would have any reason to say no?
Why would the RAAF have any reason to say yes? It's expensive and under
armed for Australia's needs.
> >That really leaves the Typhoon, the F-18E/F and the F-16/B60, F-15E/K+
> >and F-22/JSF combo.
> With up to $20 billion to spend over 20 years, i don't see he RAAF
> accepting F-16's or F-18's (we picked F-18 over F-16's in the first
> place)
Think about it logically. We already have the F/A-18. Replacing them with
E/F models means some spares can be carried forward and crews will need
minimal retraining. Saves a lot of money over introducing something
completely new.
Cheers
David
dennis_...@my-deja.com
David Bromage wrote:
> Mick (e...@e.net.au) wrote:
> > >f) we don't know how soon the F-22 export embargo will be lifted.
If the
> > >Israelis succeed in breaking the legislative block, odds are the
> > >aircraft becomes highly feasible.
>
> > Who in congress would have any reason to say no?
>
> Why would the RAAF have any reason to say yes? It's expensive and
under
> armed for Australia's needs.
>
How is it under armed? It has hardpoints on the wings if needed, it has
internal storage, and excellent fuel fraction. What other potential
system has
all these factors? A/G is simply software.
>
> > >That really leaves the Typhoon, the F-18E/F and the F-16/B60,
F-15E/K+
> > >and F-22/JSF combo.
>
> > With up to $20 billion to spend over 20 years, i don't see he RAAF
> > accepting F-16's or F-18's (we picked F-18 over F-16's in the first
> > place)
>
> Think about it logically. We already have the F/A-18. Replacing them
with
> E/F models means some spares can be carried forward and crews will
need
> minimal retraining. Saves a lot of money over introducing something
> completely new.
>
David, I suggest you have a look at the E/F. It is a very different
aircraft to
the A/B/C/D. Not much in the way of commonality at all. To all intents
and
purposes, it is a new aircraft.
Dennis
>
> Cheers
> David
David Bromage
> David Bromage wrote:
> > Mick (e...@e.net.au) wrote:
> > > >f) we don't know how soon the F-22 export embargo will be lifted.
> If the
> > > >Israelis succeed in breaking the legislative block, odds are the
> > > >aircraft becomes highly feasible.
> >
> > > Who in congress would have any reason to say no?
> >
> > Why would the RAAF have any reason to say yes? It's expensive and
> under
> > armed for Australia's needs.
> >
> How is it under armed? It has hardpoints on the wings if needed,
If you're going to do that, why pay for stealth in the first place?
> > > >That really leaves the Typhoon, the F-18E/F and the F-16/B60,
> F-15E/K+
> > > >and F-22/JSF combo.
> >
> > > With up to $20 billion to spend over 20 years, i don't see he RAAF
> > > accepting F-16's or F-18's (we picked F-18 over F-16's in the first
> > > place)
> >
> > Think about it logically. We already have the F/A-18. Replacing them
> with
> > E/F models means some spares can be carried forward and crews will
> need
> > minimal retraining. Saves a lot of money over introducing something
> > completely new.
> >
> David, I suggest you have a look at the E/F. It is a very different
> aircraft to
> the A/B/C/D. Not much in the way of commonality at all. To all intents
> and
> purposes, it is a new aircraft.
It has more in common with an A/B/C/D than it does with an F-15E or F-22.
Cheers
David
dennis_...@my-deja.com
David Bromage wrote:
> dennis_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > David Bromage wrote:
>
> > > Mick (e...@e.net.au) wrote:
> > > > >f) we don't know how soon the F-22 export embargo will be
lifted.
> > If the
> > > > >Israelis succeed in breaking the legislative block, odds are
the
> > > > >aircraft becomes highly feasible.
> > >
> > > > Who in congress would have any reason to say no?
> > >
> > > Why would the RAAF have any reason to say yes? It's expensive and
> > under
> > > armed for Australia's needs.
> > >
>
> > How is it under armed? It has hardpoints on the wings if needed,
>
> If you're going to do that, why pay for stealth in the first place?
>
For Day 2. The fact is, the F-22 is capable of carrying pretty much the
same
amount as any other fighter. To argue the point about hardpoints/stealth
is a
little specious. You stated that the F-22 was underarmed. The fact is,
if the
F-22 has to go in "light on" (i.e. internal weapons carriage only), then
that
is a scenario where your other fighters (such as F-18 E/F couldn't even
operate).
If the non-stealthy platform CAN operate, then the F-22 can carry
external
stores.
>
> > > > >That really leaves the Typhoon, the F-18E/F and the F-16/B60,
> > F-15E/K+
> > > > >and F-22/JSF combo.
> > >
> > > > With up to $20 billion to spend over 20 years, i don't see he
RAAF
> > > > accepting F-16's or F-18's (we picked F-18 over F-16's in the
first
> > > > place)
> > >
> > > Think about it logically. We already have the F/A-18. Replacing
them
> > with
> > > E/F models means some spares can be carried forward and crews will
> > need
> > > minimal retraining. Saves a lot of money over introducing
something
> > > completely new.
> > >
>
> > David, I suggest you have a look at the E/F. It is a very different
> > aircraft to
> > the A/B/C/D. Not much in the way of commonality at all. To all
intents
> > and
> > purposes, it is a new aircraft.
>
> It has more in common with an A/B/C/D than it does with an F-15E or
F-22.
>
So we should have got the Mirage 2000 instead of the F-18, as it had
more in
common with the Mirage III than the F-18? David, the logistics is such
that
the E/F and A/B/C/D really have to considered different aircraft. You
cannot
upsize by the amount that you do and still be the same. Empty weight is
up
25%. Thrust is up (depending on "classic" F-18 variant) by 38% or 22%,
and
the engines are new, as are intakes, structure etc. etc. Fundamentally,
the
idea of using commonality as an argument is flawed. The fact is, if
commonality was that great, we REALLY should not be replacing our F-18's
with
these!
David Bromage
> For Day 2. The fact is, the F-22 is capable of carrying pretty much the
> same
> amount as any other fighter. To argue the point about hardpoints/stealth
> is a
> little specious. You stated that the F-22 was underarmed. The fact is,
> if the
> F-22 has to go in "light on" (i.e. internal weapons carriage only), then
> that
> is a scenario where your other fighters (such as F-18 E/F couldn't even
> operate).
Whereas we could send in F-111s (600kts @ 200ft) fully loaded and pound
the poo out of any target. You don't need stealth for that.
> > It has more in common with an A/B/C/D than it does with an F-15E or
> F-22.
> So we should have got the Mirage 2000 instead of the F-18, as it had
> more in
> common with the Mirage III than the F-18?
The Mirage has the same problem as the F-16 - not enough engines.
Although I'd rather have seen us get Tornados.
Cheers
David
dennis_...@my-deja.com
David Bromage wrote:
> dennis_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > For Day 2. The fact is, the F-22 is capable of carrying pretty much
the
> > same
> > amount as any other fighter. To argue the point about
hardpoints/stealth
> > is a
> > little specious. You stated that the F-22 was underarmed. The fact
is,
> > if the
> > F-22 has to go in "light on" (i.e. internal weapons carriage only),
then
> > that
> > is a scenario where your other fighters (such as F-18 E/F couldn't
even
> > operate).
>
> Whereas we could send in F-111s (600kts @ 200ft) fully loaded and
pound
> the poo out of any target. You don't need stealth for that.
>
The point that you are (purposefully, in my opinion) overlooking is that
if
the mission is such that the F-22 needs to use stealth, the F-111 would
not be
able to conduct the mission. If you don't need stealth, you can load up
the
F-22 for bear.
>
> > > It has more in common with an A/B/C/D than it does with an F-15E
or
> > F-22.
>
> > So we should have got the Mirage 2000 instead of the F-18, as it had
> > more in
> > common with the Mirage III than the F-18?
>
> The Mirage has the same problem as the F-16 - not enough engines.
>
> Although I'd rather have seen us get Tornados.
>
Actually, given a 1980 choice of F-16A, F-18A or Tornado, I think we
made the
right choice. In 1990, I would have chosen F-16C over F-18C over
Tornado. The
Tornado just doesn't cut it in air-air (lousy acceleration and
manouevrability).
Carlo Kopp
>
> >
> >At this point in time I think it is premature to speculate which fighter
> >is the most likely to be bought. This is for several reasons:
> >
> >a) as yet the RAAF have not worked through the formal requirements of
> >capabilities and numbers.
> >
> >b) it is yet to be decided whether we will be buying a big batch between
> >2010-2020 and trashing the old F-111 and F-18 force, or alternately buy
> >the AIR 6000 fighter in several batches, spread over 20 years.
>
> I'm sure they announced that i would be in three batches, hopefully of
> one type (haha), first order in 2005, with delivery in 2012, secon
> order in 2015, with delivery in 2020, and third contract in 2023, with
> delivery in 2025 (numbers might not be right, but they're close). Why
> the government would want one figher to replace the F-111 and F-18
> over a 20 year period is beyond me.
This has been proposed, but much will depend on which fighters are in
production at what time. No point in saying "we intend to buy in time
slot T" if your choices are so limited.
>
> >c) as yet we have not decided on the required numbers and size of the
> >intended new tankers.
> >
> >d) the political situation in SEA is unclear, does Indonesia balkanise
> >into a real mess, dragging the PRC and India into the region, does it
> >stabilise, does the arms race between the PRC and India accelerate
> >further ? Lots of unanswered strategic questions.
> >
> >e) there are unresolved long term issues surrounding the defence budget,
> >which the govt has been skimping on. The existing budget is not keeping
> >up with increasing personnel costs, and the Timor operation showed we
> >did not have enough people, equipment, supplies stocks etc. If the
> >budget stays at current GDP percentages, by 2005 or so there will be
> >money only for personnel salaries and no equipment buys, or so the
> >predictions go.
>
> They hav aleady said it will go up, to be determined by the white
> paper (but, they've said that every time)
You might like to track down a copy of Derek Woolner's recent paper on
the defence budget. The problem is that we need a substantial increase
from the annual AUD ~10B, that is not even enough to sustain what we
have let alone replace the equipment running out of life.
>
> >f) we don't know how soon the F-22 export embargo will be lifted. If the
> >Israelis succeed in breaking the legislative block, odds are the
> >aircraft becomes highly feasible.
>
> Who in congress would have any reason to say no?
There has been an ongoing issue in the US legislature over the F-22,
many people, mainly Democrats, want to kill it off as they would rather
spend the money on other pet projects like buying votes with welfare
money.
Until recently the Republicans backed the project, but Lewis did his
best to take it down last year, presumably to embarrass the
administration.
Probably the most vocal oppoennt of the F-22 is Dale Bumpers, who is not
in any way averse to saying untrue things about the aircraft to garner
support. However, many of the public statements made by the House
Committee last year were also of dubious truthfulness.
Part of the strategy for killing a program relies on cutting build
numbers down, since that increases the amount of R&D cost per airframe
to be amortised by the US taxpayer over the total build volume. Since
the US govt accounting system likes to use "program costs" which lump
both R&D costs and unit build costs into one number, at some point the
"unit program cost" number looks astronomical at which point the media
can be recruited to rubbish the program. Cutting build numbers is
achieved in two ways - reduce the number to the US services, and ban
exports, since export numbers may be as high as USAF build numbers.
So the ban on F-22 export sales is driven basically by the "kill the
F-22 off" agenda. Most of the delays in the program to date have been as
a result of legislator imposed demands for absolute perfection before
production is authorised, rather than getting it into service ASAP and
fixing bugs with incremental upgrades.
>
> >g) the govt has said that it would like to evaluate the F-22 against
> >other types if the opportunity exists to buy.
> >
> >Basically everything is in flux down here. Much will depend on the
> >strategic outlook. If there is a prospect that the PRC or India start
> >meddling in Indonesia and Malaysia, then odds are we will see a big
> >increase in capabilities since we cannot afford to have people parking
> >Su-30s and IRBMs within SEA.
> >
> >Politically the situation down here is completely unpredictable, most of
> >our politicians are in denial over the situation in Asia and pretending
> >it isn't happening since they are allergic to the budgetary implications
> >of it. Spending 5% of GDP on defence (we spend 1.8% now) is their worst
> >nightmare.
>
> 5%, $30 billion to spend on 50,000 men, sounds unnaceptable to the
> polititians and diplomats
In the day and age of high technology weapons that is a fact of life.
However, what these people fail to appreciate is that achieving the same
total capability the low tech way would cost vastly more.
>
> >In terms of capability the F-22 is the only type which can replace the
> >F-111 in the solo unescorted deep penetration strike mission, since it
> >has stealth and the range for the mission. Any other type we have to use
> >strike packaging, which pushes total force numbers up to do the same
> >job. What you save on unit costs you then lose on extra numbers. Bombs
> >on target is what ultimately matters.
>
> Sadly the US wont release software codes, so our own strike version
> might not b possile, can it carry harpoon/raptor (the missile)
> internally?, i assume it could externally
We do not know at this stage what will happen with the source code for
the F-22.
However, for the F-22 to perform strike it does not need either the
Harpoon or the AGM-142. It will use derivatives of the GBU-32 JDAM bomb
with specialised seekers for specific missions, like the Orca and
Hammerhead or others (yet to be designed).
NB the F-22 is stealthy and goes in over the target at Mach 1.4 and 45
kft+, so it can drop a guided bomb directly on the target. Standoff
missiles like the Harpoon and AGM-142 are used where the risk to launch
aircraft is so high that overflight is not possible. Guided bombs are
needless to say vey much cheaper than standoff missiles, so the total
package cost works out better for the F-22 if you are planning to fly a
real air war and drop real numbers of weapons :-) If you never plan to
use the aircraft then standoff missiles are a better bet since you can
use cheaper aircraft and never spend the money on missile warstocks.
>
> >I would be inclined to wait a couple of years before I start guessing
> >about who looks best. Eg we have no idea about the outcome of JSF at
> >this time, and it would have to be a leading contender. I personally
> >favour a mix of F-22 and JSF like the USAF intend to use, with a
> >different mix ratio to match our needs. However, since I am not running
> >the govt's purchasing operation, my view is hardly relevant.
> >
> >In terms of who is unlikely to do well, I think Sukhoi are in a very
> >weak position because of their volume sales to the PRC and India, it
> >amounts to a conflict of interest. The Rafale's position is weakened
> >because of the poor political relationship between Oz and the French,
> >and some poor experiences in supporting the Mirage.
> >
> >That really leaves the Typhoon, the F-18E/F and the F-16/B60, F-15E/K+
> >and F-22/JSF combo. Interoperability with the US whom we are most likely
> >to go into combat with favours the US types strongly over the Typhoon.
> >Long term supportability and length of service life favour new designs,
> >which puts F-22/JSF, Typhoon ahead of the US teen series, but buy price
> >favours the teen series since they are mature in production and support.
> >However we may not be buying until 2010 and the F-15/16 lines may be
> >closed by then.
>
> With up to $20 billion to spend over 20 years, i don't see he RAAF
> accepting F-16's or F-18's (we picked F-18 over F-16's in the first
> place)
We shall see what happens. At this point in time I would not rule out
anything.
Cheers,
Carlo
L'acrobat
"David Bromage" <dbro...@fang.omni.com.au> wrote in message
news:GxQP4.1108$F%2.63...@news0.optus.net.au...
> dennis_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > For Day 2. The fact is, the F-22 is capable of carrying pretty much the
> > same
> > amount as any other fighter. To argue the point about hardpoints/stealth
> > is a
> > little specious. You stated that the F-22 was underarmed. The fact is,
> > if the
> > F-22 has to go in "light on" (i.e. internal weapons carriage only), then
> > that
> > is a scenario where your other fighters (such as F-18 E/F couldn't even
> > operate).
>
> Whereas we could send in F-111s (600kts @ 200ft) fully loaded and pound
> the poo out of any target. You don't need stealth for that.
Didn't the RAAF buy the Have Nap (can't remember the new name) stand off
weapons just so the F-111 fleet can do that from long range?
L'acrobat
<dennis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8eoon7$bhi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> The point that you are (purposefully, in my opinion) overlooking is that
> if
> the mission is such that the F-22 needs to use stealth, the F-111 would
> not be
> able to conduct the mission. If you don't need stealth, you can load up
> the
> F-22 for bear.
That's what stand off weapons are for.
Dennis Jensen
David Bromage wrote:
> Mick (e...@e.net.au) wrote:
> > >f) we don't know how soon the F-22 export embargo will be lifted. If the
> > >Israelis succeed in breaking the legislative block, odds are the
> > >aircraft becomes highly feasible.
>
> > Who in congress would have any reason to say no?
>
> Why would the RAAF have any reason to say yes? It's expensive and under
> armed for Australia's needs.
>
How is it under armed? It has hardpoints on the wings if needed, it has
internal storage, and excellent fuel fraction. What other potential system has
all these factors? A/G is simply software.
>
> > >That really leaves the Typhoon, the F-18E/F and the F-16/B60, F-15E/K+
> > >and F-22/JSF combo.
>
> > With up to $20 billion to spend over 20 years, i don't see he RAAF
> > accepting F-16's or F-18's (we picked F-18 over F-16's in the first
> > place)
>
> Think about it logically. We already have the F/A-18. Replacing them with
> E/F models means some spares can be carried forward and crews will need
> minimal retraining. Saves a lot of money over introducing something
> completely new.
>
David, I suggest you have a look at the E/F. It is a very different aircraft to
the A/B/C/D. Not much in the way of commonality at all. To all intents and
purposes, it is a new aircraft.
Dennis
>
> Cheers
> David
Dennis Jensen
David Bromage wrote:
> dennis_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > David Bromage wrote:
>
> > > Mick (e...@e.net.au) wrote:
> > > > >f) we don't know how soon the F-22 export embargo will be lifted.
> > If the
> > > > >Israelis succeed in breaking the legislative block, odds are the
> > > > >aircraft becomes highly feasible.
> > >
> > > > Who in congress would have any reason to say no?
> > >
> > > Why would the RAAF have any reason to say yes? It's expensive and
> > under
> > > armed for Australia's needs.
> > >
>
> > How is it under armed? It has hardpoints on the wings if needed,
>
> If you're going to do that, why pay for stealth in the first place?
>
For Day 2. The fact is, the F-22 is capable of carrying pretty much the same
amount as any other fighter. To argue the point about hardpoints/stealth is a
little specious. You stated that the F-22 was underarmed. The fact is, if the
F-22 has to go in "light on" (i.e. internal weapons carriage only), then that
is a scenario where your other fighters (such as F-18 E/F couldn't even
operate).
If the non-stealthy platform CAN operate, then the F-22 can carry external
stores.
>
> > > > >That really leaves the Typhoon, the F-18E/F and the F-16/B60,
> > F-15E/K+
> > > > >and F-22/JSF combo.
> > >
> > > > With up to $20 billion to spend over 20 years, i don't see he RAAF
> > > > accepting F-16's or F-18's (we picked F-18 over F-16's in the first
> > > > place)
> > >
> > > Think about it logically. We already have the F/A-18. Replacing them
> > with
> > > E/F models means some spares can be carried forward and crews will
> > need
> > > minimal retraining. Saves a lot of money over introducing something
> > > completely new.
> > >
>
> > David, I suggest you have a look at the E/F. It is a very different
> > aircraft to
> > the A/B/C/D. Not much in the way of commonality at all. To all intents
> > and
> > purposes, it is a new aircraft.
>
> It has more in common with an A/B/C/D than it does with an F-15E or F-22.
>
So we should have got the Mirage 2000 instead of the F-18, as it had more in
Dennis Jensen
David Bromage wrote:
> dennis_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > For Day 2. The fact is, the F-22 is capable of carrying pretty much the
> > same
> > amount as any other fighter. To argue the point about hardpoints/stealth
> > is a
> > little specious. You stated that the F-22 was underarmed. The fact is,
> > if the
> > F-22 has to go in "light on" (i.e. internal weapons carriage only), then
> > that
> > is a scenario where your other fighters (such as F-18 E/F couldn't even
> > operate).
>
> Whereas we could send in F-111s (600kts @ 200ft) fully loaded and pound
> the poo out of any target. You don't need stealth for that.
>
The point that you are (purposefully, in my opinion) overlooking is that if
the mission is such that the F-22 needs to use stealth, the F-111 would not be
able to conduct the mission. If you don't need stealth, you can load up the
F-22 for bear.
>
> > > It has more in common with an A/B/C/D than it does with an F-15E or
> > F-22.
>
> > So we should have got the Mirage 2000 instead of the F-18, as it had
> > more in
> > common with the Mirage III than the F-18?
>
David Bromage
> <dennis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8eoon7$bhi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > The point that you are (purposefully, in my opinion) overlooking is that
> > if
> > the mission is such that the F-22 needs to use stealth, the F-111 would
> > not be
> > able to conduct the mission. If you don't need stealth, you can load up
> > the
> > F-22 for bear.
> That's what stand off weapons are for.
Ausralia is procuring standoff and cruise missiles to be carried by the
F-111 and AP-3.
Cheers
David
dennis_...@my-deja.com
Dennis Jensen wrote:
L'acrobat wrote:
> <dennis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8eoon7$bhi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> >
> > The point that you are (purposefully, in my opinion) overlooking
is that
> > if
> > the mission is such that the F-22 needs to use stealth, the F-111
would
> > not be
> > able to conduct the mission. If you don't need stealth, you can
load up
> > the
> > F-22 for bear.
>
> That's what stand off weapons are for.
Which, as Carlo has pointed out, are very expensive. Far cheaper using
a $20
000 tailkit to get the JDAM than standoff weapons costing $100 000+
each.
Furthermore, what happens if the high treat zone is large enough so
that your
standoff weapons don't have the range to just pop them off outside the
zone?
Additionally, the F-111 has to go low and fast to be survivable. That,
in
conjunction with external stores, does very bad things to your range.
So, in
effect, the F-22 can do what the F-111 can do, but more cheaply.
Dennis
L'acrobat
<dennis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8eqndt$imt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> So, in
> effect, the F-22 can do what the F-111 can do, but more cheaply.
>
> Dennis
Given that Aust already owns F-111s and cannot afford the currently unproven
F-22 - according to the USAF flyaway cost is $85 million USD or $143.5565
million AUD (at current rates) PER PLANE (in reality it will almost
certainly exceed that cost), it seems very unlikely that it could do the job
more cheaply than even a new Typhoon let alone an in service aircraft fitted
with cruise missiles.
If you feel stealth is that mission critical, stealth the cruise missiles.
dennis_...@my-deja.com
L'acrobat wrote:
Point is, a current CALCM is over $1 million per pop. Add stealth, and
it is
going to cost even more. Suddenly, not so cheap.
Yes, the F-22 is more expensive than Typhoon, but it is enormously more
capable
as well. Genuine supercruise, genuine stealth, longer legs. Start
loading
stealth CALCMs onto Typhoon and it is no longer so cheap. Then you have
the
issue of Typhoon being closer to obsolescence than F-22, needing more in
the way
of a mid-life update etc. What the military is learning is the necessity
to
calculate total through life costs, and this is where Tier 1 aircraft
perform
far better than Tier 2.
David Bromage
> <dennis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8eqndt$imt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > So, in
> > effect, the F-22 can do what the F-111 can do, but more cheaply.
> >
> > Dennis
> Given that Aust already owns F-111s and cannot afford the currently unproven
> F-22 - according to the USAF flyaway cost is $85 million USD or $143.5565
> million AUD (at current rates) PER PLANE (in reality it will almost
> certainly exceed that cost), it seems very unlikely that it could do the job
> more cheaply than even a new Typhoon let alone an in service aircraft fitted
> with cruise missiles.
Various people around Russell are still talking about building 50 new
F-111s at ~$65 million each.
Cheers
David
Carlo Kopp
the F-111 line decades after its shutdown would result in a USD 65M
airframe :-)
Assuming you wanted "as new" F-111s, it would be far more practical to
select airframes from the large collection at Davis Monthan, zero time
the structures, fit the GE F110, the APG-68 ABR and various other
current build avionics. Assuming a complete aircraft rebuild plus the
flight testing you might just get close to USD 65M per airframe in batch
of 50. Consider the AUP ran into hundreds of millions of dollars and it
was only an avionic rework of the core systems on the 22 F/RF-111C
airframes.
However, at 3/4 the cost of an F-22 I'd sooner go out and buy 38 F-22s
for the money.
The F-111 is an excellent bomber, but in airspace full of Su-27/30 and
double digit SAMs, you will not be survivable without an F-22 escort to
knock down the Sukhois and wipe out the SAMs.
As Dennis has correctly pointed out, and the USAF experienced during the
Allied Force campaign, standoff missiles and cruise missiles tend to be
so expesnive that seldom are sufficient warstocks held for a real
bombardment campaign. More than often you will run out, as the USAF did
with the AGM-86C CALCMs. AGM-130 stocks took a beating as well.
If you can acheive the same effect dropping $20K JDAMs, after mere weeks
of bombing, the stealthy striker with JDAMs breaks even against the
conventional bomber with standoff weapons, and beyond that point you are
increasingly ahead using stealth. Consider the B-2/JDAM vs the
B-52/CALCM in Allied Force.
I am big fan of the F-111 and have probably published more on the
subject than anybody else down here. But given the choice of an F-111 vs
an F-22, I'd take the F-22 every time, since it is usable across many
more roles, is vastly more survivable, is more productive due to
supercruise transit speeds, and is new build technology which will be
supportable over the longer term.
I do think there is a case though for a force structure mix of F-22 +
F-111, until 2020-2025, fatigue life on the F-111 permitting. Use the
F-22 to protect the bomb truck F-111.
The problem with the F-111 is that its weapon system is built around
older technology which makes it very hard to exploit newer weapons like
the JDAM. To get your dollar's worth from an F-111 post 2010 you would
really want F110 engines, APG-68 ABR to replace the ARS/TFR, a new build
EW package, an ELS and a glass cockpit or HMD package. The big
limitation of the F-111 is no stealth, which forces it into the weeds
where it can be hit by SAMs and AAA. If you have to penetrate deep, you
will lose aircraft without a SEAD and SOJ escort to take out the SAMs,
and you have no guarantees when it comes to random AAA. No such problems
with the F-22, it goes in high and supersonic, and has a golfball sized
RCS (or thereabouts).
The USAF's long term plan is to replace the F-117A, F-4G (never
replaced) and F-15E (which sort of replaced the USAF F-111) with an F-22
variant. The aircraft would carry various specialised JDAM variants, and
later MMTD small bomb variants.
The cost issue has to be considered in terms of total lifecycle cost,
expended munitions costs for likely campaigns, and aircraft productivity
in terms of sorties per combat radius per time.
If you compare the F-22 against new build teen series or Eurocanards on
this basis, you will find that the unit cost differences between a USD
45-55M conventional fighter, against a USD ~80-90M F-22 are arguably
irrelevent.
Let's assume your standoff weapon costs USD 1M per unit (including
support, integration, targeting etc). A conventional fighter has to
shoot off a mere 25 to 45 standoff weapons for the cost difference to
amortised ! Now assume your fighter shoots two such standoff weapons per
day, you have amortised the cost difference in a mere 12.5 to 22.5 days,
or 2-3 weeks. At the end of these 2-3 weeks or air war you have a
conventional fighter beginning to cost more than the F-22 does, in terms
of total capability costs, asusming you have the warstocks of standoff
missiles to keep up the effort.
There is also the productivity issue, since an F-22 can transit to
targets at twice the speed, so you can get twice as many missions into
the same cycle, and it is also very good in terms of maintenance
man-hours per flight hour. That was a USAF requirement.
So the argument that the F-22 is more expensive is quite dubious, and
unless all you want is a hangar queen show pony you never fly into
combat, the F-22 (and JSF) work out cheaper in the long run.
If you start factoring in costs for strike packaging, which is extra
fighter escorts, SEAD shooters etc, then the equation tilts even further
in favour of the F-22 (and JSF).
The USAF have made a major commitment to the F-22 and this is for very
good reasons. There is more than enough accumulated experience with the
F-117 and B-2 to prove that the "stealth + cheap JDAM" model beats the
"unstealthy fighter + standoff weapon" model in "real campaign"
economics.
"Political economics" ie the BS we get from the politicians and media,
well that is a different affair and one which largely revolves around
fantasies of having your cake and eating it too. If there is anything
which will kill the F-22 in the US (and export variants down here), it
is this fantasy world of defence funding most of these people choose to
live in. I say "choose" deliberately, because the facts are all out
there, in the public domain, and have been for decades. Guys like
Bumpers and Lewis simply choose to not learn the facts since then they
could not go out and grandstand on these issues, using fallacious and
untruthful arguments.
There isn't really that much more to this issue. In the real world the
F-22 works out cheaper, long term.
Cheers,
Carlo
Yama
>
> Mick wrote:
> > >it isn't happening since they are allergic to the budgetary implications
> > >of it. Spending 5% of GDP on defence (we spend 1.8% now) is their worst
> > >nightmare.
> >
> > 5%, $30 billion to spend on 50,000 men, sounds unnaceptable to the
> > polititians and diplomats
>
> In the day and age of high technology weapons that is a fact of life.
> However, what these people fail to appreciate is that achieving the same
> total capability the low tech way would cost vastly more.
5% defence spending will be very hard to justify, especially as
short-term threat to Australia is rather small and even the
long-term threat is somewhat vague even in the worst case.
For comparison, Fennoscandian countries spend 1.5-2%, despite facing
much more acute short-term threat. Slightly more money would be nice
but 5% would be quite extreme. I don't think even Swedes ever spent
5% at height of the Cold War, when their military was one of the
most powerful in Europe.
Keith Willshaw
Yama <tj...@paju.oulu.fi> wrote in message
news:39116BF1...@paju.oulu.fi...
>
> 5% defence spending will be very hard to justify, especially as
> short-term threat to Australia is rather small and even the
> long-term threat is somewhat vague even in the worst case.
>
> For comparison, Fennoscandian countries spend 1.5-2%, despite facing
> much more acute short-term threat. Slightly more money would be nice
> but 5% would be quite extreme. I don't think even Swedes ever spent
> 5% at height of the Cold War, when their military was one of the
> most powerful in Europe.
The US spends 3.4% of GDP on defense, UK 2.6 % , France 2.5%
Italy 1.9% and Germany 1.5%
Keith
Ulf C
> Scandinavia. Who else is there ?
Well, some of our beloved European heads of state seem to think that Austria
poses a potentially serious threat :)
Seriously though, I think it's quite important for the European nations to
keep their military properly trained and equipped, as we might be faced with
another Kosovo out of the blue - this IS Europe, after all...
And no, I don't think Russia under Putin constitutes any serious threat.
--
Ulf C
Dulf at Yahoo dot Com
Harry Andreas
<Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
> Assuming you wanted "as new" F-111s, it would be far more practical to
> select airframes from the large collection at Davis Monthan, zero time
> the structures, fit the GE F110, the APG-68 ABR and various other
> current build avionics.
snip
> If you can acheive the same effect dropping $20K JDAMs, after mere weeks
> of bombing, the stealthy striker with JDAMs breaks even against the
> conventional bomber with standoff weapons, and beyond that point you are
> increasingly ahead using stealth. Consider the B-2/JDAM vs the
> B-52/CALCM in Allied Force.
>
> I am big fan of the F-111 and have probably published more on the
> subject than anybody else down here. But given the choice of an F-111 vs
> an F-22, I'd take the F-22 every time, since it is usable across many
> more roles, is vastly more survivable, is more productive due to
> supercruise transit speeds, and is new build technology which will be
> supportable over the longer term.
>
> I do think there is a case though for a force structure mix of F-22 +
> F-111, until 2020-2025, fatigue life on the F-111 permitting. Use the
> F-22 to protect the bomb truck F-111.
>
> The problem with the F-111 is that its weapon system is built around
> older technology which makes it very hard to exploit newer weapons like
> the JDAM. To get your dollar's worth from an F-111 post 2010 you would
> really want F110 engines, APG-68 ABR to replace the ARS/TFR, a new build
> EW package, an ELS and a glass cockpit or HMD package.
snip
> The USAF's long term plan is to replace the F-117A, F-4G (never
> replaced) and F-15E (which sort of replaced the USAF F-111) with an F-22
> variant. The aircraft would carry various specialised JDAM variants, and
> later MMTD small bomb variants.
Carlo,
a good analysis. One thing to remember is that if using the JDAM and
similar weapons you need a very accurate radar system with high SAR
resolution to engage targets with the smaller bomb sizes necessary to make
the sorties effective.
The B-2 was effective because it targeted large structures with 2000lb GPS
aided munitions, necessary because of the CEP of the weapon+targeting
system.
It [the B-2] could do well this because it can carry a lot of big bombs :-)
If you want to use all 2000lb weapons regardless of target size, that's OK.
But on a smaller platform, regardless of whether it's an F-22 or an F-111,
sorties are more effective if you can carry more, smaller bombs, say 500
or 1000 lb JDAM types. This allows more targets to be engaged per sortie.
To do this [because of the smaller CEP necessary to ensure target
destruction] you need a higher accuracy radar. It's not clear to me that
the radars you mentioned are suitable for this mission. Actually, since
you already have a considerable fleet of F/A-18's [trying not to be too
self serving here] it makes far more sense to upgrade F-111's with the
same APG-73 that you're flying now, or for even higher accuracy, the new
AESA radar that's going into the F/A-18E/F.
Providing maintenance and support for yet another avionics system adds a
lot of cost that is not typically mentioned by acquisition weenies, but
must be faced when evaluating life cycle costs and total program costs.
--
Harry Andreas
the engineering raconteur
replace baloney with computer to reply
Dennis Jensen
L'acrobat wrote:
> <dennis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8eoon7$bhi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> >
> > The point that you are (purposefully, in my opinion) overlooking is that
> > if
> > the mission is such that the F-22 needs to use stealth, the F-111 would
> > not be
> > able to conduct the mission. If you don't need stealth, you can load up
> > the
> > F-22 for bear.
>
> That's what stand off weapons are for.
Which, as Carlo has pointed out, are very expensive. Far cheaper using a $20
000 tailkit to get the JDAM than standoff weapons costing $100 000+ each.
Furthermore, what happens if the high treat zone is large enough so that your
standoff weapons don't have the range to just pop them off outside the zone?
Additionally, the F-111 has to go low and fast to be survivable. That, in
conjunction with external stores, does very bad things to your range. So, in
Dennis Jensen
L'acrobat wrote:
> <dennis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8eqndt$imt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > So, in
> > effect, the F-22 can do what the F-111 can do, but more cheaply.
> >
> > Dennis
>
> Given that Aust already owns F-111s and cannot afford the currently unproven
> F-22 - according to the USAF flyaway cost is $85 million USD or $143.5565
> million AUD (at current rates) PER PLANE (in reality it will almost
> certainly exceed that cost), it seems very unlikely that it could do the job
> more cheaply than even a new Typhoon let alone an in service aircraft fitted
> with cruise missiles.
>
Carlo Kopp
>
> Carlo Kopp wrote:
> >
> > Mick wrote:
> > > >of it. Spending 5% of GDP on defence (we spend 1.8% now) is their worst
> > > >nightmare.
> > >
> > > 5%, $30 billion to spend on 50,000 men, sounds unnaceptable to the
> > > polititians and diplomats
> >
> > In the day and age of high technology weapons that is a fact of life.
> > However, what these people fail to appreciate is that achieving the same
> > total capability the low tech way would cost vastly more.
>
> short-term threat to Australia is rather small and even the
> long-term threat is somewhat vague even in the worst case.
>
> For comparison, Fennoscandian countries spend 1.5-2%, despite facing
> much more acute short-term threat. Slightly more money would be nice
> but 5% would be quite extreme. I don't think even Swedes ever spent
> 5% at height of the Cold War, when their military was one of the
> most powerful in Europe.
The big difference Tommi is the geography. We run up big overheads in
transportation, whatever we do. That does make a big difference since it
is a systemic overhead which every service has to wear. Also in
Scandinavia you do not have to invest heavily in blue water naval
assets, or long range airpower. We have a continent the size of the
ConUS to defend with a population of about 20M. I'd actually be quite
satisifed with a 3-3.5% GDP expenditure on defence, we can both afford
it and it would almost certainly allow us to get what we need.
Interesting statistic - the public in this country spends a similar
order of magnitude amount annually on gambling as the govt spends on the
defence budget, or the university education system budget.
I am not sure that a basketcase Russia qualifies as a threat in
Scandinavia. Who else is there ?
Cheers,
Carlo
Carlo Kopp
> > select airframes from the large collection at Davis Monthan, zero time
> > the structures, fit the GE F110, the APG-68 ABR and various other
> > current build avionics.
> > If you can acheive the same effect dropping $20K JDAMs, after mere weeks
> > of bombing, the stealthy striker with JDAMs breaks even against the
> > conventional bomber with standoff weapons, and beyond that point you are
> > increasingly ahead using stealth. Consider the B-2/JDAM vs the
> > B-52/CALCM in Allied Force.
> >
> > I am big fan of the F-111 and have probably published more on the
> > subject than anybody else down here. But given the choice of an F-111 vs
> > an F-22, I'd take the F-22 every time, since it is usable across many
> > more roles, is vastly more survivable, is more productive due to
> > supercruise transit speeds, and is new build technology which will be
> > supportable over the longer term.
> >
> > I do think there is a case though for a force structure mix of F-22 +
> > F-111, until 2020-2025, fatigue life on the F-111 permitting. Use the
> > F-22 to protect the bomb truck F-111.
> >
> > The problem with the F-111 is that its weapon system is built around
> > older technology which makes it very hard to exploit newer weapons like
> > the JDAM. To get your dollar's worth from an F-111 post 2010 you would
> > really want F110 engines, APG-68 ABR to replace the ARS/TFR, a new build
> > EW package, an ELS and a glass cockpit or HMD package.
> > The USAF's long term plan is to replace the F-117A, F-4G (never
> > replaced) and F-15E (which sort of replaced the USAF F-111) with an F-22
> > variant. The aircraft would carry various specialised JDAM variants, and
> > later MMTD small bomb variants.
>
> a good analysis. One thing to remember is that if using the JDAM and
> similar weapons you need a very accurate radar system with high SAR
> resolution to engage targets with the smaller bomb sizes necessary to make
> the sorties effective.
> The B-2 was effective because it targeted large structures with 2000lb GPS
> aided munitions, necessary because of the CEP of the weapon+targeting
> system.
> It [the B-2] could do well this because it can carry a lot of big bombs :-)
Harry, thanks, you have made some very good comments here. With the B-2
the big issue in accuracy is the GAM/GATS pseudo-differential GPS
targeting system. When this is turned on, the GPS guided bomb is
programmed to track the same GPS SVs as the bomber, and that means that
the bomb sees the same position offset errors the bomb does. The USAF
have not disclosed whether the GBU-31 variant they drop from the B-2
supports this capability :-) The GBU-36/37 GAMs do.
The CEP you can get with GAM/GATS is much better than what you get from
an automonous SV acquisition by the JDAM. So the bombing error depends
not only on the CEP of the SAR aimpoint, but also on the achieved CEP of
the GAM/GATS system. From what I gather the all up CEP is about 15 ft or
better for the B-2 with everything running.
>
> If you want to use all 2000lb weapons regardless of target size, that's OK.
This is true only if you are not using a GAM/GATS type of scheme.
>
> But on a smaller platform, regardless of whether it's an F-22 or an F-111,
> sorties are more effective if you can carry more, smaller bombs, say 500
> or 1000 lb JDAM types. This allows more targets to be engaged per sortie.
> To do this [because of the smaller CEP necessary to ensure target
> destruction] you need a higher accuracy radar. It's not clear to me that
> the radars you mentioned are suitable for this mission. Actually, since
> you already have a considerable fleet of F/A-18's [trying not to be too
> self serving here] it makes far more sense to upgrade F-111's with the
> same APG-73 that you're flying now, or for even higher accuracy, the new
> AESA radar that's going into the F/A-18E/F.
> Providing maintenance and support for yet another avionics system adds a
> lot of cost that is not typically mentioned by acquisition weenies, but
> must be faced when evaluating life cycle costs and total program costs.
>
With SARs the accuracy will depend upon the resolution of the SAR spot
map mode, and the accuracy of the aircraft's inertial reference used to
support the SAR itself, as well as the usual SAR things like phase
coherency and oscillator stability. Consider the APG-76 has an IMU
bolted directly to the antenna for this reason, and they have achieved 1
ft pixel sizes and CEPs of several feet.
Now the APG-68 ABR is the direct equivalent to the AGP-73 RUG III, both
are AESAs, the reason why I cited the ABR rather than the RUG III is
that it is smaller (fits the FEB better) and also more mature. However,
more generally I do agree that the -73 RUG III is indeed an alternative.
Unfortunately it is also bulkier than the ABR (I have looked at LRU
volumetrics here) and doesn't quite package as well.
You might enjoy this piece I did some time ago:
http://www.ausaviation.com.au/TechnologyExplained/F111Upgrade3.htm
Certainly the commonality with the RUG I/II going into our F/A-18A+ is
attractive and I won't dispute it for a moment, but I know the ABR will
be delivering soon but the RUG III may still be vapourware or salesware
:-)
For me the attraction of an AESA solution for the F-111 is that we get
rid of the troublesome antenna pedestal and get a combined ARS/TFR in
one package, be it dual redundant or single channel. The pedestal I am
told is a significant MTBF nuisance, and that with a highly detectable
TFR and low resolution real beam mapper.
If you go for an AESA with hi res SAR and TF modes you get a huge gain
in capability, reduced detectability (if you power manage the TF mode
with a much bigger AESA aperture you have a big advantage over the
APQ-171) and something with vastly better MTBF than the existing kit. I
don't see any problems with multiple aimpoints on a single pass.
The only issue I see with the APG-77 is that they will need to put a
highly accurate IMU in the nose to get the velocities as accurately as
possible, and possibly upgrade the master oscillator. The aperture
bandwidth is superb from what I gather and it is an AESA of course. The
rest is mainly software and they have the compute cycles in the CIP to
handle this easily.
I hope this clarifies my argument here :-)
Cheers,
Carlo
David Bromage
> David Bromage wrote:
> >
> > L'acrobat (hus...@dingoblue.net.au) wrote:
> >
> > > <dennis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8eqndt$imt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > > > So, in
> > > > effect, the F-22 can do what the F-111 can do, but more cheaply.
> > > >
> > > > Dennis
> >
> > > Given that Aust already owns F-111s and cannot afford the currently unproven
> > > F-22 - according to the USAF flyaway cost is $85 million USD or $143.5565
> > > million AUD (at current rates) PER PLANE (in reality it will almost
> > > certainly exceed that cost), it seems very unlikely that it could do the job
> > > more cheaply than even a new Typhoon let alone an in service aircraft fitted
> > > with cruise missiles.
> >
> > Various people around Russell are still talking about building 50 new
> > F-111s at ~$65 million each.
> >
> David, this is a curious story to say the least. I doubt that reopening
> the F-111 line decades after its shutdown would result in a USD 65M
> airframe :-)
They would be built under licence in Australia.
> However, at 3/4 the cost of an F-22 I'd sooner go out and buy 38 F-22s
> for the money.
38 F-22s can't carry the same weight of bombs as 38 F-111s, let alone 50.
I'd sooner see 50 F-111s than 38 F-22s any day.
Use the right tool for the right job. The F-22 is an air dominance fighter
with _some_ attack capability. The F-111 is a bomber. There is simply no
comparison.
Cheers
David
dennis_...@my-deja.com
David Bromage wrote:
How is this going to make it cheaper? Most, if not all, of the tooling
is gone. Then
you have the costs of systems integration (you won't have the same
systems you had
originally, even if they were available). Put it this way, do you think
that you could
reintroduce the HQ Kinswood (Australian content, the HQ was an early
1970's car),
build 2000 of them, and sell them for $25 000? Tests the bounds of
credibility.
>
> > However, at 3/4 the cost of an F-22 I'd sooner go out and buy 38
F-22s
> > for the money.
>
> 38 F-22s can't carry the same weight of bombs as 38 F-111s, let alone
50.
> I'd sooner see 50 F-111s than 38 F-22s any day.
>
First, you have obviously ignored the issue of supercruise-you get more
missions per
unit time with the F-22, as Carlo has pointed out. Next, you have the
fact that the
stores on the F-111 are carried externally-think of what that does to
payload-range.
Next, there is the issue of going in against well defended targets, the
F-111 has to
go low, which puts you in among the trash fire, you are still at risk
(all of this
Carlo has mentioned), and one that Carlo didn't mention, the fact that
you are low
kills your payload range.
Give me the 38 F-22's any day. They can do the F-111's job, and a lot
more besides.
The days of hauling lots and lots of dumb iron are gone.
Dennis
>
> Use the right tool for the right job. The F-22 is an air dominance
fighter
> with _some_ attack capability. The F-111 is a bomber. There is simply
no
> comparison.
>
> Cheers
> David
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Carlo Kopp
> > >
> > > L'acrobat (hus...@dingoblue.net.au) wrote:
> > >
> > > > <dennis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:8eqndt$imt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >
> > > > > So, in
> > > > > effect, the F-22 can do what the F-111 can do, but more cheaply.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dennis
> > >
> > > > Given that Aust already owns F-111s and cannot afford the currently unproven
> > > > F-22 - according to the USAF flyaway cost is $85 million USD or $143.5565
> > > > million AUD (at current rates) PER PLANE (in reality it will almost
> > > > certainly exceed that cost), it seems very unlikely that it could do the job
> > > > more cheaply than even a new Typhoon let alone an in service aircraft fitted
> > > > with cruise missiles.
> > >
> > > Various people around Russell are still talking about building 50 new
> > > F-111s at ~$65 million each.
> > >
> > David, this is a curious story to say the least. I doubt that reopening
> > the F-111 line decades after its shutdown would result in a USD 65M
> > airframe :-)
>
Given that we do not have the manufacturing capability to process the
D6AC steel used in all of the key structural elements, let alone the
various doubly contoured honeycomb panels widely used throughout the
structure, the idea of building them down here is not very credible.
Whoever your source is, he has not been studying the problem very
carefully. Even the F/A-18 assembly job down here largely relied on
imported components and assemblies, and the F-111 is a structurally much
more complex airframe.
I suspect this story is a canard, David, it is as simple as that.
>
> > However, at 3/4 the cost of an F-22 I'd sooner go out and buy 38 F-22s
> > for the money.
>
> 38 F-22s can't carry the same weight of bombs as 38 F-111s, let alone 50.
> I'd sooner see 50 F-111s than 38 F-22s any day.
If your F-111s all get shot down in the first week, then you have not
chosen well :-) The typical deep strike weapons load of the F-111 is a
pair of guided bombs, just like the deep strike loadout for the F-22 is
pair of guided bombs :-)
Another issue to consider is precision, and all weather capability. The
F-22 with JDAMs can bomb under weather conditions where the Paevway/Pave
Tack combo is useless. Accuracy is about the same for both.
The only scenario where the F-111 does better is an unopposed (or low
tech) opponent, under good weather conditions, where you need to perform
an area attack. In any heavily defended situation, or any seriously bad
weather (ie the monsoon season in SEA), the F-22 is well ahead.
>
> Use the right tool for the right job. The F-22 is an air dominance fighter
> with _some_ attack capability. The F-111 is a bomber. There is simply no
> comparison.
I must disagree here. The USAF intend to use it as a wholly multirole
fighter. It will eventually replace the Beagle, which is the primary
F-111 replacement in USAF service, and also the F-117A, which replaced
the F-111 as the unescorted deep strike asset.
The reason why we bought the F-111 was for the deep strike mission,
which our govt calls "strategic deterrence / land strike". That in 10-15
years time will the done by the USAF using the F-22. We later adapted
the F-111 for maritime strike, and then applied it to precision air
support (PAS). The USAF are already planning to use the F-22 for Scud
Hunting and battlefield interdiction, the same style of mission.
Adapting it for maritime strike requires only a seeker equipped JDAM
variant.
The F-111 was designed in the days predating the LGB and JDAM, and was
sized for a weapon tonnage commensurate with dumb bomb deliveries. The
extra capacity in tonnage is not that useful these days. Accuracy and
adverse weather ops are more important.
The other issue is productivity - one F-22 can put in twice as many
sorties per day that an F-111 since it supercruises at about twice the
subsonic cruise speed of an F-111. Therefore twice as many sorties means
twice as many targets. If you load up a Pig with 4 pylons of bombs, you
lose range and performance.
We bought the F-111 in the early sixties with the intent to drop nukes
on Indonesia, were the need to have arisen. Things turned out
differently.
The strategic environment has since changed. We are not facing a Soviet
backed and armed Sukarno govt intent on gobbling up territory. Rather we
can expect to see the PRC and India trying to extend their influence in
a basketcase SEA. Both are getting A-50 AWACS, India is getting the
Tu-22M3 Backfire, both are getting the Su-30MK, the PRC has orders for
300 or so Su-27SK, both are designing and building their own IRBMs and
TELARs, with the range to hit us from SEA. The strategic deterrence
model devised to stop Sukarno is now irrelevant. What we need to be
deterring is projection of air power and naval power by the PRC and
India into SEA. Therefore we will need a top end air dominance
capability, as well as deep strike capability, to be credible, and
strategic tankers.
Cheers,
Carlo
Keith Willshaw
<dennis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8etmhk$sbj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
>
> First, you have obviously ignored the issue of supercruise-you get more
> missions per
> unit time with the F-22, as Carlo has pointed out. Next, you have the
> fact that the
> stores on the F-111 are carried externally-think of what that does to
> payload-range.
You seem to be asssuming that the F-22 will carry all stores internally
While this is doubtless true for Air to Air Missiles is this
also true for Bombs ?
Keith
Yama
>
> Yama wrote:
> >
> > For comparison, Fennoscandian countries spend 1.5-2%, despite facing
> > much more acute short-term threat. Slightly more money would be nice
> > but 5% would be quite extreme. I don't think even Swedes ever spent
> > 5% at height of the Cold War, when their military was one of the
> > most powerful in Europe.
>
> The big difference Tommi is the geography. We run up big overheads in
> transportation, whatever we do. That does make a big difference since it
> is a systemic overhead which every service has to wear. Also in
> Scandinavia you do not have to invest heavily in blue water naval
> assets, or long range airpower. We have a continent the size of the
> ConUS to defend with a population of about 20M.
Well, Nordic countries are also rather largish with small
population. And Sweden has quite capable navy with no less than
ten submarines. I agree there still is lot of differences, but 5%
sounds like considerable exaggaration.
> Interesting statistic - the public in this country spends a similar
> order of magnitude amount annually on gambling as the govt spends on the
> defence budget, or the university education system budget.
Make the gambling state-controlled monopoly like here:)
>
> I am not sure that a basketcase Russia qualifies as a threat in
> Scandinavia.
But more so than Indonesia to Australia:)
Let's face it, while there surely is prospect for arms race in
Asia, none of the players there have any real interest towards Oz
now nor any of them have capability to threat you, other than
ballistic missiles. This may change but it will take at least a
decade.
My amateur opinion is that your current defence spending is just
fine (at least it's more than Kiwi's :), and if situation changes
you will have sufficient time to prepare. Even with fully
recognizing dangers of waiting for too long before acting (that
costed us dearly in 1939).
> Who else is there ?
Umm...well there is NATO *evil grin*
Carlo Kopp
>
> Carlo Kopp wrote:
> >
> > Yama wrote:
> > >
> > > For comparison, Fennoscandian countries spend 1.5-2%, despite facing
> > > much more acute short-term threat. Slightly more money would be nice
> > > but 5% would be quite extreme. I don't think even Swedes ever spent
> > > 5% at height of the Cold War, when their military was one of the
> > > most powerful in Europe.
> >
> > The big difference Tommi is the geography. We run up big overheads in
> > transportation, whatever we do. That does make a big difference since it
> > is a systemic overhead which every service has to wear. Also in
> > Scandinavia you do not have to invest heavily in blue water naval
> > assets, or long range airpower. We have a continent the size of the
> > ConUS to defend with a population of about 20M.
>
> Well, Nordic countries are also rather largish with small
> population. And Sweden has quite capable navy with no less than
> ten submarines. I agree there still is lot of differences, but 5%
> sounds like considerable exaggaration.
5% would allow some great toys :-) Seriously though we could almost
certainly get by on about 3.5%, mayvbe with some minor excursions for
big purchases.
>
> > Interesting statistic - the public in this country spends a similar
> > order of magnitude amount annually on gambling as the govt spends on the
> > defence budget, or the university education system budget.
>
> Make the gambling state-controlled monopoly like here:)
Bad enough with the state govt's addicted to the revenue :-(
>
> >
> > I am not sure that a basketcase Russia qualifies as a threat in
> > Scandinavia.
>
> But more so than Indonesia to Australia:)
Get overrun by starving refugees :-(
>
> Let's face it, while there surely is prospect for arms race in
> Asia, none of the players there have any real interest towards Oz
> now nor any of them have capability to threat you, other than
> ballistic missiles. This may change but it will take at least a
> decade.
The next decade is indeed critical, since the arms buying spree by China
and India will see most of the purchases fielded and mature by about
2010.
The dangers are twofold - the PRC or India destabilising SEA resulting
in two possible disaster scenarios, either a deluge of boat people, or
even worse air and naval, or IRBM, basing by either in SEA which does
put them within comfortable bombing / IRBM range of our north. We lost a
lot of personnel during the last 60 years keeping the bad guys out of
SEA, and letting it happen now means a lot of it would have been for
nothing.
Much of our shipping and commercial air traffic routes go through SEA -
blocking them would cost us a fortune economically.
Basically trouble in SEA causes us headaches down here and should really
be pre-empted or deterred.
>
> My amateur opinion is that your current defence spending is just
> fine (at least it's more than Kiwi's :), and if situation changes
> you will have sufficient time to prepare. Even with fully
> recognizing dangers of waiting for too long before acting (that
> costed us dearly in 1939).
Unfortunately the current spending is so low (~1.8%) that we are having
serious difficulties in keeping personnel numbers above critical mass,
and training time to maintain or even develop competencies. The DoD has
been selling off its real estate assets as hard as it can to try to
raise cash. Timor will amount to several billion. This is well aside
from equipment replacements.
Our reservists apparently bring a lot of their own kit from home, since
the Army can't supply it :-( Last year we lost an F-111 due to a
proficiency problem from inadequate flying time. Too many accidents from
insufficient training time.
Warning time we no longer have - Timor was the warning of SEA becoming
unstable. Things could change very rapidly at any time now in SEA.
>
> > Who else is there ?
>
> Umm...well there is NATO *evil grin*
Heh heh, first Belgrade, now Helsinki ...
Cheers,
Carlo
NE1outheir
>Unfortunately here's the hole big enough to drive a truck through in
>your arguement, "real campaign" = "long protracted war" and we don't
>get too many of those.
Yes but the hole in your arguement that Australia should only have medium
capabilities for short wars have problems, what happens if a long, protracted
war comes up? If you have the capability to wage a long, protracted war, then
you have the capablity to do many things that are short of such a scenerio, but
the converse does not apply.
Matt
Dennis Jensen
David Bromage wrote:
> Carlo Kopp (Carlo.Ko...@aus.net) wrote:
> > David Bromage wrote:
> > >
> > > L'acrobat (hus...@dingoblue.net.au) wrote:
> > >
> > > > <dennis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:8eqndt$imt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >
> > > > > So, in
> > > > > effect, the F-22 can do what the F-111 can do, but more cheaply.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dennis
> > >
> > > > Given that Aust already owns F-111s and cannot afford the currently unproven
> > > > F-22 - according to the USAF flyaway cost is $85 million USD or $143.5565
> > > > million AUD (at current rates) PER PLANE (in reality it will almost
> > > > certainly exceed that cost), it seems very unlikely that it could do the job
> > > > more cheaply than even a new Typhoon let alone an in service aircraft fitted
> > > > with cruise missiles.
> > >
> > > Various people around Russell are still talking about building 50 new
> > > F-111s at ~$65 million each.
> > >
> > David, this is a curious story to say the least. I doubt that reopening
> > the F-111 line decades after its shutdown would result in a USD 65M
> > airframe :-)
>
> They would be built under licence in Australia.
>
How is this going to make it cheaper? Most, if not all, of the tooling is gone. Then
you have the costs of systems integration (you won't have the same systems you had
originally, even if they were available). Put it this way, do you think that you could
reintroduce the HQ Kinswood (Australian content, the HQ was an early 1970's car),
build 2000 of them, and sell them for $25 000? Tests the bounds of credibility.
>
> > However, at 3/4 the cost of an F-22 I'd sooner go out and buy 38 F-22s
> > for the money.
>
> 38 F-22s can't carry the same weight of bombs as 38 F-111s, let alone 50.
> I'd sooner see 50 F-111s than 38 F-22s any day.
>
First, you have obviously ignored the issue of supercruise-you get more missions per
unit time with the F-22, as Carlo has pointed out. Next, you have the fact that the
stores on the F-111 are carried externally-think of what that does to payload-range.
Next, there is the issue of going in against well defended targets, the F-111 has to
go low, which puts you in among the trash fire, you are still at risk (all of this
Carlo has mentioned), and one that Carlo didn't mention, the fact that you are low
kills your payload range.
Give me the 38 F-22's any day. They can do the F-111's job, and a lot more besides.
The days of hauling lots and lots of dumb iron are gone.
Dennis
>
> Use the right tool for the right job. The F-22 is an air dominance fighter
> with _some_ attack capability. The F-111 is a bomber. There is simply no
> comparison.
>
> Cheers
> David
Dennis Jensen
Keith Willshaw wrote:
> <dennis_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8etmhk$sbj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > First, you have obviously ignored the issue of supercruise-you get more
> > missions per
> > unit time with the F-22, as Carlo has pointed out. Next, you have the
> > fact that the
> > stores on the F-111 are carried externally-think of what that does to
> > payload-range.
>
> You seem to be asssuming that the F-22 will carry all stores internally
>
> While this is doubtless true for Air to Air Missiles is this
> also true for Bombs ?
>
> Keith
It is the case for many/most of the munitions the F-22 will carry (such as
JDAMs).
Dennis
John Cook
<Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
<snip>
Hmm these always turn into highly specific senarios but here goes....
>The cost issue has to be considered in terms of total lifecycle cost,
>expended munitions costs for likely campaigns, and aircraft productivity
>in terms of sorties per combat radius per time.
>
>If you compare the F-22 against new build teen series or Eurocanards on
>this basis, you will find that the unit cost differences between a USD
>45-55M conventional fighter, against a USD ~80-90M F-22 are arguably
>irrelevent.
>Let's assume your standoff weapon costs USD 1M per unit (including
>support, integration, targeting etc). A conventional fighter has to
>shoot off a mere 25 to 45 standoff weapons for the cost difference to
>amortised ! Now assume your fighter shoots two such standoff weapons per
>day, you have amortised the cost difference in a mere 12.5 to 22.5 days,
>or 2-3 weeks. At the end of these 2-3 weeks or air war you have a
>conventional fighter beginning to cost more than the F-22 does, in terms
>of total capability costs, asusming you have the warstocks of standoff
>missiles to keep up the effort.
Do you realise that not even the US airforce has put up that kind of
barrage, even if you take the smallest numbers like 40 aircraft and
they each shot off 25 weapons each thats over 1000 guided weapons!!
_before_ the your break even point.
As for your time of 12 to 25 days thats quite a long first day of
war in anyones book.......
I now see your arguement - we need a big war to begin justifying the
F22.
>
>There is also the productivity issue, since an F-22 can transit to
>targets at twice the speed, so you can get twice as many missions into
>the same cycle, and it is also very good in terms of maintenance
>man-hours per flight hour. That was a USAF requirement.
twice the speed of what? if the F22 cruises at M1.5 everything else
must be M.8 or less!!!?
>So the argument that the F-22 is more expensive is quite dubious, and
>unless all you want is a hangar queen show pony you never fly into
>combat, the F-22 (and JSF) work out cheaper in the long run.
I'm still not convinced!!.
>If you start factoring in costs for strike packaging, which is extra
>fighter escorts, SEAD shooters etc, then the equation tilts even further
>in favour of the F-22 (and JSF).
Why would need all that for CASOMs strikes.
>The USAF have made a major commitment to the F-22 and this is for very
>good reasons. There is more than enough accumulated experience with the
>F-117 and B-2 to prove that the "stealth + cheap JDAM" model beats the
>"unstealthy fighter + standoff weapon" model in "real campaign"
>economics.
Unfortunately here's the hole big enough to drive a truck through in
your arguement, "real campaign" = "long protracted war" and we don't
get too many of those.
>
>There isn't really that much more to this issue. In the real world the
>F-22 works out cheaper, long term.
I would like to see some actual figures, that are based on likely
events not worst case senarios.
>Cheers,
BTW Good to see you back Carlo.
Cheers
>
>Carlo
John Cook
Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
Eurofighter website:-
Carlo Kopp
>
> On Thu, 04 May 2000 21:10:40 +0000, Carlo Kopp
> <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Hmm these always turn into highly specific senarios but here goes....
Hello John, long time no argument :-)
>
> >The cost issue has to be considered in terms of total lifecycle cost,
> >expended munitions costs for likely campaigns, and aircraft productivity
> >in terms of sorties per combat radius per time.
> >
> >If you compare the F-22 against new build teen series or Eurocanards on
> >this basis, you will find that the unit cost differences between a USD
> >45-55M conventional fighter, against a USD ~80-90M F-22 are arguably
> >irrelevent.
>
> >Let's assume your standoff weapon costs USD 1M per unit (including
> >support, integration, targeting etc). A conventional fighter has to
> >shoot off a mere 25 to 45 standoff weapons for the cost difference to
> >amortised ! Now assume your fighter shoots two such standoff weapons per
> >day, you have amortised the cost difference in a mere 12.5 to 22.5 days,
> >or 2-3 weeks. At the end of these 2-3 weeks or air war you have a
> >conventional fighter beginning to cost more than the F-22 does, in terms
> >of total capability costs, asusming you have the warstocks of standoff
> >missiles to keep up the effort.
>
> Do you realise that not even the US airforce has put up that kind of
> barrage, even if you take the smallest numbers like 40 aircraft and
> they each shot off 25 weapons each thats over 1000 guided weapons!!
> _before_ the your break even point.
> As for your time of 12 to 25 days thats quite a long first day of
> war in anyones book.......
>
> I now see your arguement - we need a big war to begin justifying the
> F22.
>
If you are up against half decent air defences, and you cannot afford to
lose fighters to AAA and SAMs, then if you are using conventional
fighters you have to shoot standoff weapons.
Now as you correctly point out, we could never afford the warstocks of
cruise missiles to shoot them day after day for 2-3 weeks. The
implication of this is simple - we run out of standoff missiles in the
first few days.
What happens then ? We fly our conventional fighters into SAMs and AAA
and start losing them. Lose a dozen and you have cost yourself the
difference in price against having bought 24 F-22s instead of 24
conventional jets. And you have lost 24 pilots which cannot replace
quickly. And you may not have won the war yet. The bad guys get a morale
boost every time they shoot down one of ours, and we get the media at
home screaming about our military incompetence in having lost them. And
you have cost yourself, not to forget, the cost of all of the
standoff/cruise missiles you fired off.
On the other hand if we are using F-22s, we can deliver as many JDAMs as
we need and never run out since they are dirt cheap.
So my answer here is that any war which lasts longer than several days
and involves anything beyond trivial defences favours the use of an
F-22, which you can always use in lesser contingencies.
> >
> >There is also the productivity issue, since an F-22 can transit to
> >targets at twice the speed, so you can get twice as many missions into
> >the same cycle, and it is also very good in terms of maintenance
> >man-hours per flight hour. That was a USAF requirement.
>
> twice the speed of what? if the F22 cruises at M1.5 everything else
> must be M.8 or less!!!?
We were comparing against the F-11 which cruises at M0.75, precisely
half of M1.5 :-) I doubt that any conventional fighter loaded to the
gills with external gas, CFTs and bombs cruises that much faster than an
F-111 :-)
>
> >So the argument that the F-22 is more expensive is quite dubious, and
> >unless all you want is a hangar queen show pony you never fly into
> >combat, the F-22 (and JSF) work out cheaper in the long run.
>
> I'm still not convinced!!.
You will never be convinced, John, since you adore the Typhoon.
>
> >If you start factoring in costs for strike packaging, which is extra
> >fighter escorts, SEAD shooters etc, then the equation tilts even further
> >in favour of the F-22 (and JSF).
>
> Why would need all that for CASOMs strikes.
Because our Russian friends built the Su-27/30 to carry about ten tonnes
of internal gas, which means that they can intercept you 800 NMI out.
Given that you cannot easily buy cruise missiles with more than 400 NMI
of range, odds are you will be fighting your way through Su-27/30 CAPs
to get to the IP for your cruise missile shots. Assuming we haven't yet
run out of standoff or cruise missiles :-)
>
> >The USAF have made a major commitment to the F-22 and this is for very
> >good reasons. There is more than enough accumulated experience with the
> >F-117 and B-2 to prove that the "stealth + cheap JDAM" model beats the
> >"unstealthy fighter + standoff weapon" model in "real campaign"
> >economics.
>
> Unfortunately here's the hole big enough to drive a truck through in
> your arguement, "real campaign" = "long protracted war" and we don't
> get too many of those.
Protracted in the context of 3 days worth of cruise missile stocks is
anything longer than 3 days, John.
The last two major air wars were of 6 weeks and 10 weeks duration, or
thereabouts. Indeed the USAF ran out of CALCMs last year, and was
running short of AGM-130s are well.
>
> >
> >There isn't really that much more to this issue. In the real world the
> >F-22 works out cheaper, long term.
>
> I would like to see some actual figures, that are based on likely
> events not worst case senarios.
Given the last decade's events, trying to guess likelihoods is not a
very good idea. What is obvious is that the lead time to field anything
these days is so long, that you have no hope of rearming in time with
something better if you make the wrong choice in the first place. Ie you
lose :-)
The only safe strategy is to look at worst case scenarios or similar,
and force structure for the minimal capability to prevail under such
conditions. That also gives you credible deterrence.
Most wars arise because somebody sees or thinks he sees military
weakness, and tries to exploit it.
>
> >Cheers,
>
> BTW Good to see you back Carlo.
>
Likewise.
Cheers,
Carlo
John Cook
Hi Matt
But if you apply that to defence in general we would have B2 bombers,
a couple of carriers, a couple of hundred Challenger II tanks(with the
new gearbox), and nuclear powered subs too.
Then there's all the satellites and other intel that doesn't come
cheap but is invaluable....
And what if it goes Nuclear, we must have some as a deterrent!!!
Now how would sir like to pay?, cash or credit!!!!!
>>From: John Cook Jwc...@fishinternet.com.au
>
>>Unfortunately here's the hole big enough to drive a truck through in
>>your arguement, "real campaign" = "long protracted war" and we don't
>>get too many of those.
>
>Yes but the hole in your arguement that Australia should only have medium
>capabilities for short wars have problems, what happens if a long, protracted
>war comes up? If you have the capability to wage a long, protracted war, then
>you have the capablity to do many things that are short of such a scenerio, but
>the converse does not apply.
>
>Matt
John Cook
David Bromage
> The last two major air wars were of 6 weeks and 10 weeks duration, or
> thereabouts. Indeed the USAF ran out of CALCMs last year, and was
> running short of AGM-130s are well.
Stockpiles have never needed to be big enough for a 6-10 week war. I doubt
that an all out NATO vs Warsaw Pact conflict would have lasted 6 weeks. Or
even 6 days. Anybody game to say 6 hours?
Cheers
David
L'acrobat
"Dennis Jensen" <dennis...@dsto.defence.gov.au> wrote in message
> > That's what stand off weapons are for.
>
> Which, as Carlo has pointed out, are very expensive. Far cheaper using a
$20
> 000 tailkit to get the JDAM than standoff weapons costing $100 000+ each.
> Furthermore, what happens if the high treat zone is large enough so that
your
> standoff weapons don't have the range to just pop them off outside the
zone?
> Additionally, the F-111 has to go low and fast to be survivable. That, in
> conjunction with external stores, does very bad things to your range. So,
in
> effect, the F-22 can do what the F-111 can do, but more cheaply.
No, we already own the F-111 and when you do the USAF cost estimates @ $143
million AUD per plane plus all the associated new plane, spares and training
costs the F22 is simply not affordable, let alone competitive for Aust.
Remember "stealth skins" cost more to fix if even slightly damaged (or you
lose the stealth) and the a/c itself is still vulnerable to pilot error,
golden BBs and mechanical failure @ $143 mill a pop.
In any credible Australian scenario the Typhoon is a better buy dollar for
dollar than the F22.
Aust cannot afford a reasonable number of F22s
L'acrobat
capable
> as well. Genuine supercruise,
As opposed to?
>genuine stealth,
At much greater genuine cost.
>longer legs.
Yet to be proven, but if correct offset by the ability to afford more
Typhoons for the same cost.
> Start loading
> stealth CALCMs onto Typhoon and it is no longer so cheap.
Do you really believe the RAAF would be sending $143million dollar air
superiority fighters (that they could only afford a small number of) in
close to bomb?
>Then you have the
> issue of Typhoon being closer to obsolescence than F-22,
Another way of phrasing that is "The Typhoon is closer to being an in
service, operational aircraft than the currently unproven F22.
John Cook
<Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
>John Cook wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 04 May 2000 21:10:40 +0000, Carlo Kopp
>> <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Hmm these always turn into highly specific senarios but here goes....
>
>Hello John, long time no argument :-)
<snip>
>> >Let's assume your standoff weapon costs USD 1M per unit (including
>> >support, integration, targeting etc). A conventional fighter has to
>> >shoot off a mere 25 to 45 standoff weapons for the cost difference to
>> >amortised ! Now assume your fighter shoots two such standoff weapons per
>> >day, you have amortised the cost difference in a mere 12.5 to 22.5 days,
>> >or 2-3 weeks. At the end of these 2-3 weeks or air war you have a
>> >conventional fighter beginning to cost more than the F-22 does, in terms
>> >of total capability costs, asusming you have the warstocks of standoff
>> >missiles to keep up the effort.
>>
>> Do you realise that not even the US airforce has put up that kind of
>> barrage, even if you take the smallest numbers like 40 aircraft and
>> they each shot off 25 weapons each thats over 1000 guided weapons!!
>> _before_ the your break even point.
>> As for your time of 12 to 25 days thats quite a long first day of
>> war in anyones book.......
>>
>> I now see your arguement - we need a big war to begin justifying the
>> F22.
>>
>If you are up against half decent air defences, and you cannot afford to
>lose fighters to AAA and SAMs, then if you are using conventional
>fighters you have to shoot standoff weapons.
>
>Now as you correctly point out, we could never afford the warstocks of
>cruise missiles to shoot them day after day for 2-3 weeks. The
>implication of this is simple - we run out of standoff missiles in the
>first few days.
We are comparing prices of the F22 Vs Eurocanards/teen series, if we
cannot afford the alternatives to the F22 plus the weapons it stands
to reason that we cannot afford the F22 without the weapons.
the price is the same!!!.
You also forgot for that price you still do not get any weapons for
the F22, add another 20-40 million in JDAMS cost, and that price will
be much higher if each mini JDAM cannot match each CASOMs one for one
in accuracy or damage.
>What happens then ? We fly our conventional fighters into SAMs and AAA
>and start losing them. Lose a dozen and you have cost yourself the
>difference in price against having bought 24 F-22s instead of 24
>conventional jets. And you have lost 24 pilots which cannot replace
>quickly. And you may not have won the war yet. The bad guys get a morale
>boost every time they shoot down one of ours, and we get the media at
>home screaming about our military incompetence in having lost them. And
>you have cost yourself, not to forget, the cost of all of the
>standoff/cruise missiles you fired off.
Your tenuous arguments would only be partly valid in the
aforementioned set of rare and exceptional circumstances, its hardly
the best way to formulate aircraft requirements you'll must to agree.
Any commander that would order flying into SAMs and AAA barrages in a
blood and guts campaign would be disastrous to Eurocanards as well as
the F22 aircraft.
A good commander would play on each aircrafts strengths not on its
weakness, I could counter that arguement with an equally invalid "The
F22 is useless for CAS" and that by the time you'd lost four of five
to MANPADS the population would be asking why did we spend all tht
money on a crap CAS aircraft.....
>On the other hand if we are using F-22s, we can deliver as many JDAMs as
>we need and never run out since they are dirt cheap.
You can still deliver JDAMs with other aircraft! the Eurocanards don't
just carry CASOMs. its just a good idea on the first day of war.
>So my answer here is that any war which lasts longer than several days
>and involves anything beyond trivial defences favours the use of an
>F-22, which you can always use in lesser contingencies.
In general I agree, given the same numbers of aircraft and weapons
availability, the caveat is you cannot do it for the same cost....
>> >
>> >There is also the productivity issue, since an F-22 can transit to
>> >targets at twice the speed, so you can get twice as many missions into
>> >the same cycle, and it is also very good in terms of maintenance
>> >man-hours per flight hour. That was a USAF requirement.
>>
>> twice the speed of what? if the F22 cruises at M1.5 everything else
>> must be M.8 or less!!!?
>
>We were comparing against the F-11 which cruises at M0.75, precisely
>half of M1.5 :-) I doubt that any conventional fighter loaded to the
>gills with external gas, CFTs and bombs cruises that much faster than an
>F-111 :-)
It wasn't clear to me that it was the F111 you were refering to!,
however your assertion is only true for air to ground missions, a
eurocanard with air to air fit only, can fly at much greater speeds.
>> >So the argument that the F-22 is more expensive is quite dubious, and
>> >unless all you want is a hangar queen show pony you never fly into
>> >combat, the F-22 (and JSF) work out cheaper in the long run.
>>
>> I'm still not convinced!!.
>
>You will never be convinced, John, since you adore the Typhoon.
Adore is the wrong word, I'm very interested in it, as I am the F22. I
think "Keen" would have been a better word!!!
>> >If you start factoring in costs for strike packaging, which is extra
>> >fighter escorts, SEAD shooters etc, then the equation tilts even further
>> >in favour of the F-22 (and JSF).
>>
>> Why would need all that for CASOMs strikes.
>
>Because our Russian friends built the Su-27/30 to carry about ten tonnes
>of internal gas, which means that they can intercept you 800 NMI out.
>Given that you cannot easily buy cruise missiles with more than 400 NMI
>of range, odds are you will be fighting your way through Su-27/30 CAPs
>to get to the IP for your cruise missile shots. Assuming we haven't yet
>run out of standoff or cruise missiles :-)
Intercepting and getting a mission kill are two different things...
>> >The USAF have made a major commitment to the F-22 and this is for very
>> >good reasons. There is more than enough accumulated experience with the
>> >F-117 and B-2 to prove that the "stealth + cheap JDAM" model beats the
>> >"unstealthy fighter + standoff weapon" model in "real campaign"
>> >economics.
>>
>> Unfortunately here's the hole big enough to drive a truck through in
>> your arguement, "real campaign" = "long protracted war" and we don't
>> get too many of those.
>
>Protracted in the context of 3 days worth of cruise missile stocks is
>anything longer than 3 days, John.
Then buy 12 days worth if the regional situation deserves it, you
still come out ahead in cost....
If we cannot reduce an enemys IADS with 500 odd cruise missiles, plus
Assorted CASOMs for the first day of war, then we have picked a fight
well out of our league...
>
>The last two major air wars were of 6 weeks and 10 weeks duration, or
>thereabouts. Indeed the USAF ran out of CALCMs last year, and was
>running short of AGM-130s are well.
>>
>> >
>> >There isn't really that much more to this issue. In the real world the
>> >F-22 works out cheaper, long term.
>>
>> I would like to see some actual figures, that are based on likely
>> events not worst case senarios.
>
>Given the last decade's events, trying to guess likelihoods is not a
>very good idea. What is obvious is that the lead time to field anything
>these days is so long, that you have no hope of rearming in time with
>something better if you make the wrong choice in the first place. Ie you
>lose :-)
>
>The only safe strategy is to look at worst case scenarios or similar,
>and force structure for the minimal capability to prevail under such
>conditions. That also gives you credible deterrence.
and incredable costs, Russia gave a credable deterrance right upto the
time its economy couldn't keep pace with its perceived defence
requirements, From the wests point of view it was an economic mission
kill!!!.
>
>Most wars arise because somebody sees or thinks he sees military
>weakness, and tries to exploit it.
Thats where our location gives us a big edge, we should be more
focused on our Navy for a credable defence.
Cheers
>>
>> >Cheers,
>>
>> BTW Good to see you back Carlo.
>>
>Likewise.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Carlo
John Cook
David Bromage
> In any credible Australian scenario the Typhoon is a better buy dollar for
> dollar than the F22.
I think the short list for Air 6000 will be the Typhoon, F-15E and F/A-18E/F.
This is solely to replace the existing F/A-18s.
As for replacing the F-111s, there isn't really anything of equal
capability. The Tornado would be useful in the short term, but isn't
really a long term solution. You can't replace a medium bomber with an air
dominance fighter.
Cheers
David
Yama
>
> Yama wrote:
> > But more so than Indonesia to Australia:)
>
> Get overrun by starving refugees :-(
You need F-22 to fend off them?
In any case, I take refugees over Guards Tank Divisions any day=)
Refugee scenario has been considered here too quite seriously,
btw. St Petersburg alone has population equal to whole Finland.
> Much of our shipping and commercial air traffic routes go through SEA -
> blocking them would cost us a fortune economically.
Yes, this is not irrelevant but it is more like national interest
than national existence. Finnish threat concepts quite often
include direct threat against national existence...
>
> Basically trouble in SEA causes us headaches down here and should really
> be pre-empted or deterred.
But supposing Indian and Chinese economies don't collapse, you
can't begin competing with them in power projection.
Keith Willshaw
>
>
> > You seem to be asssuming that the F-22 will carry all stores internally
> >
> > While this is doubtless true for Air to Air Missiles is this
> > also true for Bombs ?
> >
> > Keith
>
> It is the case for many/most of the munitions the F-22 will carry (such as
> JDAMs).
>
> Dennis
>
This is a less than straighforward answer
What payload CAN the F22 carry internally
Keith
John Cook
Bromage) wrote:
>L'acrobat (hus...@dingoblue.net.au) wrote:
>> In any credible Australian scenario the Typhoon is a better buy dollar for
>> dollar than the F22.
>
>I think the short list for Air 6000 will be the Typhoon, F-15E and F/A-18E/F.
>This is solely to replace the existing F/A-18s.
Hmmm I would strike the F15 out (too old), and add the F22 and JSF,
and also the Russians have briefed air staff on there kit!!!.
The Rafale would seem to be out, unless they sell them at a loss!!.
The F18E/F may do, but its not too much better than what we have .
The F22 is great for air to air, but too expensive.
The JSF is a dark horse, what are its strengths AA or AG what has its
stealth been optomised for?, stealth primarily for ground radars may
be a whole lot different to AA optomised stealth. How is the radar
setup biased? towards AA or AG.
and finally will it be ready? there are doubts that the program will
stay on track, perhaps a few years delay!!.
Only time will tell with the JSF, I would favor the STOVL model as the
benifits of operating environments would outweigh the performance
penalty.
The Typhoon seems to be the front runner as its available and its an
all rounder (I recommend getting a gun with it!), it is more expensive
when compared to the Teen series, but only marginally so with the
block 60 F16's.
The Russian jobbies will be interesting, I have no details on hand
what aircraft were briefed, but with modern western avionics they
could be formidable, If we could only afford the maintanence!!!.
There's the Gripen, but it may be too small for Ozzie requirements.
Thats the aircraft side of things, add in interoprability, offset
packages and a smidgen of politics and you now have no idea what will
be chosen :-)..
Cheers
>
>As for replacing the F-111s, there isn't really anything of equal
>capability. The Tornado would be useful in the short term, but isn't
>really a long term solution. You can't replace a medium bomber with an air
>dominance fighter.
>
>Cheers
>David
John Cook
Mick
>
>At much greater genuine cost.
>
>>longer legs.
>
>Yet to be proven, but if correct offset by the ability to afford more
>Typhoons for the same cost.
How?, going to leap frog off each other to extend range??
>> Start loading
>> stealth CALCMs onto Typhoon and it is no longer so cheap.
>
>Do you really believe the RAAF would be sending $143million dollar air
>superiority fighters (that they could only afford a small number of) in
>close to bomb?
>>Then you have the
>> issue of Typhoon being closer to obsolescence than F-22,
>
>Another way of phrasing that is "The Typhoon is closer to being an in
>service, operational aircraft than the currently unproven F22.
Proven how?, last I cheacked the inservice dates were 3 years
different (Typhoon 2002, F-22 2005)
>
>
>
>
Bill Norcott
> What payload CAN the F22 carry internally
>
> Keith
>
>
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-22-weaps-mg27.gif
Bill
--
"Wars have never hurt anybody except the people who die."
- Salvador Dali
Carlo Kopp
Now you are beginning to see why the DoD are in such turmoil, John. It
doesn't matter what you get, the required level of capability is going
to cost you. At least with the F-22 you are buying an investment with a
decent length of viable life cycle, which uses cheap munitions. Either
way you pay for what you get.
> You also forgot for that price you still do not get any weapons for
> the F22, add another 20-40 million in JDAMS cost, and that price will
> be much higher if each mini JDAM cannot match each CASOMs one for one
> in accuracy or damage.
1000-2000 JDAM rounds, ie 20-40M, is not a bad price. The same punch in
cruise or standoff missiles costs you about 0.5-1B. In terms of punch
the JDAMs are equal or better, and accuracy is mostly a function of
whether you are using WADGPS, straight platform referenced DGPS or PPS.
>
> >What happens then ? We fly our conventional fighters into SAMs and AAA
> >and start losing them. Lose a dozen and you have cost yourself the
> >difference in price against having bought 24 F-22s instead of 24
> >conventional jets. And you have lost 24 pilots which cannot replace
> >quickly. And you may not have won the war yet. The bad guys get a morale
> >boost every time they shoot down one of ours, and we get the media at
> >home screaming about our military incompetence in having lost them. And
> >you have cost yourself, not to forget, the cost of all of the
> >standoff/cruise missiles you fired off.
>
> Your tenuous arguments would only be partly valid in the
> aforementioned set of rare and exceptional circumstances, its hardly
> the best way to formulate aircraft requirements you'll must to agree.
> Any commander that would order flying into SAMs and AAA barrages in a
> blood and guts campaign would be disastrous to Eurocanards as well as
> the F22 aircraft.
Your argument doesn't hold here. If the bad guys are shooting IRBMs or
sortiing bombers against our territory, you have no choice than to
engage. At least with F-22s you have stealth and therefore you will not
have to chew your way through the Sukhois, SAMs and AAA the hard way.
> A good commander would play on each aircrafts strengths not on its
> weakness, I could counter that arguement with an equally invalid "The
> F22 is useless for CAS" and that by the time you'd lost four of five
> to MANPADS the population would be asking why did we spend all tht
> money on a crap CAS aircraft.....
If you flew the F-22 into the weeds you would be inane. For CAS you use
a JDAM with a terminal seeker and still drop from 40 kft. The F-111
performs precision CAS (PAS) from 25 kft dropping GBU-12s. That is RAAF
doctrine.
The problem with a conventional fighter is that once you have exhausted
your standoff missile stocks, you have no remaining strengths. You then
have put together great big packages of SEAD/DEAD shooters, standoff
jammers and fighter escorts and fight your way through to the target. So
the ratio of bombers then drops to 1/3 or 1/4 of the total package size.
You don't have this problem with F-22 or JSF, you simply go in solo like
the F-111 used to, 20 years ago.
>
> >On the other hand if we are using F-22s, we can deliver as many JDAMs as
> >we need and never run out since they are dirt cheap.
>
> You can still deliver JDAMs with other aircraft! the Eurocanards don't
> just carry CASOMs. its just a good idea on the first day of war.
Rather a good idea until the air defences are down. If the bad guys play
using Serbian tactics, you could be sniped at 10 weeks into the
campaign.
It is not the JDAM that is the issue, it is the stealthiness of the
bomber which matters, since it allows you to use the cheapo JDAM.
>
> >So my answer here is that any war which lasts longer than several days
> >and involves anything beyond trivial defences favours the use of an
> >F-22, which you can always use in lesser contingencies.
>
> In general I agree, given the same numbers of aircraft and weapons
> availability, the caveat is you cannot do it for the same cost....
The problem John is a simple one - to get the same capability you either
buy X conventional fighters or around X/2 stealthy fighters. The numbers
favour stealth. Do you think the USAF would have put up with as much
political bullying as they have unless they knew what they were doing
was correct ?
>
> >> >
> >> >There is also the productivity issue, since an F-22 can transit to
> >> >targets at twice the speed, so you can get twice as many missions into
> >> >the same cycle, and it is also very good in terms of maintenance
> >> >man-hours per flight hour. That was a USAF requirement.
> >>
> >> twice the speed of what? if the F22 cruises at M1.5 everything else
> >> must be M.8 or less!!!?
> >
> >We were comparing against the F-11 which cruises at M0.75, precisely
> >half of M1.5 :-) I doubt that any conventional fighter loaded to the
> >gills with external gas, CFTs and bombs cruises that much faster than an
> >F-111 :-)
>
> It wasn't clear to me that it was the F111 you were refering to!,
> however your assertion is only true for air to ground missions, a
> eurocanard with air to air fit only, can fly at much greater speeds.
The discussion was about bombing and the F-111 vs F-22. Given the ranges
up north we have to deal with, you would never see any conventional
fighter doing serious work without without external gas tanks, and that
includes the Typhoon. Indeed the last time I discussed the Typhoon with
BAe they were specifically proposing the use of CFTs to get the range
they needed, plus 2-3 drop tanks.
>
> >> >So the argument that the F-22 is more expensive is quite dubious, and
> >> >unless all you want is a hangar queen show pony you never fly into
> >> >combat, the F-22 (and JSF) work out cheaper in the long run.
> >>
> >> I'm still not convinced!!.
> >
> >You will never be convinced, John, since you adore the Typhoon.
>
> Adore is the wrong word, I'm very interested in it, as I am the F22. I
> think "Keen" would have been a better word!!!
Uncriticially enthusiastic is perhaps more precise. From my perspective,
the Typhoon is an aircraft which was frozen in basic configuration and
sizing in 1978 (openly stated by BAe last year at a conference), which
puts it conceptually quite firmly into the decade the teen series
entered service. In the meantime they have put a quite decent avionic
suite in, but it it not in the league of the F-22. It is a competitive
fighter against the F-15C/E/K, the F/A-18E/F and the F-16C/B60. Against
the others the relative capabilities depend on the specific engine and
avionic fit, and weapons fit. An F-15K with an AESA, Bold Stroke class
avionics, JHMCS and the latest 34 klb class growth F110 will probably
beat the baseline Typhoon on most pertinant specs.
>
> >> >If you start factoring in costs for strike packaging, which is extra
> >> >fighter escorts, SEAD shooters etc, then the equation tilts even further
> >> >in favour of the F-22 (and JSF).
> >>
> >> Why would need all that for CASOMs strikes.
> >
> >Because our Russian friends built the Su-27/30 to carry about ten tonnes
> >of internal gas, which means that they can intercept you 800 NMI out.
> >Given that you cannot easily buy cruise missiles with more than 400 NMI
> >of range, odds are you will be fighting your way through Su-27/30 CAPs
> >to get to the IP for your cruise missile shots. Assuming we haven't yet
> >run out of standoff or cruise missiles :-)
>
> Intercepting and getting a mission kill are two different things...
The point is that you have to budget with an interceptor force opposing
you. The nearer you need to get to the target, the more escorts and
tankers you will need. The costs then begin to snowball.
>
> >> >The USAF have made a major commitment to the F-22 and this is for very
> >> >good reasons. There is more than enough accumulated experience with the
> >> >F-117 and B-2 to prove that the "stealth + cheap JDAM" model beats the
> >> >"unstealthy fighter + standoff weapon" model in "real campaign"
> >> >economics.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately here's the hole big enough to drive a truck through in
> >> your arguement, "real campaign" = "long protracted war" and we don't
> >> get too many of those.
> >
> >Protracted in the context of 3 days worth of cruise missile stocks is
> >anything longer than 3 days, John.
>
> Then buy 12 days worth if the regional situation deserves it, you
> still come out ahead in cost....
Do you ? If you buy a conventional fighter and a thousand cruise
missiles, you still end up spending a fortune on progressive avionic and
weapon upgrades (and cruise missile upgrades) just to remain
competitive. The other guy puts on a missile with 15% more rnage, you
have to make yours 15% better to keep up. That is a loser's game.
Better to do what we did with the F-111, leapfrog the opposition and get
a good run out of the hardware long term.
>
> If we cannot reduce an enemys IADS with 500 odd cruise missiles, plus
> Assorted CASOMs for the first day of war, then we have picked a fight
> well out of our league...
You may have a fight thrust upon you, John, that is not something where
you can always choose how to play it. And cruise missiles require
targeting and BDA support, which a manned fighter needs much less of.
>
> >
> >The last two major air wars were of 6 weeks and 10 weeks duration, or
> >thereabouts. Indeed the USAF ran out of CALCMs last year, and was
> >running short of AGM-130s are well.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >There isn't really that much more to this issue. In the real world the
> >> >F-22 works out cheaper, long term.
> >>
> >> I would like to see some actual figures, that are based on likely
> >> events not worst case senarios.
> >
> >Given the last decade's events, trying to guess likelihoods is not a
> >very good idea. What is obvious is that the lead time to field anything
> >these days is so long, that you have no hope of rearming in time with
> >something better if you make the wrong choice in the first place. Ie you
> >lose :-)
> >
> >The only safe strategy is to look at worst case scenarios or similar,
> >and force structure for the minimal capability to prevail under such
> >conditions. That also gives you credible deterrence.
>
> and incredable costs, Russia gave a credable deterrance right upto the
> time its economy couldn't keep pace with its perceived defence
> requirements, From the wests point of view it was an economic mission
> kill!!!.
The Russians allowed themselves to be suckered into a game they were not
equipped to play, they had already bled themselves white financing the
Vietnam war, the various Cuban incursions into Africa, the Afghanistan
war, supporting various Middle Eastern crackpots etc. They were actually
in the stronger position around the late seventies in conventional
forces, but they then bled out since they had overextended themselves,
worldwide.
>
> >
> >Most wars arise because somebody sees or thinks he sees military
> >weakness, and tries to exploit it.
>
> Thats where our location gives us a big edge, we should be more
> focused on our Navy for a credable defence.
That I must disagree with. Air power is the historically proven most
efficient ship killing asset there is. Get a copy of July AA with my
maritime issues piece in it :-)
Cheers,
Carlo
Carlo Kopp
>
> Carlo Kopp wrote:
> >
> > Yama wrote:
> > > But more so than Indonesia to Australia:)
> >
> > Get overrun by starving refugees :-(
>
> You need F-22 to fend off them?
You use the F-22 to deter the strategic situation which causes them to
become refugees.
>
> In any case, I take refugees over Guards Tank Divisions any day=)
>
> Refugee scenario has been considered here too quite seriously,
> btw. St Petersburg alone has population equal to whole Finland.
10% of Indonesia's population would outnumber us :-( Imagine what
happens if they hop on their junks and sail South since they have
nothing to eat.
>
> > Much of our shipping and commercial air traffic routes go through SEA -
> > blocking them would cost us a fortune economically.
>
> Yes, this is not irrelevant but it is more like national interest
> than national existence. Finnish threat concepts quite often
> include direct threat against national existence...
>
We were bombed quite intensely by the JAAF and JNAF during WW2. We have
similar sensitivies to the invasion issue as you do - a small and fairly
wealthy country bordering very poor and large neighbours.
> >
> > Basically trouble in SEA causes us headaches down here and should really
> > be pre-empted or deterred.
>
> But supposing Indian and Chinese economies don't collapse, you
> can't begin competing with them in power projection.
We don't have to. We merely need enough capability to discourage them
from sending an expeditionary force into our neighbourhood. They are
much too big to fight in their neighbourhood.
Cheers,
Carlo
Carlo Kopp
> > thereabouts. Indeed the USAF ran out of CALCMs last year, and was
> > running short of AGM-130s are well.
>
> that an all out NATO vs Warsaw Pact conflict would have lasted 6 weeks. Or
> even 6 days. Anybody game to say 6 hours?
>
the intended use. In Allied Force the weather was frequently so bad the
laser guided bombs, of which there were ample stocks, were unusable.
That forced the use of cruise missiles and AGM-130s.
The Warpac vs NATO scenario has been debated ad infinitum on this NG.
The rate of effort would have seen much higher sortie rates than Desert
Storm and Allied Force, so stocks which would last you 6 weeks in the
1999 war would go in days in the Warpac vs NATO spat.
The consensus I have found amongst professional analysts is about two
weeks to break the SovBloc IADS and achieve air supremacy. At that point
the Sovs go nuclear.
Cheers,
Carlo
Keith Willshaw
Bill Norcott <wnor...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8f1uev$dgo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > What payload CAN the F22 carry internally
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> Keith, there is a diagram of F-22 payload at:
>
> http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-22-weaps-mg27.gif
>
> Bill
Thanks
Sorry guys but 2x1000lb bombs is NOT an impressive combat load
for a strike aircraft and yes I know the F-117 is no better.
GIven that Australia does not expect to need an aircraft capable of
penetrating highly sophisticated defense systems but may need
to haul a lot of bombs to a lower threat target I would have to
conclude this would be a bad choice. If nothing else they would need
2 or 3 F-22's to replace each F-111
Keith
John Cook
<Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> We are comparing prices of the F22 Vs Eurocanards/teen series, if we
>> cannot afford the alternatives to the F22 plus the weapons it stands
>> to reason that we cannot afford the F22 without the weapons.
>> the price is the same!!!.
>
>Now you are beginning to see why the DoD are in such turmoil, John. It
>doesn't matter what you get, the required level of capability is going
>to cost you. At least with the F-22 you are buying an investment with a
>decent length of viable life cycle, which uses cheap munitions. Either
>way you pay for what you get.
You do not _have_ to buy 1000 odd cruise missiles at all, you only
purchase a modest amount, until the regional situation deserves an
extra 500 million invested, you do not have this choice with the F22.
you pay the full amount straight up.
>> You also forgot for that price you still do not get any weapons for
>> the F22, add another 20-40 million in JDAMS cost, and that price will
>> be much higher if each mini JDAM cannot match each CASOMs one for one
>> in accuracy or damage.
>
>1000-2000 JDAM rounds, ie 20-40M, is not a bad price. The same punch in
>cruise or standoff missiles costs you about 0.5-1B. In terms of punch
>the JDAMs are equal or better, and accuracy is mostly a function of
>whether you are using WADGPS, straight platform referenced DGPS or PPS.
Thats correct, but if you have purchased the F22 you have already paid
that price up front, and I'll wager there will be a requirement for
the F22 to use Cruise missiles, in situations where its too hot even
for a stealth fighter to venture.
By your arguement the US will abandon cruise missiles when the F22 is
in service as they will simply be uneconomical!!!!.
I cannot see that happening.
>>
>> >What happens then ? We fly our conventional fighters into SAMs and AAA
>> >and start losing them. Lose a dozen and you have cost yourself the
>> >difference in price against having bought 24 F-22s instead of 24
>> >conventional jets. And you have lost 24 pilots which cannot replace
>> >quickly. And you may not have won the war yet. The bad guys get a morale
>> >boost every time they shoot down one of ours, and we get the media at
>> >home screaming about our military incompetence in having lost them. And
>> >you have cost yourself, not to forget, the cost of all of the
>> >standoff/cruise missiles you fired off.
>>
>> Your tenuous arguments would only be partly valid in the
>> aforementioned set of rare and exceptional circumstances, its hardly
>> the best way to formulate aircraft requirements you'll must to agree.
>> Any commander that would order flying into SAMs and AAA barrages in a
>> blood and guts campaign would be disastrous to Eurocanards as well as
>> the F22 aircraft.
>
>Your argument doesn't hold here. If the bad guys are shooting IRBMs or
>sortiing bombers against our territory, you have no choice than to
>engage. At least with F-22s you have stealth and therefore you will not
>have to chew your way through the Sukhois, SAMs and AAA the hard way.
The holes are Carlo with your mini force of F22's Australia is going
to find itself in trouble from the word go, 40 odd aircraft to defend
the top end, and mount offensive strikes to the north!!!!,
Quick bit of maths assuming the F22 is as good as the Marketing team
say's it is.
40 F22's to replace the 80 F18's - 30 to defend the top end (hopeless
with 30 airframes) 10 F22's flying 2 sorties per day (thats twice the
tempo you suggested for the Eurocanards) thats 20 targets per day = 50
days to put 1000 sites out of action, assuming 100% accuracy.
Same maths with 80 Eurocanards, 40 to defend the top end (25% better
odds of intercepting an inbound strike), 40 on strike missions with 2
x Casoms or 4 x bombs, thats 80 targets a day with only one sortie
per aircraft = a respectable 12.5 days kill 1000 sites.
I purposly weighted the figures in favor of the F22 with regard to
sorties, and it still comes up short.
What do you think the opposition is going to be doing in the other
37.5 days...
To sum up.
The cost issue will alway come back to haunt you, an F22 force with
only JDAMS is still going to cost the earth,and they _will_ require
CASOMs in addition.
The second gotcha is the numbers, not enough airframes, the F22 is
good, but not good enough to be in two places at once.
Casoms for the Typhoons need never be purchased in great quantitys, if
the region remains relativly stable, and Australia saves some tax
money !!!.
>> A good commander would play on each aircrafts strengths not on its
>> weakness, I could counter that arguement with an equally invalid "The
>> F22 is useless for CAS" and that by the time you'd lost four of five
>> to MANPADS the population would be asking why did we spend all tht
>> money on a crap CAS aircraft.....
>
>If you flew the F-22 into the weeds you would be inane. For CAS you use
>a JDAM with a terminal seeker and still drop from 40 kft. The F-111
>performs precision CAS (PAS) from 25 kft dropping GBU-12s. That is RAAF
>doctrine.
Wow you mean the airforces around the world have finally sorted out
how to tell the difference between tractors and army trucks from
25Kfeet .( let alone 40K feet.)
Any vehicule from that height is a dot, and blow me down they move
about a lot, unless your intel is less that 60 seconds old your asking
for trouble.
>The problem with a conventional fighter is that once you have exhausted
>your standoff missile stocks, you have no remaining strengths. You then
>have put together great big packages of SEAD/DEAD shooters, standoff
>jammers and fighter escorts and fight your way through to the target. So
>the ratio of bombers then drops to 1/3 or 1/4 of the total package size.
>You don't have this problem with F-22 or JSF, you simply go in solo like
>the F-111 used to, 20 years ago.
Eurocanards do not require the same level of support as present
aircraft, and even the F22 will require SEAD, much like the f117 does
now.
>> >You will never be convinced, John, since you adore the Typhoon.
>>
>> Adore is the wrong word, I'm very interested in it, as I am the F22. I
>> think "Keen" would have been a better word!!!
>
>Uncriticially enthusiastic is perhaps more precise. From my perspective,
>the Typhoon is an aircraft which was frozen in basic configuration and
>sizing in 1978 (openly stated by BAe last year at a conference), which
Hang on a min, basic configuration means size, weight, delta wing and
a canard!!!, the F22 also 'suffers' from a design decided in 1986.
the actual specs of these machines has changed remarkably in the last
decade.
>puts it conceptually quite firmly into the decade the teen series
>entered service. In the meantime they have put a quite decent avionic
>suite in, but it it not in the league of the F-22. It is a competitive
>fighter against the F-15C/E/K, the F/A-18E/F and the F-16C/B60. Against
>the others the relative capabilities depend on the specific engine and
>avionic fit, and weapons fit. An F-15K with an AESA, Bold Stroke class
>avionics, JHMCS and the latest 34 klb class growth F110 will probably
>beat the baseline Typhoon on most pertinant specs.
Thats the ultimate F15 at the end of its life cycle compared to an
aircraft just beginning, with the MLU the possibilities for the
Typhoon are enormous TVC a 30% thrust increase, AMSAR etc. please
compare like with like!!!
>> >> >The USAF have made a major commitment to the F-22 and this is for very
>> >> >good reasons. There is more than enough accumulated experience with the
>> >> >F-117 and B-2 to prove that the "stealth + cheap JDAM" model beats the
>> >> >"unstealthy fighter + standoff weapon" model in "real campaign"
>> >> >economics.
Whats the point of the FA18E/F then?, why do they need the JSF???. Can
we buy all the US's surplus cruise missile when the F22 makes them
obsolete???.
>>
>> If we cannot reduce an enemys IADS with 500 odd cruise missiles, plus
>> Assorted CASOMs for the first day of war, then we have picked a fight
>> well out of our league...
>
>You may have a fight thrust upon you, John, that is not something where
>you can always choose how to play it. And cruise missiles require
>targeting and BDA support, which a manned fighter needs much less of.
How does a JDAM know what its going to hit from 40K feet?, can't
explain that away with good pilot eyesight, BDA is required for both
sets of weapons.
>>
>> >
>> >The last two major air wars were of 6 weeks and 10 weeks duration, or
>> >thereabouts. Indeed the USAF ran out of CALCMs last year, and was
>> >running short of AGM-130s are well.
We cannot compete with the US, AFAIK we would not go in alone to the
Balkans or the Middle east!!!, so why try.
<snip>
>> >Most wars arise because somebody sees or thinks he sees military
>> >weakness, and tries to exploit it.
>>
>> Thats where our location gives us a big edge, we should be more
>> focused on our Navy for a credable defence.
We are an island, we are sorrounded by islands, we cannot win by
airpower alone.....
>That I must disagree with. Air power is the historically proven most
>efficient ship killing asset there is. Get a copy of July AA with my
>maritime issues piece in it :-)
Good plug, I probally will get a copy
CHEERS
L'acrobat
"John Cook" <Jwc...@fishinternet.com.au> wrote in message
>
> Thats the aircraft side of things, add in interoprability, offset
> packages and a smidgen of politics and you now have no idea what will
> be chosen :-)..
>
It's funny, a year ago I'd have said that the US a/c were in the front
running based on interoperability arguments, but since european nations
quickly sent troops to E.Timor when asked and the US sent bugger all and put
strict limits on the little support they did send, I would suggest that the
Typhoon now has the "interoperabilty" advantage - after all whats the point
of being able to operate with an ally if they don't turn up?
L'acrobat
"Mick" <e...@e.net.au> wrote in message
news:391438ba...@news.ruralnet.net.au...
> >>genuine stealth,
> >
> >At much greater genuine cost.
> >
> >>longer legs.
> >
> >Yet to be proven, but if correct offset by the ability to afford more
> >Typhoons for the same cost.
>
> How?, going to leap frog off each other to extend range??
Based at widely seperate locations, thereby covering at least the same area
(most likely nrthern Aust).
> >
> >Another way of phrasing that is "The Typhoon is closer to being an in
> >service, operational aircraft than the currently unproven F22.
>
> Proven how?, last I cheacked the inservice dates were 3 years
> different (Typhoon 2002, F-22 2005)
A hell of a lot more flight hours, already been tested firing missiles - to
cut a long list short it has satisfied 4 nations enough to begin production.
The F22 has already had its production numbers cut and is not yet out of the
woods.
Carlo Kopp
>
> On Sun, 07 May 2000 00:01:24 +0000, Carlo Kopp
> <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >>
> >> We are comparing prices of the F22 Vs Eurocanards/teen series, if we
> >> cannot afford the alternatives to the F22 plus the weapons it stands
> >> to reason that we cannot afford the F22 without the weapons.
> >> the price is the same!!!.
> >
> >Now you are beginning to see why the DoD are in such turmoil, John. It
> >doesn't matter what you get, the required level of capability is going
> >to cost you. At least with the F-22 you are buying an investment with a
> >decent length of viable life cycle, which uses cheap munitions. Either
> >way you pay for what you get.
>
> You do not _have_ to buy 1000 odd cruise missiles at all, you only
> purchase a modest amount, until the regional situation deserves an
> extra 500 million invested, you do not have this choice with the F22.
> you pay the full amount straight up.
Given the lead time to have hundreds of cruise missiles made up, you
could be waiting a number of years. Odds are it will be all over by
then. Safer to use cheap munitions since you can keep credible stocks.
>
> >> You also forgot for that price you still do not get any weapons for
> >> the F22, add another 20-40 million in JDAMS cost, and that price will
> >> be much higher if each mini JDAM cannot match each CASOMs one for one
> >> in accuracy or damage.
> >
> >1000-2000 JDAM rounds, ie 20-40M, is not a bad price. The same punch in
> >cruise or standoff missiles costs you about 0.5-1B. In terms of punch
> >the JDAMs are equal or better, and accuracy is mostly a function of
> >whether you are using WADGPS, straight platform referenced DGPS or PPS.
>
> Thats correct, but if you have purchased the F22 you have already paid
> that price up front, and I'll wager there will be a requirement for
> the F22 to use Cruise missiles, in situations where its too hot even
> for a stealth fighter to venture.
This does not follow. I cannot see any scenario where you would want to
use the F-22 as a cruise missile shooter, it was designed to penetrate
and survive in the nastiest conceivable environments.
As per my previous comment, you cannot afford to wait 3-5 years to get
your cruise missile warstocks delivered. You will have lost by then.
>
> By your arguement the US will abandon cruise missiles when the F22 is
> in service as they will simply be uneconomical!!!!.
> I cannot see that happening.
If the USAF had its way and got the 132 B-2As it asked for, then I doubt
the B-52 and CALCM would still be around. The CALCMs are refurbished
AGM-86B airframes, retired from the nuclear role. Don't get confused
about missions here, the B-52/CALCM combo was devised for rapid reaction
global reach type missions, to avoid having to deploy tactical jets.
Standoff weapons will remain in service until all of the non-stealthy
types are retired.
>
> >>
> >> >What happens then ? We fly our conventional fighters into SAMs and AAA
> >> >and start losing them. Lose a dozen and you have cost yourself the
> >> >difference in price against having bought 24 F-22s instead of 24
> >> >conventional jets. And you have lost 24 pilots which cannot replace
> >> >quickly. And you may not have won the war yet. The bad guys get a morale
> >> >boost every time they shoot down one of ours, and we get the media at
> >> >home screaming about our military incompetence in having lost them. And
> >> >you have cost yourself, not to forget, the cost of all of the
> >> >standoff/cruise missiles you fired off.
> >>
> >> Your tenuous arguments would only be partly valid in the
> >> aforementioned set of rare and exceptional circumstances, its hardly
> >> the best way to formulate aircraft requirements you'll must to agree.
> >> Any commander that would order flying into SAMs and AAA barrages in a
> >> blood and guts campaign would be disastrous to Eurocanards as well as
> >> the F22 aircraft.
> >
> >Your argument doesn't hold here. If the bad guys are shooting IRBMs or
> >sortiing bombers against our territory, you have no choice than to
> >engage. At least with F-22s you have stealth and therefore you will not
> >have to chew your way through the Sukhois, SAMs and AAA the hard way.
>
> The holes are Carlo with your mini force of F22's Australia is going
> to find itself in trouble from the word go, 40 odd aircraft to defend
> the top end, and mount offensive strikes to the north!!!!,
I never said 40 aircraft, John, you are inventing this number. In fact
should the govt decide to go for an F-22/JSF 2 tier force as I have
suggested, then the ratio will depend on the mission spectrum they work
up and simulations they run against it.
>
> Quick bit of maths assuming the F22 is as good as the Marketing team
> say's it is.
> 40 F22's to replace the 80 F18's - 30 to defend the top end (hopeless
> with 30 airframes) 10 F22's flying 2 sorties per day (thats twice the
> tempo you suggested for the Eurocanards) thats 20 targets per day = 50
> days to put 1000 sites out of action, assuming 100% accuracy.
I just love your arithmetic here :-) Firstly, if we are are in a DCA
scenario where we are needing to put up everything we have for DCA CAPs,
then you are unlikely to be in the position where you are also trying to
mount OCA strikes. So the model you are using is not really suitable.
>
> Same maths with 80 Eurocanards, 40 to defend the top end (25% better
> odds of intercepting an inbound strike),
This does not follow, John. If you are playing DCA and trying to defend
an area, what you are interested in is the footprint you can cover with
a single CAP responding to a vector. That is a basic metric, and a good
one for a low density environment like our north and SEA. Then the most
important parameter is the area you can cover per time, and that area is
proportional to the square of the distance, which is proportional to the
square of your TAS. Since the F-22 supercruises at about twice the
cruise speed of a conventional fighter, it defends about four times the
area per time. If a covnetional fighter trys to achieve the same
coverage it has got to sit in reheat to sustain such speed, and then the
radius it can cover actually shrinks.
> 40 on strike missions with 2
> x Casoms or 4 x bombs, thats 80 targets a day with only one sortie
> per aircraft = a respectable 12.5 days kill 1000 sites.
You are somehow forgetting the fact that you will need to allocate some
proportion of your strike force numbers to CAPs for escort and SEAD.
Therefore the ratio of shooters may actually only be 1/3 or at best 1/2
for a conventional fighter. Less escort perhaps if you are using cruise
missiles, since you won't need SEAD/SEAD, but then how long will your
cruise missile stocks last ?
>
> I purposly weighted the figures in favor of the F22 with regard to
> sorties, and it still comes up short.
This model you are using is broken so you cannot draw any conclusions
from it.
>
> What do you think the opposition is going to be doing in the other
> 37.5 days...
As above.
>
> To sum up.
> The cost issue will alway come back to haunt you, an F22 force with
> only JDAMS is still going to cost the earth,and they _will_ require
> CASOMs in addition.
This is not correct. You will get by perfectly well with stocks of
JDAMs. If you think you need standoff weapons, then you use a winged
JDAM like the Kerkanya or Diamondwing, that gives you more than enough
range for any known SAM system. A winged JDAM costs perhaps an extra
$10k per round, still peanuts against a cruise missile.
> The second gotcha is the numbers, not enough airframes, the F22 is
> good, but not good enough to be in two places at once.
You wholly disregard the ability of the F-22 to sit at 1.4 Mach
indefinitely, John. See above. You don't need to have "twice the
numbers" to do the job, you have about twice the sortie rate and
footprint coverage.
> Casoms for the Typhoons need never be purchased in great quantitys, if
> the region remains relativly stable, and Australia saves some tax
> money !!!.
If you do need them since things hav gone bad, then you will be in a
real pickle without decent warstocks, since your fighter force half-life
in combat dpends upon them.
>
> >> A good commander would play on each aircrafts strengths not on its
> >> weakness, I could counter that arguement with an equally invalid "The
> >> F22 is useless for CAS" and that by the time you'd lost four of five
> >> to MANPADS the population would be asking why did we spend all tht
> >> money on a crap CAS aircraft.....
> >
> >If you flew the F-22 into the weeds you would be inane. For CAS you use
> >a JDAM with a terminal seeker and still drop from 40 kft. The F-111
> >performs precision CAS (PAS) from 25 kft dropping GBU-12s. That is RAAF
> >doctrine.
>
> Wow you mean the airforces around the world have finally sorted out
> how to tell the difference between tractors and army trucks from
> 25Kfeet .( let alone 40K feet.)
The current trend is to use very high resolution SAR and NCTR capable
GMTI radars, supplemented by UAVs, to identify the targets and vector
the shooters. What happened in Kosovo happened because the systems used
were designed for a Cold War scenario. Don't forget you are looking at
futures here, which means 2010-2025 or later.
>
> Any vehicule from that height is a dot, and blow me down they move
> about a lot, unless your intel is less that 60 seconds old your asking
> for trouble.
If you intend to use 1960s concept weapons like the Paveway, in 2020,
then you deserve what you get :-)
>
> >The problem with a conventional fighter is that once you have exhausted
> >your standoff missile stocks, you have no remaining strengths. You then
> >have put together great big packages of SEAD/DEAD shooters, standoff
> >jammers and fighter escorts and fight your way through to the target. So
> >the ratio of bombers then drops to 1/3 or 1/4 of the total package size.
> >You don't have this problem with F-22 or JSF, you simply go in solo like
> >the F-111 used to, 20 years ago.
>
> Eurocanards do not require the same level of support as present
> aircraft, and even the F22 will require SEAD, much like the f117 does
> now.
Why do you say that Eurocanards require less support ? You end up with
1/2 to 2/3 of your Eurocanard strike force toting anti-radiation
missiles and extra gas and AAMs for escort and SEAD CAPs. That you are
using the one type of aircraft is immaterial, you still end up with the
same problem by tasking, if not by using specialised assets like
F-16/HARM and F-15C CAPs.
Also you cannot compare an F-117A penetrating at 500 KTAS and 15 kft
with an F-22A of similar RCS going in at 45 kft and 1.4M. The USAF plans
to use the F-22 as the SEAD/DEAD shooter to defend the conventional
fighters if required. Solo it will do perfectly fine.
>
> >> >You will never be convinced, John, since you adore the Typhoon.
> >>
> >> Adore is the wrong word, I'm very interested in it, as I am the F22. I
> >> think "Keen" would have been a better word!!!
> >
> >Uncriticially enthusiastic is perhaps more precise. From my perspective,
> >the Typhoon is an aircraft which was frozen in basic configuration and
> >sizing in 1978 (openly stated by BAe last year at a conference), which
>
> Hang on a min, basic configuration means size, weight, delta wing and
> a canard!!!, the F22 also 'suffers' from a design decided in 1986.
> the actual specs of these machines has changed remarkably in the last
> decade.
The big difference here is that the Eurocanards are merely incremental
technology steps against the teen series, similar in almost every
respect. The F-22 is entirely different, a large step in several areas
like proplusion, aerodynamics, signatures, avionics, radar, integration.
If it were not for the US legislature being silly over the aircraft, it
could have been in service several years ago.
>
> >puts it conceptually quite firmly into the decade the teen series
> >entered service. In the meantime they have put a quite decent avionic
> >suite in, but it it not in the league of the F-22. It is a competitive
> >fighter against the F-15C/E/K, the F/A-18E/F and the F-16C/B60. Against
> >the others the relative capabilities depend on the specific engine and
> >avionic fit, and weapons fit. An F-15K with an AESA, Bold Stroke class
> >avionics, JHMCS and the latest 34 klb class growth F110 will probably
> >beat the baseline Typhoon on most pertinant specs.
>
> Thats the ultimate F15 at the end of its life cycle compared to an
> aircraft just beginning, with the MLU the possibilities for the
> Typhoon are enormous TVC a 30% thrust increase, AMSAR etc. please
> compare like with like!!!
The difference John is that if I go out and buy an F-15E/K for delivery
in 2005 I get an active phased array, PowerPC/VME CPUs, and that 34 klb
engine. If I buy a Typhoon for delivery then I seriously doubt it will
have a mature and tested AMSAR and 30% higher thrust engines :-) A
testbed or prototype is not an operational system.
>
> >> >> >The USAF have made a major commitment to the F-22 and this is for very
> >> >> >good reasons. There is more than enough accumulated experience with the
> >> >> >F-117 and B-2 to prove that the "stealth + cheap JDAM" model beats the
> >> >> >"unstealthy fighter + standoff weapon" model in "real campaign"
> >> >> >economics.
>
> Whats the point of the FA18E/F then?, why do they need the JSF???. Can
> we buy all the US's surplus cruise missile when the F22 makes them
> obsolete???.
The JSF is designed around the same model as the F-22, except it is
intended to be cheaper and less capable, however it uses the same F119
engine core and stealth. In the bomb truck role it does about the same,
or slightly less than the F-22 due lesser agility (it has bigger bays
for the 2,000 lb JDAM in most variants).
What the point of the F/A-18E/F is, is a very good question indeed.
Let's say that is something the USN ought to explain themselves. They
could not afford the swing wing F-22N they wanted, and would not settle
for cheaper choices like blown flaps. They are now totally dependent
upon the JSF, if that program crashes and burns they are in deep
trouble.
> >>
> >> If we cannot reduce an enemys IADS with 500 odd cruise missiles, plus
> >> Assorted CASOMs for the first day of war, then we have picked a fight
> >> well out of our league...
> >
> >You may have a fight thrust upon you, John, that is not something where
> >you can always choose how to play it. And cruise missiles require
> >targeting and BDA support, which a manned fighter needs much less of.
>
> How does a JDAM know what its going to hit from 40K feet?, can't
> explain that away with good pilot eyesight, BDA is required for both
> sets of weapons.
The difference here John is that fighters like the F-22 and JSF have
good SARs and can do a lot of their own BDA are target finding, since
they can go in solo. Don't be surprised if the USAF deploy an RF-22A in
a few years time, with cameras. You try to do BDA and recce with a
conventional fighter you have to use a package but substitute half a
dozen bombers with one recce bird. Too hard, espcially if the target is
deep.
The logic here is very simple: if your fighter can get to the target
easily then it can be used, with SAR or cameras, to cheaply provide its
own BDA and recce. If your fighter cannot get to the target and needs a
cruise missile, then you need other means for your recce and BDA, like
satellites, since any defence which can get your fighter will almost
certainly get most UAVs.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The last two major air wars were of 6 weeks and 10 weeks duration, or
> >> >thereabouts. Indeed the USAF ran out of CALCMs last year, and was
> >> >running short of AGM-130s are well.
>
> We cannot compete with the US, AFAIK we would not go in alone to the
> Balkans or the Middle east!!!, so why try.
Did I say we need to go into the Balkans or ME ? If current arms racing
trends between India and the PRC continue, we will have enough
difficulty discouraging either from playing games in SEA.
> <snip>
> >> >Most wars arise because somebody sees or thinks he sees military
> >> >weakness, and tries to exploit it.
> >>
> >> Thats where our location gives us a big edge, we should be more
> >> focused on our Navy for a credable defence.
>
> We are an island, we are sorrounded by islands, we cannot win by
> airpower alone.....
Air power is your best tool for this game. What happened in Malaya 1942
?
>
> >That I must disagree with. Air power is the historically proven most
> >efficient ship killing asset there is. Get a copy of July AA with my
> >maritime issues piece in it :-)
>
> Good plug, I probally will get a copy
You will find much of interest in there.
Cheers,
Carlo
L'acrobat
"Carlo Kopp" <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote in message
> > You do not _have_ to buy 1000 odd cruise missiles at all, you only
> > purchase a modest amount, until the regional situation deserves an
> > extra 500 million invested, you do not have this choice with the F22.
> > you pay the full amount straight up.
>
> Given the lead time to have hundreds of cruise missiles made up, you
> could be waiting a number of years. Odds are it will be all over by
> then. Safer to use cheap munitions since you can keep credible stocks.
But you won't have credible numbers of aircraft to deliver your dumb bombs,
you are making the old mistake that a machinegunner that fires 500 RPM is as
effective as 100 rifleman that fire 5 RPM each - you forget that the
machinegunner only has to be killed once.
> > Thats correct, but if you have purchased the F22 you have already paid
> > that price up front, and I'll wager there will be a requirement for
> > the F22 to use Cruise missiles, in situations where its too hot even
> > for a stealth fighter to venture.
>
> This does not follow. I cannot see any scenario where you would want to
> use the F-22 as a cruise missile shooter, it was designed to penetrate
> and survive in the nastiest conceivable environments.
So was the F-117
>
> As per my previous comment, you cannot afford to wait 3-5 years to get
> your cruise missile warstocks delivered. You will have lost by then.
To whom? - what is this threat to Australia that can only be countered by
the absolute bleeding edge of aerospace technology and at a cost that will
cripple the rest of the defence forces if purchased in effective numbers?
>
> Standoff weapons will remain in service until all of the non-stealthy
> types are retired.
They will remain far longer than that - relying totally on stealth is very
much putting all your eggs in one basket.
> > The holes are Carlo with your mini force of F22's Australia is going
> > to find itself in trouble from the word go, 40 odd aircraft to defend
> > the top end, and mount offensive strikes to the north!!!!,
>
> I never said 40 aircraft, John, you are inventing this number. In fact
> should the govt decide to go for an F-22/JSF 2 tier force as I have
> suggested, then the ratio will depend on the mission spectrum they work
> up and simulations they run against it.
What is the threat that justifies that force and where will the money come
from?
>
> You are somehow forgetting the fact that you will need to allocate some
> proportion of your strike force numbers to CAPs for escort and SEAD.
> Therefore the ratio of shooters may actually only be 1/3 or at best 1/2
> for a conventional fighter. Less escort perhaps if you are using cruise
> missiles, since you won't need SEAD/SEAD, but then how long will your
> cruise missile stocks last ?
How many targets need to be hit - it's not as if the cold war USSR has
shifted to Java.
> > To sum up.
> > The cost issue will alway come back to haunt you, an F22 force with
> > only JDAMS is still going to cost the earth,and they _will_ require
> > CASOMs in addition.
>
> This is not correct. You will get by perfectly well with stocks of
> JDAMs. If you think you need standoff weapons, then you use a winged
> JDAM like the Kerkanya or Diamondwing, that gives you more than enough
> range for any known SAM system. A winged JDAM costs perhaps an extra
> $10k per round, still peanuts against a cruise missile.
Since a Typhoon is projected to carry JDAMs what is the advantage to using
an F22 against a credible threat.
> You wholly disregard the ability of the F-22 to sit at 1.4 Mach
> indefinitely, John. See above. You don't need to have "twice the
> numbers" to do the job, you have about twice the sortie rate and
> footprint coverage.
>
You've gone for the old machinegunner V several rifleman mistake again.
> >
> > Wow you mean the airforces around the world have finally sorted out
> > how to tell the difference between tractors and army trucks from
> > 25Kfeet .( let alone 40K feet.)
>
> The current trend is to use very high resolution SAR and NCTR capable
> GMTI radars, supplemented by UAVs, to identify the targets and vector
> the shooters. What happened in Kosovo happened because the systems used
> were designed for a Cold War scenario. Don't forget you are looking at
> futures here, which means 2010-2025 or later.
You mean you don't know, but you hope it will be sorted out and that the
countermeasures deployed by then are ineffective.
dennis...@my-deja.com
"L'acrobat" <hus...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
>
> "Dennis Jensen" <dennis...@dsto.defence.gov.au> wrote in message
> >
more
> capable
> > as well. Genuine supercruise,
>
> As opposed to?
>
> >genuine stealth,
>
> At much greater genuine cost.
>
Yes, but the capability increase more than counterbalances the
additional cost. It is not only detection and tracking that becomes
problematic when faced with genuine stealth, it is the ability of your
missile seekers to lock on to target.
> >longer legs.
>
> Yet to be proven, but if correct offset by the ability to afford more
> Typhoons for the same cost.
>
L'Acrobat, if you can't get there, you can't get there, no matter how
many aircraft you have. Suddenly, you are having to greatly increase
your tanking capability, and this adds money. You need (as Carlo has
pointed out), SEAD, recon and other assets. Suddenly, the numbers don't
look so good.
> > Start loading
> > stealth CALCMs onto Typhoon and it is no longer so cheap.
>
> Do you really believe the RAAF would be sending $143million dollar air
> superiority fighters (that they could only afford a small number of)
in
> close to bomb?
>
Is Mach 1.4-1.5 at 45 000+ft close? Like to see what you call distant:)
Oh, I see, putting an $80 million odd Typhoon in the weeds, flying
subsonic (stores + tanks + low level); into range of everything
including hand-held assault weapon fire is a preferable scenario to
15+km altitude, flying supersonic that can only be REACHED (never mind
locked on to) by few, high cost SAMs? Give me a break...
> >Then you have the
> > issue of Typhoon being closer to obsolescence than F-22,
>
> Another way of phrasing that is "The Typhoon is closer to being an in
> service, operational aircraft than the currently unproven F22.
>
Back in the 1960's, you would have then suggested that we purchase the
F-4 in preference to the F-111!! That entirely fits your argument, and
it is just as erroneous, however you look at it, be it in the 1960's or
now!
Dennis
John Cook
<Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
<time for an electron massacar>
>Given the lead time to have hundreds of cruise missiles made up, you
>could be waiting a number of years. Odds are it will be all over by
>then. Safer to use cheap munitions since you can keep credible stocks.
If we cannot see a potential _credable_ threat emerging a couple of
years before it arrives our intellegence agency's should be shot...
>>
>> Thats correct, but if you have purchased the F22 you have already paid
>> that price up front, and I'll wager there will be a requirement for
>> the F22 to use Cruise missiles, in situations where its too hot even
>> for a stealth fighter to venture.
>
>This does not follow. I cannot see any scenario where you would want to
>use the F-22 as a cruise missile shooter, it was designed to penetrate
>and survive in the nastiest conceivable environments.
Those environments change, your a brave man to state such a thing.
<snip>
>> By your arguement the US will abandon cruise missiles when the F22 is
>> in service as they will simply be uneconomical!!!!.
>> I cannot see that happening.
>
>If the USAF had its way and got the 132 B-2As it asked for, then I doubt
>the B-52 and CALCM would still be around. The CALCMs are refurbished
>AGM-86B airframes, retired from the nuclear role. Don't get confused
>about missions here, the B-52/CALCM combo was devised for rapid reaction
>global reach type missions, to avoid having to deploy tactical jets.
>
>Standoff weapons will remain in service until all of the non-stealthy
>types are retired.
Standoff weapon are here to stay, and will increase in number and
scope.
>I never said 40 aircraft, John, you are inventing this number. In fact
>should the govt decide to go for an F-22/JSF 2 tier force as I have
>suggested, then the ratio will depend on the mission spectrum they work
>up and simulations they run against it.
I was using AUD 5 billion as a rough guide for the flyaway cost of
airframes only, you can usually double this cost to buy a supported
aircraft.
Would AUD 10 billion be in the Ball park?.....
>> Quick bit of maths assuming the F22 is as good as the Marketing team
>> say's it is.
>> 40 F22's to replace the 80 F18's - 30 to defend the top end (hopeless
>> with 30 airframes) 10 F22's flying 2 sorties per day (thats twice the
>> tempo you suggested for the Eurocanards) thats 20 targets per day = 50
>> days to put 1000 sites out of action, assuming 100% accuracy.
>
>I just love your arithmetic here :-) Firstly, if we are are in a DCA
>scenario where we are needing to put up everything we have for DCA CAPs,
>then you are unlikely to be in the position where you are also trying to
>mount OCA strikes. So the model you are using is not really suitable.
The same situation you quoted earlier to me "If the bad guys are
shooting IRBMs or sortiing bombers against our territory, you have no
choice than to engage."
we may not have the luxury of choice.
>> Same maths with 80 Eurocanards, 40 to defend the top end (25% better
>> odds of intercepting an inbound strike),
>
>This does not follow, John. If you are playing DCA and trying to defend
>an area, what you are interested in is the footprint you can cover with
>a single CAP responding to a vector. That is a basic metric, and a good
>one for a low density environment like our north and SEA. Then the most
>important parameter is the area you can cover per time, and that area is
>proportional to the square of the distance, which is proportional to the
>square of your TAS. Since the F-22 supercruises at about twice the
>cruise speed of a conventional fighter,
Conventional yes the Typhoon no, it has been mentioned before but I
see no reason not to remind you that the Typhoon can cruise at M1.2
(some have stated M1.3) that not half of the F22 cruise speed of M1.6
is it.
> it defends about four times the
>area per time. If a covnetional fighter trys to achieve the same
>coverage it has got to sit in reheat to sustain such speed, and then the
>radius it can cover actually shrinks.
>> 40 on strike missions with 2
>> x Casoms or 4 x bombs, thats 80 targets a day with only one sortie
>> per aircraft = a respectable 12.5 days kill 1000 sites.
>
>You are somehow forgetting the fact that you will need to allocate some
>proportion of your strike force numbers to CAPs for escort and SEAD.
Some proportion of the loadout!, some aircraft can carry two CASOMs,
two Alarms four AMRAAMs/Meteor and two ASRAAM, (some Typhoons even
have a Gun!)
>Therefore the ratio of shooters may actually only be 1/3 or at best 1/2
>for a conventional fighter. Less escort perhaps if you are using cruise
>missiles, since you won't need SEAD/SEAD, but then how long will your
>cruise missile stocks last ?
Given the threat does not exist, the senario has not been given , and
the timframe not set, the lenght of time till the cruise missiles runs
out is a little vague at best.
>> To sum up.
>> The cost issue will alway come back to haunt you, an F22 force with
>> only JDAMS is still going to cost the earth,and they _will_ require
>> CASOMs in addition.
>
>This is not correct. You will get by perfectly well with stocks of
>JDAMs. If you think you need standoff weapons, then you use a winged
>JDAM like the Kerkanya or Diamondwing, that gives you more than enough
>range for any known SAM system. A winged JDAM costs perhaps an extra
>$10k per round, still peanuts against a cruise missile.
Any known SAM system now!, whats going to be out there in 2010, and
are you forgetting all those nasty Russian fighters buzzing around,
three fighters against a lone F22 toting bombs and you'll find the F22
has a long range standoff missile deficeit.
>> The second gotcha is the numbers, not enough airframes, the F22 is
>> good, but not good enough to be in two places at once.
>
>You wholly disregard the ability of the F-22 to sit at 1.4 Mach
>indefinitely, John. See above. You don't need to have "twice the
>numbers" to do the job, you have about twice the sortie rate and
>footprint coverage.
Not disregarded, its not that much of an issue when an alternative
cruises at M1.2+
<snip>
>> Wow you mean the airforces around the world have finally sorted out
>> how to tell the difference between tractors and army trucks from
>> 25Kfeet .( let alone 40K feet.)
>
>The current trend is to use very high resolution SAR and NCTR capable
>GMTI radars, supplemented by UAVs, to identify the targets and vector
>the shooters.
The Radars cannot tell whos riding those tractors can they?, and now
we have to purchase UAV's for the F22 to perform as advertised.
> What happened in Kosovo happened because the systems used
>were designed for a Cold War scenario. Don't forget you are looking at
>futures here, which means 2010-2025 or later.
>> Any vehicule from that height is a dot, and blow me down they move
>> about a lot, unless your intel is less that 60 seconds old your asking
>> for trouble.
>
>If you intend to use 1960s concept weapons like the Paveway, in 2020,
>then you deserve what you get :-)
My assertion still stands, at that height the pilot will just be a
button presser.
>> Eurocanards do not require the same level of support as present
>> aircraft, and even the F22 will require SEAD, much like the f117 does
>> now.
>
>Why do you say that Eurocanards require less support ? You end up with
>1/2 to 2/3 of your Eurocanard strike force toting anti-radiation
>missiles and extra gas and AAMs for escort and SEAD CAPs. That you are
>using the one type of aircraft is immaterial, you still end up with the
>same problem by tasking, if not by using specialised assets like
>F-16/HARM and F-15C CAPs.
Theres flexability in numbers, you use the force the best way it
negates the threat, if it means dedicated SEAD - so be it, same
applies to the F22 except for the numbers part.
.
Next you'll be telling me the F22 will remain undetectable for the
next couple of decades....
>
>Also you cannot compare an F-117A penetrating at 500 KTAS and 15 kft
>with an F-22A of similar RCS going in at 45 kft and 1.4M. The USAF plans
>to use the F-22 as the SEAD/DEAD shooter to defend the conventional
>fighters if required. Solo it will do perfectly fine.
You once told me the chances of tracking and targeting a well flown
F117 was virtually zip!, when I argued that it was not impossible but
acheivable to shoot one down. they now fly in a package, with standoff
jammers, plus having fighters available, if any bogies decide to join
the fun.
Funny how things change!!.
They were designed as solo penetrating bombers and are rumoured to be
slightly more stealthy than the F22!.
>> >> Adore is the wrong word, I'm very interested in it, as I am the F22. I
>> >> think "Keen" would have been a better word!!!
>> >
>> >Uncriticially enthusiastic is perhaps more precise. From my perspective,
>> >the Typhoon is an aircraft which was frozen in basic configuration and
>> >sizing in 1978 (openly stated by BAe last year at a conference), which
>>
>> Hang on a min, basic configuration means size, weight, delta wing and
>> a canard!!!, the F22 also 'suffers' from a design decided in 1986.
>> the actual specs of these machines has changed remarkably in the last
>> decade.
>
>The big difference here is that the Eurocanards are merely incremental
>technology steps against the teen series, similar in almost every
>respect.
I beg to differ, the incremental steps are quite large, and push
technology on several fronts (in fact the F22 now has some of those
very same technogies) and it exceeds the capability of the F22 in some
areas.
>The F-22 is entirely different, a large step in several areas
>like proplusion, aerodynamics, signatures, avionics, radar, integration.
>If it were not for the US legislature being silly over the aircraft, it
>could have been in service several years ago.
>>
>> >puts it conceptually quite firmly into the decade the teen series
>> >entered service. In the meantime they have put a quite decent avionic
>> >suite in, but it it not in the league of the F-22. It is a competitive
>> >fighter against the F-15C/E/K, the F/A-18E/F and the F-16C/B60. Against
>> >the others the relative capabilities depend on the specific engine and
>> >avionic fit, and weapons fit. An F-15K with an AESA, Bold Stroke class
>> >avionics, JHMCS and the latest 34 klb class growth F110 will probably
>> >beat the baseline Typhoon on most pertinant specs.
>>
>> Thats the ultimate F15 at the end of its life cycle compared to an
>> aircraft just beginning, with the MLU the possibilities for the
>> Typhoon are enormous TVC a 30% thrust increase, AMSAR etc. please
>> compare like with like!!!
>
>The difference John is that if I go out and buy an F-15E/K for delivery
>in 2005 I get an active phased array, PowerPC/VME CPUs, and that 34 klb
>engine. If I buy a Typhoon for delivery then I seriously doubt it will
>have a mature and tested AMSAR and 30% higher thrust engines :-) A
>testbed or prototype is not an operational system.
Then wait till 2010......
>>
>> Whats the point of the FA18E/F then?, why do they need the JSF???. Can
>> we buy all the US's surplus cruise missile when the F22 makes them
>> obsolete???.
>
>The JSF is designed around the same model as the F-22, except it is
>intended to be cheaper and less capable, however it uses the same F119
>engine core and stealth. In the bomb truck role it does about the same,
>or slightly less than the F-22 due lesser agility (it has bigger bays
>for the 2,000 lb JDAM in most variants).
>
>What the point of the F/A-18E/F is, is a very good question indeed.
>Let's say that is something the USN ought to explain themselves. They
>could not afford the swing wing F-22N they wanted, and would not settle
>for cheaper choices like blown flaps. They are now totally dependent
>upon the JSF, if that program crashes and burns they are in deep
>trouble.
I do think the JSF will be delayed for a minimum of 3 years,mainly due
to funds and some technology hurdles.
>>
>> We cannot compete with the US, AFAIK we would not go in alone to the
>> Balkans or the Middle east!!!, so why try.
>
>Did I say we need to go into the Balkans or ME ? If current arms racing
>trends between India and the PRC continue, we will have enough
>difficulty discouraging either from playing games in SEA.
India or China would not be swayed from their course of action by the
type of fighter we decide to purchase be it Typhoons or F22's.
Therefor if a credable deterrant is what we require, then go for the
cheapest option.
>> >> Thats where our location gives us a big edge, we should be more
>> >> focused on our Navy for a credable defence.
>>
>> We are an island, we are sorrounded by islands, we cannot win by
>> airpower alone.....
>
>Air power is your best tool for this game. What happened in Malaya 1942
What happened in Veitnam?.
I cannot see the Falklands being British now if all they had was
airpower....
>> >That I must disagree with. Air power is the historically proven most
>> >efficient ship killing asset there is. Get a copy of July AA with my
>> >maritime issues piece in it :-)
>>
>> Good plug, I probally will get a copy
>
>You will find much of interest in there.
As always
Cheers
dennis...@my-deja.com
"L'acrobat" <hus...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
>
> "Dennis Jensen" <dennis...@dsto.defence.gov.au> wrote in message
>
> >
> > Which, as Carlo has pointed out, are very expensive. Far cheaper
using a
> $20
> > 000 tailkit to get the JDAM than standoff weapons costing $100 000+
each.
> > Furthermore, what happens if the high treat zone is large enough so
that
> your
> > standoff weapons don't have the range to just pop them off outside
the
> zone?
> > Additionally, the F-111 has to go low and fast to be survivable.
That, in
> > conjunction with external stores, does very bad things to your
range. So,
> in
> > effect, the F-22 can do what the F-111 can do, but more cheaply.
>
> No, we already own the F-111 and when you do the USAF cost estimates
@ $143
> million AUD per plane plus all the associated new plane, spares and
training
> costs the F22 is simply not affordable, let alone competitive for
Aust.
>
The fact is, you need to purchase a huge amount of warstocks of
expensive stand-off weapons to remain competitive in the short/medium
term. The you have engines that are obsolete, avionics that are
obsolescent. Suddenly, not so cheap.
> Remember "stealth skins" cost more to fix if even slightly damaged
(or you
> lose the stealth) and the a/c itself is still vulnerable to pilot
error,
> golden BBs and mechanical failure @ $143 mill a pop.
>
> In any credible Australian scenario the Typhoon is a better buy
dollar for
> dollar than the F22.
>
Really? Ignoring technical factors, you have those political factors.
Like, quite a few nations that are going to want input into how and
whether you use the aircraft. If you think this is ridiculous, ask
yourself why Mirages were not used in Vietnam? Could it just be that
the French refused to support the aircraft if used in Vietnam;) Now
just think of multiplying this scenario!!
> Aust cannot afford a reasonable number of F22s
>
That is arguable, but we cannot afford to have our next generation
aircraft NOT have genuine stealth (be it, in the forseeable future, the
JSF or the F-22 or both).
dennis...@my-deja.com
John Cook <Jwc...@fishinternet.com.au> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 May 2000 17:40:25 +0000, Carlo Kopp
> <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
> <time for an electron massacar>
>
> >Given the lead time to have hundreds of cruise missiles made up, you
> >could be waiting a number of years. Odds are it will be all over by
> >then. Safer to use cheap munitions since you can keep credible
stocks.
>
> If we cannot see a potential _credable_ threat emerging a couple of
> years before it arrives our intellegence agency's should be shot...
So we see a credible threat a couple of years off. Now, do we buy that
huge warstock that we require, or do we get the more capable aircraft
we should have got in the first place. John, you are relying far too
much on Intelligence' ability to see things. Need I remind you that
Intelligence did not predict what was going to happen in East Timor (or
Kosovo, for that matter).
And get more and more expensive. The fact that you and all the
conventional fighter fans are missing, John, is that the entire
paradigm has changed, in a way that is as fundamental as the beginning
of the jet age. You would have been arguing the P-51H against the P/F-
80, using exactly the same arguments that you are using here.
Exactly, so better to get the more capable aircraft.
> >> Same maths with 80 Eurocanards, 40 to defend the top end (25%
better
> >> odds of intercepting an inbound strike),
> >
> >This does not follow, John. If you are playing DCA and trying to
defend
> >an area, what you are interested in is the footprint you can cover
with
> >a single CAP responding to a vector. That is a basic metric, and a
good
> >one for a low density environment like our north and SEA. Then the
most
> >important parameter is the area you can cover per time, and that
area is
> >proportional to the square of the distance, which is proportional to
the
> >square of your TAS. Since the F-22 supercruises at about twice the
> >cruise speed of a conventional fighter,
>
> Conventional yes the Typhoon no, it has been mentioned before but I
> see no reason not to remind you that the Typhoon can cruise at M1.2
> (some have stated M1.3) that not half of the F22 cruise speed of M1.6
> is it.
Two problems with your argument here, John. First, as you well know, in
a strike role with Typhoon, you are not even going to be transonic,
never mind supersonic, with all your external stores. For the air
defence scenario, you are STILL short on speed (albeit not as much),
and on range.
> > it defends about four times the
> >area per time. If a covnetional fighter trys to achieve the same
> >coverage it has got to sit in reheat to sustain such speed, and then
the
> >radius it can cover actually shrinks.
>
> >> 40 on strike missions with 2
> >> x Casoms or 4 x bombs, thats 80 targets a day with only one
sortie
> >> per aircraft = a respectable 12.5 days kill 1000 sites.
> >
> >You are somehow forgetting the fact that you will need to allocate
some
> >proportion of your strike force numbers to CAPs for escort and SEAD.
>
> Some proportion of the loadout!, some aircraft can carry two CASOMs,
> two Alarms four AMRAAMs/Meteor and two ASRAAM, (some Typhoons even
> have a Gun!)
>
> >Therefore the ratio of shooters may actually only be 1/3 or at best
1/2
> >for a conventional fighter. Less escort perhaps if you are using
cruise
> >missiles, since you won't need SEAD/SEAD, but then how long will your
> >cruise missile stocks last ?
>
> Given the threat does not exist, the senario has not been given , and
> the timframe not set, the lenght of time till the cruise missiles runs
> out is a little vague at best.
>
The fact is, your expensive standoff missiles will become obsolete far
faster than your platform aircraft. At the very least, you will have a
continual upgrade path to follow. Not too cheap now, is it?
> >> To sum up.
> >> The cost issue will alway come back to haunt you, an F22 force with
> >> only JDAMS is still going to cost the earth,and they _will_
require
> >> CASOMs in addition.
> >
> >This is not correct. You will get by perfectly well with stocks of
> >JDAMs. If you think you need standoff weapons, then you use a winged
> >JDAM like the Kerkanya or Diamondwing, that gives you more than
enough
> >range for any known SAM system. A winged JDAM costs perhaps an extra
> >$10k per round, still peanuts against a cruise missile.
>
> Any known SAM system now!, whats going to be out there in 2010, and
> are you forgetting all those nasty Russian fighters buzzing around,
> three fighters against a lone F22 toting bombs and you'll find the F22
> has a long range standoff missile deficeit.
>
What about those 3 nasties when you have a lousy radar cross section,
and are moving very slowly (comparatively speaking) due to your
external weapons loadout? So now you are going to need escort as well!
How about the fact that, with supercruise and stealth, even with 3
nasties, you can probably still evade and continue, given that it is
likely that you can evade and not even be seen. At the very least with
Typhoon, you are going to be mission killed without a support package.
> >> The second gotcha is the numbers, not enough airframes, the F22 is
> >> good, but not good enough to be in two places at once.
> >
> >You wholly disregard the ability of the F-22 to sit at 1.4 Mach
> >indefinitely, John. See above. You don't need to have "twice the
> >numbers" to do the job, you have about twice the sortie rate and
> >footprint coverage.
>
> Not disregarded, its not that much of an issue when an alternative
> cruises at M1.2+
>
Only in air-air, John. With strike, you are slow.
> <snip>
>
> >> Wow you mean the airforces around the world have finally sorted out
> >> how to tell the difference between tractors and army trucks from
> >> 25Kfeet .( let alone 40K feet.)
> >
> >The current trend is to use very high resolution SAR and NCTR capable
> >GMTI radars, supplemented by UAVs, to identify the targets and vector
> >the shooters.
>
> The Radars cannot tell whos riding those tractors can they?, and now
> we have to purchase UAV's for the F22 to perform as advertised.
>
And mistakes are not made currently? What about the range you have to
shoot at with those vaunted stand-off missiles? Now how are you going
to obtain an ident?
BTW, you do realise that you can get similar resolution with SAR,
regardless of range?
> > What happened in Kosovo happened because the systems used
> >were designed for a Cold War scenario. Don't forget you are looking
at
> >futures here, which means 2010-2025 or later.
>
> >> Any vehicule from that height is a dot, and blow me down they move
> >> about a lot, unless your intel is less that 60 seconds old your
asking
> >> for trouble.
> >
> >If you intend to use 1960s concept weapons like the Paveway, in 2020,
> >then you deserve what you get :-)
>
> My assertion still stands, at that height the pilot will just be a
> button presser.
>
And at long standoff range, what is the Typhoon pilot going to be?
> >> Eurocanards do not require the same level of support as present
> >> aircraft, and even the F22 will require SEAD, much like the f117
does
> >> now.
> >
> >Why do you say that Eurocanards require less support ? You end up
with
> >1/2 to 2/3 of your Eurocanard strike force toting anti-radiation
> >missiles and extra gas and AAMs for escort and SEAD CAPs. That you
are
> >using the one type of aircraft is immaterial, you still end up with
the
> >same problem by tasking, if not by using specialised assets like
> >F-16/HARM and F-15C CAPs.
>
> Theres flexability in numbers, you use the force the best way it
> negates the threat, if it means dedicated SEAD - so be it, same
> applies to the F22 except for the numbers part.
> .
> Next you'll be telling me the F22 will remain undetectable for the
> next couple of decades....
>
Physics is going to be working for you regardless, John. Any attempt to
counteract stealth is going to be very expensive, and, when all is said
and done, even more effective against non-stealthy platforms.
And what capability is your opposition going to have then? Or is
Typhoon the only fighter that will not be in stasis?
Why not simply stay with F-18A's? That is cheaper still! The fact is,
over life of type, the F-22 will be cheaper than the Typhoon (less
pilots, less spares, less upgrades, less standoff munitions).
> >> >> Thats where our location gives us a big edge, we should be more
> >> >> focused on our Navy for a credable defence.
> >>
> >> We are an island, we are sorrounded by islands, we cannot win by
> >> airpower alone.....
> >
> >Air power is your best tool for this game. What happened in Malaya
1942
>
> What happened in Veitnam?.
> I cannot see the Falklands being British now if all they had was
> airpower....
>
The fact is, WITHOUT airpower, the Falklands would not have been taken.
There is still a reasonable body of water to cross with Australia, and
here your Vietnam comparison falls badly! I would point out the role of
air superiority in the Battle of Britain.
BTW, you claim that you are not totally in the Typhoon camp, and are
just as interested in the F-22? I notice that you link to a Typhoon,
webpage. Why no link to an F-22 webpage, if you are indeed a
dispassionate observer? I have no vested interest, having never worked
for ANY of the companies involved (be it Typhoon, F-22 or JSF). Can you
state similar?
Dennis
> >> >That I must disagree with. Air power is the historically proven
most
> >> >efficient ship killing asset there is. Get a copy of July AA with
my
> >> >maritime issues piece in it :-)
> >>
> >> Good plug, I probally will get a copy
> >
> >You will find much of interest in there.
>
> As always
>
> Cheers
>
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Carlo
>
> John Cook
>
> Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
> opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
>
> Eurofighter website:-
>
> http://www.eurofighter.pso-online.com/
>
L'acrobat
<dennis...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8f3jl7$39u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> The fact is, you need to purchase a huge amount of warstocks of
> expensive stand-off weapons to remain competitive in the short/medium
> term. The you have engines that are obsolete, avionics that are
> obsolescent. Suddenly, not so cheap.
You need stand off weapons for the F22, it may be stealthy, but it is not
invisible (and it must come down to spot its targets) - given an optically
guided weapon or a beam rider it is as vulnerable as any other aircraft, and
the slightest damage to the skin and it is as visible to radar.
>
> > Remember "stealth skins" cost more to fix if even slightly damaged
> (or you
> > lose the stealth) and the a/c itself is still vulnerable to pilot
> error,
> > golden BBs and mechanical failure @ $143 mill a pop.
> >
> > In any credible Australian scenario the Typhoon is a better buy
> dollar for
> > dollar than the F22.
> >
> Really? Ignoring technical factors, you have those political factors.
> Like, quite a few nations that are going to want input into how and
> whether you use the aircraft.
Pretty basic, write a contract that excludes any say in the use of the a/c
(BTW are you suggesting that the US won't want input if they sell the F22 to
us? one that is their bleeding edge technology, they might not be too keen
for us to lose one where the Chinese (for example) might get hold of it.
>If you think this is ridiculous, ask
> yourself why Mirages were not used in Vietnam? Could it just be that
> the French refused to support the aircraft if used in Vietnam;) Now
> just think of multiplying this scenario!!
The French are not part of the Consortium, so it is not relevant.
>
> > Aust cannot afford a reasonable number of F22s
> >
> That is arguable, but we cannot afford to have our next generation
> aircraft NOT have genuine stealth (be it, in the forseeable future, the
> JSF or the F-22 or both).
Why not? - we can already detect approaching stealth a/c with Jindalee, it
would be no surprise if OTHR becomes widespread given the ability to find
stealth a/c
L'acrobat
<dennis...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8f3j6j$36g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <39139c95$0$31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>,
> "L'acrobat" <hus...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > "Dennis Jensen" <dennis...@dsto.defence.gov.au> wrote in message
> > >
> more
> > capable
> > > as well. Genuine supercruise,
> >
> > As opposed to?
> >
> The Typhoon, or any other tactical aircraft on the horizon.
That would be the Typhoon that Supercruises would it?
>
> > >genuine stealth,
> >
> > At much greater genuine cost.
> >
> Yes, but the capability increase more than counterbalances the
> additional cost. It is not only detection and tracking that becomes
> problematic when faced with genuine stealth, it is the ability of your
> missile seekers to lock on to target.
We can track stealth a/c now, if you can see the target you can hit it -
stealth does not make the F22 invisible, the cost means that we would have
too few aircraft to do the job of defending Australia (unless we gutted the
Navy and Army budgets to do it).
>
> > >longer legs.
> >
> > Yet to be proven, but if correct offset by the ability to afford more
> > Typhoons for the same cost.
> >
> L'Acrobat, if you can't get there, you can't get there, no matter how
> many aircraft you have. Suddenly, you are having to greatly increase
> your tanking capability, and this adds money. You need (as Carlo has
> pointed out), SEAD, recon and other assets. Suddenly, the numbers don't
> look so good.
If we are defending Australia we base some of the extra fighters at
different strips (didn't you wonder why we had several strips across the
north?), BTW your F22 has just scrapped our tanker fleet - it can't fuel
from them (adds cost buying new tankers), it can be tracked with current
technology (Jindalee for example) so it isn't really that stealthy and will
need SEAD support, would you send one of our 30 or so ($142million dollar)
F22s down low (where it can be killed by flak, optical missiles or beam
riders) to do recon?, so you need recon assets too and other? can't say.
Suddenly the F22 is looking a bit too dear for a reliance on a technology
that has already been defeated - if we can track the B-2 and the US is
investing heavily in stealth, don't you think other countries are thinking
about getting an OTHR of their own?
>
> > > Start loading
> > > stealth CALCMs onto Typhoon and it is no longer so cheap.
> >
> > Do you really believe the RAAF would be sending $143million dollar air
> > superiority fighters (that they could only afford a small number of)
> in
> > close to bomb?
> >
> Is Mach 1.4-1.5 at 45 000+ft close? Like to see what you call distant:)
How do you plan on identifying the target? - can you say tractor load of
refugees?
> Oh, I see, putting an $80 million odd Typhoon in the weeds, flying
> subsonic (stores + tanks + low level); into range of everything
> including hand-held assault weapon fire is a preferable scenario to
> 15+km altitude, flying supersonic that can only be REACHED (never mind
> locked on to) by few, high cost SAMs? Give me a break...
If you fly at 15Kms (altitude as a defence against SAMS was discredited back
when Gary Powers had to walk home BTW) then you won't even see the target
let alone hit it.
>
> > >Then you have the
> > > issue of Typhoon being closer to obsolescence than F-22,
> >
> > Another way of phrasing that is "The Typhoon is closer to being an in
> > service, operational aircraft than the currently unproven F22.
> >
> Back in the 1960's, you would have then suggested that we purchase the
> F-4 in preference to the F-111!! That entirely fits your argument, and
> it is just as erroneous, however you look at it, be it in the 1960's or
> now!
Actually I would have - it took a decade to make an operational aircraft out
of the
F-111, we were lucky nobody attacked Aust while we were left with a bunch of
hanger queens - the Aust army had to fight without support from the Aust
F-111 fleet in Vietnam but luckily the US had plenty of planes.
The F-22 is largely theoretical and it's advocates want Aust to purchase on
spec yet again (have we learned nothing from the first decade of the
F-111?) and once again we could be stuck with a plane that cost a fortune
and doesn't fly for a decade.
US production has already been cut once - do we want to buy another
expensive, unproven, low production aircraft?
L'acrobat
<dennis...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8f3mqp$6lc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
.
> >
> > If we cannot see a potential _credable_ threat emerging a couple of
> > years before it arrives our intellegence agency's should be shot...
>
> So we see a credible threat a couple of years off. Now, do we buy that
> huge warstock that we require, or do we get the more capable aircraft
> we should have got in the first place. John, you are relying far too
> much on Intelligence' ability to see things. Need I remind you that
> Intelligence did not predict what was going to happen in East Timor (or
> Kosovo, for that matter).
Whoa there, neither E.Timor nor Kosovo were a threat to Australia (let alone
a credible threat) Kosovo had nothing to do with us (we didn't even get an
invite!) and E.Timor whilst involving a military response, was in no way a
threat to Australia.
A local country building up the sort of fleet required to threaten Australia
cannot be hidden and a maritime threat to our shipping is better dealt with
by submarines or orions depending on the situation.
>
> Two problems with your argument here, John. First, as you well know, in
> a strike role with Typhoon, you are not even going to be transonic,
> never mind supersonic, with all your external stores. For the air
> defence scenario, you are STILL short on speed (albeit not as much),
> and on range.
But way heavier on weapons - 12 Missiles vs only 8 on the F22, so you have
more aircraft and each can carry more weapons to the fight.
> > My assertion still stands, at that height the pilot will just be a
> > button presser.
> >
>
> And at long standoff range, what is the Typhoon pilot going to be?
A more cost effective button presser.
> > Next you'll be telling me the F22 will remain undetectable for the
> > next couple of decades....
> >
> Physics is going to be working for you regardless, John. Any attempt to
> counteract stealth is going to be very expensive, and, when all is said
> and done, even more effective against non-stealthy platforms.
Australia can already spot the B-2 and re: "when all is said
and done, even more effective against non-stealthy platforms" once you are
spotted you are spotted, the only way to hide is behind the horizon.
> > India or China would not be swayed from their course of action by the
> > type of fighter we decide to purchase be it Typhoons or F22's.
> > Therefor if a credable deterrant is what we require, then go for the
> > cheapest option.
> >
>
> Why not simply stay with F-18A's? That is cheaper still! The fact is,
> over life of type, the F-22 will be cheaper than the Typhoon (less
> pilots, less spares, less upgrades, less standoff munitions).
Less ability to survive attrition and maintain a force and bloody
embaressing to have pissed away all that money if the stealth is defeated in
the next 10 - 15 years, after all the USAF openly admits now that the B-2 is
detectable by Jindalee.
NE1outheir
>Suddenly the F22 is looking a bit too dear for a reliance on a technology
>that has already been defeated - if we can track the B-2 and the US is
>investing heavily in stealth, don't you think other countries are thinking
>about getting an OTHR of their own?
Yes, but if I understand OTHR correctly, it may be able to detect a stealth
aircraft 500 miles away but it is not good enough to let a missile or an
interceptor lock on to the aircraft. It is a good trip wire but can not do the
kills. Also, OTHR is expensive too, and fixed, so it could be a very early
target by IRBMs, cruise missiles or manned strikes too, and there goes your
barely adequate detection ability.
Matt
Carlo Kopp
>
> On Sun, 07 May 2000 17:40:25 +0000, Carlo Kopp
> <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
> <time for an electron massacar>
>
>
> >Given the lead time to have hundreds of cruise missiles made up, you
> >could be waiting a number of years. Odds are it will be all over by
> >then. Safer to use cheap munitions since you can keep credible stocks.
>
> If we cannot see a potential _credable_ threat emerging a couple of
> years before it arrives our intellegence agency's should be shot...
John, you are the eternal optimist :-) The track record of our Western
intel agencies accurately predicting outcomes in unstable or partially
stable third world countries over the last few decades is unspectacular,
to be polite about it. More than often intel agencies see what the
politicians want them to see, ie they bias their intel gathering
activities to please their masters. Since most politicians hate the idea
of trouble aroundd the corner, usually things get missed.
What happens if Indonesia breaks up and the rump Indonesia avails itself
of the same support which the PRC is bestowing upon Pakistan, like
hardware, IRBMs, designs for nuclear bombs and such ? A rump Indonesia
could shift alignment in a matter of weeks, and we could have the PLA-AF
and PLA-N parked in there weeks later. What do you do then ?
Or Malaysia could go off the rails.
> >>
> >> Thats correct, but if you have purchased the F22 you have already paid
> >> that price up front, and I'll wager there will be a requirement for
> >> the F22 to use Cruise missiles, in situations where its too hot even
> >> for a stealth fighter to venture.
> >
> >This does not follow. I cannot see any scenario where you would want to
> >use the F-22 as a cruise missile shooter, it was designed to penetrate
> >and survive in the nastiest conceivable environments.
>
> Those environments change, your a brave man to state such a thing.
I am safe on this one for the next 1-2 decades.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> By your arguement the US will abandon cruise missiles when the F22 is
> >> in service as they will simply be uneconomical!!!!.
> >> I cannot see that happening.
> >
> >If the USAF had its way and got the 132 B-2As it asked for, then I doubt
> >the B-52 and CALCM would still be around. The CALCMs are refurbished
> >AGM-86B airframes, retired from the nuclear role. Don't get confused
> >about missions here, the B-52/CALCM combo was devised for rapid reaction
> >global reach type missions, to avoid having to deploy tactical jets.
> >
> >Standoff weapons will remain in service until all of the non-stealthy
> >types are retired.
>
> Standoff weapon are here to stay, and will increase in number and
> scope.
Only in response to the declining survivability of non-stealthy
aircraft. If everything you fly is stealthy you do not need to shoot
from 300 NMI away.
>
> >I never said 40 aircraft, John, you are inventing this number. In fact
> >should the govt decide to go for an F-22/JSF 2 tier force as I have
> >suggested, then the ratio will depend on the mission spectrum they work
> >up and simulations they run against it.
>
> I was using AUD 5 billion as a rough guide for the flyaway cost of
> airframes only, you can usually double this cost to buy a supported
> aircraft.
> Would AUD 10 billion be in the Ball park?.....
The govt has said it expects to spend up to 20 billion on replacing the
F/A-18 and F-111 fleets. So take 15 billion and see what fits into it.
>
> >> Quick bit of maths assuming the F22 is as good as the Marketing team
> >> say's it is.
> >> 40 F22's to replace the 80 F18's - 30 to defend the top end (hopeless
> >> with 30 airframes) 10 F22's flying 2 sorties per day (thats twice the
> >> tempo you suggested for the Eurocanards) thats 20 targets per day = 50
> >> days to put 1000 sites out of action, assuming 100% accuracy.
> >
> >I just love your arithmetic here :-) Firstly, if we are are in a DCA
> >scenario where we are needing to put up everything we have for DCA CAPs,
> >then you are unlikely to be in the position where you are also trying to
> >mount OCA strikes. So the model you are using is not really suitable.
>
> The same situation you quoted earlier to me "If the bad guys are
> shooting IRBMs or sortiing bombers against our territory, you have no
> choice than to engage."
> we may not have the luxury of choice.
You would apply your assets to the scenario, John. I do not forsee any
even remotely likely scenarios in which we would be defending the air
sea gap against overwhelming odds, so overwhelming that every fighter we
have must be committed, while we are projecting power into SEA.
You are misrepresenting my previous argument.
>
> >> Same maths with 80 Eurocanards, 40 to defend the top end (25% better
> >> odds of intercepting an inbound strike),
> >
> >This does not follow, John. If you are playing DCA and trying to defend
> >an area, what you are interested in is the footprint you can cover with
> >a single CAP responding to a vector. That is a basic metric, and a good
> >one for a low density environment like our north and SEA. Then the most
> >important parameter is the area you can cover per time, and that area is
> >proportional to the square of the distance, which is proportional to the
> >square of your TAS. Since the F-22 supercruises at about twice the
> >cruise speed of a conventional fighter,
>
> Conventional yes the Typhoon no, it has been mentioned before but I
> see no reason not to remind you that the Typhoon can cruise at M1.2
> (some have stated M1.3) that not half of the F22 cruise speed of M1.6
> is it.
Can it sustain that speed in dry thrust while loaded up to gills with
external stores over its whole unrefuelled combat radius ?
If you want range in a conventional fighter you cruise at 450-500 KTAS
in dry to hit the best SFC point in the engine characteristic. Those
engine designs are carefully tuned for best SFC in a cruise-climb
profile in that speed range, since it is an optimum point. Push that
engine into a supercruise your SFC goes up very quickly indeed.
That is why the F-22 has 25klb of internal gas and goes most places
clean with no external stores - so it can get a decent radius in
sustained supercruise.
> > it defends about four times the
> >area per time. If a covnetional fighter trys to achieve the same
> >coverage it has got to sit in reheat to sustain such speed, and then the
> >radius it can cover actually shrinks.
>
> >> 40 on strike missions with 2
> >> x Casoms or 4 x bombs, thats 80 targets a day with only one sortie
> >> per aircraft = a respectable 12.5 days kill 1000 sites.
> >
> >You are somehow forgetting the fact that you will need to allocate some
> >proportion of your strike force numbers to CAPs for escort and SEAD.
>
> Some proportion of the loadout!, some aircraft can carry two CASOMs,
> two Alarms four AMRAAMs/Meteor and two ASRAAM, (some Typhoons even
> have a Gun!)
Do you have any pylons left for external gas ? Don't forget that every
bit of extra weight and drag costs you radius and agility performance.
Are you going to go after his fighters or SAMs while you are carrying
CASOMs and ALARMs ? With external gas and CFTs ?
You still end up packaging, with your A/A CAPs going in with minimal
extra weight and drag, ie only external gas and AAMs, and your SEAD CAP
similarly, trading AAM weight and drag for ASRAAMs.
Every bit of extra drag and weight translates into a higher thrust
setting in cruise which burns off your gas faster.
BTW I have down some work in the last few months with these very numbers
for the F-18 and F-111 to size tanker support. Load up a fighter with
enough junk and your cruise burn goes up 25-35% - that is 25 - 35% less
range to play with. This is just for cruise - if you need to go tactical
with a big load you are almost certainly hitting your burners to get up
to speed faster and that is an immediate doubling of fluel flow at least
over a dry cruise, probably even more.
>
> >Therefore the ratio of shooters may actually only be 1/3 or at best 1/2
> >for a conventional fighter. Less escort perhaps if you are using cruise
> >missiles, since you won't need SEAD/SEAD, but then how long will your
> >cruise missile stocks last ?
>
> Given the threat does not exist, the senario has not been given , and
> the timframe not set, the lenght of time till the cruise missiles runs
> out is a little vague at best.
Lets assume you need to shut down several airfields and ports, and keep
them shut down despite an ongoing repair effort. You might have to hit a
hundred aimpoints a day and keep hitting them again and again. Do it
with cruise missiles and you have used up 500 in five days, and it may
not be enough since they have dinky little 750 lb warheads usually.
>
> >> To sum up.
> >> The cost issue will alway come back to haunt you, an F22 force with
> >> only JDAMS is still going to cost the earth,and they _will_ require
> >> CASOMs in addition.
> >
> >This is not correct. You will get by perfectly well with stocks of
> >JDAMs. If you think you need standoff weapons, then you use a winged
> >JDAM like the Kerkanya or Diamondwing, that gives you more than enough
> >range for any known SAM system. A winged JDAM costs perhaps an extra
> >$10k per round, still peanuts against a cruise missile.
>
> Any known SAM system now!, whats going to be out there in 2010, and
> are you forgetting all those nasty Russian fighters buzzing around,
> three fighters against a lone F22 toting bombs and you'll find the F22
> has a long range standoff missile deficeit.
>
The SAM systems in the pipeline like the S-400/S-500 may not even be
fielded in 2010, and those the F-22 can evade. The same with fighters.
If you are sitting at 45 kft and Mach 1.4 with superb ESM coverage you
can bypass most of these guys well before they even know you are there.
You can lob your JDAMs 15-20 NMI out and then bug out before they even
get an initial radar hit. That is the whole idea of combining stealth
and supercruise - you don't give them the opportunity to see you and
engage.
With a conventional fighter you have no choice, they detect you at 200
NMI and track you from 150 NMI, giving them all the time they need to
get fighters into positions and SAMs warmed up :-)
>
> >> The second gotcha is the numbers, not enough airframes, the F22 is
> >> good, but not good enough to be in two places at once.
> >
> >You wholly disregard the ability of the F-22 to sit at 1.4 Mach
> >indefinitely, John. See above. You don't need to have "twice the
> >numbers" to do the job, you have about twice the sortie rate and
> >footprint coverage.
>
> Not disregarded, its not that much of an issue when an alternative
> cruises at M1.2+
How long and how far with what payload ?
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Wow you mean the airforces around the world have finally sorted out
> >> how to tell the difference between tractors and army trucks from
> >> 25Kfeet .( let alone 40K feet.)
> >
> >The current trend is to use very high resolution SAR and NCTR capable
> >GMTI radars, supplemented by UAVs, to identify the targets and vector
> >the shooters.
>
> The Radars cannot tell whos riding those tractors can they?, and now
> we have to purchase UAV's for the F22 to perform as advertised.
We are getting UAVs anyway. Incidently, what makes you believe that your
Typhoon will fare any better than any other conventional fighter going
in low into the AAA, MANPADS and other trash fire ? Your probability of
being hit by these weapons is quite independent of any clever avionics
you may carry - it is blind barrage fire.
BTW, the way things are going with NCTR GMTI and SARs you will be able
to tell a truck from a car from an APC.
>
> > What happened in Kosovo happened because the systems used
> >were designed for a Cold War scenario. Don't forget you are looking at
> >futures here, which means 2010-2025 or later.
>
> >> Any vehicule from that height is a dot, and blow me down they move
> >> about a lot, unless your intel is less that 60 seconds old your asking
> >> for trouble.
> >
> >If you intend to use 1960s concept weapons like the Paveway, in 2020,
> >then you deserve what you get :-)
>
> My assertion still stands, at that height the pilot will just be a
> button presser.
Is there anything wrong with that ? Do you see something noble or
chivalric in exposing an expensive taxpayer's asset to illiterates
squirting 14.5 mm and AK-47 into the sky ?
Give me button pushing at 40 kft any day :-)
>
> >> Eurocanards do not require the same level of support as present
> >> aircraft, and even the F22 will require SEAD, much like the f117 does
> >> now.
> >
> >Why do you say that Eurocanards require less support ? You end up with
> >1/2 to 2/3 of your Eurocanard strike force toting anti-radiation
> >missiles and extra gas and AAMs for escort and SEAD CAPs. That you are
> >using the one type of aircraft is immaterial, you still end up with the
> >same problem by tasking, if not by using specialised assets like
> >F-16/HARM and F-15C CAPs.
>
> Theres flexability in numbers, you use the force the best way it
> negates the threat, if it means dedicated SEAD - so be it, same
> applies to the F22 except for the numbers part.
There is cost in numbers, John, costs in everything from burning more
gas, needing to train more people, feed them, house them, deploy them.
Bigger spare parts stocks, more support equipment, more groundies etc.
Flexibility is also a function of your logistical tail size - the bigger
it is the more effort you have to commit into deploying and using your
force.
The smaller the strike force to do a given job, the easier it is to
support every which way and the easier it is control in combat. Try some
formation flying as the lead and you will quickly figure out what this
is about :-)
> .
> Next you'll be telling me the F22 will remain undetectable for the
> next couple of decades....
In terms of the classes of radar its LO is optimised against, you bet.
>
> >
> >Also you cannot compare an F-117A penetrating at 500 KTAS and 15 kft
> >with an F-22A of similar RCS going in at 45 kft and 1.4M. The USAF plans
> >to use the F-22 as the SEAD/DEAD shooter to defend the conventional
> >fighters if required. Solo it will do perfectly fine.
>
> You once told me the chances of tracking and targeting a well flown
> F117 was virtually zip!, when I argued that it was not impossible but
> acheivable to shoot one down. they now fly in a package, with standoff
> jammers, plus having fighters available, if any bogies decide to join
> the fun.
> Funny how things change!!.
Do they ? "Well flown" is the critical point here. The F-117A which was
lost was part of a force repeatedly flown day after day along
particular route, in the full knowledge that the low band radars which
could get hits on it were still operating. If you disregrd your own
tactical doctrine, you will get bagged. Simple.
>
> They were designed as solo penetrating bombers and are rumoured to be
> slightly more stealthy than the F22!.
Designed to operate in the framework of a specific doctrine, John. The
argument is no different than saying "ouch, my Typhoon got bagged by an
ZSU since I chose to level bomb a division of AAA defended troops from
1,000 ft at 350 KTAS" :-)
>
> >> >> Adore is the wrong word, I'm very interested in it, as I am the F22. I
> >> >> think "Keen" would have been a better word!!!
> >> >
> >> >Uncriticially enthusiastic is perhaps more precise. From my perspective,
> >> >the Typhoon is an aircraft which was frozen in basic configuration and
> >> >sizing in 1978 (openly stated by BAe last year at a conference), which
> >>
> >> Hang on a min, basic configuration means size, weight, delta wing and
> >> a canard!!!, the F22 also 'suffers' from a design decided in 1986.
> >> the actual specs of these machines has changed remarkably in the last
> >> decade.
> >
> >The big difference here is that the Eurocanards are merely incremental
> >technology steps against the teen series, similar in almost every
> >respect.
>
> I beg to differ, the incremental steps are quite large, and push
> technology on several fronts (in fact the F22 now has some of those
> very same technogies) and it exceeds the capability of the F22 in some
> areas.
Large ? Mil-Std-1553B avionic architecture, conventional low bypass
afterburning fans, conventional pulse Doppler radar with planar array,
towed decoy EW, conventional RCS ....
Just because the USAF deferred the installation of an already designed
IRS&T which is a soda-straw sensor against an LPI phased array does not
give a conventional fighter any capability advantage of substance over
an F-22. And having voice input to cockpit avionics is nice but I
remained unconvinced that it is a decisive technology advantage - I'd
sooner invest the bucks in the core avionics like CIPs and radar. If
your workload situation is so high that you don;t have time for HOTAS
controls you are already in trouble.
I talked to an industry analyst in the Uk a few days ago. He expects
Typhoon, Rafale, F-16 and F-18 sales to collapse as soon as the JSF
starts shipping - apparently a number of countries have already started
to defer replacements to wait for the JSF.
>
> >>
> >> We cannot compete with the US, AFAIK we would not go in alone to the
> >> Balkans or the Middle east!!!, so why try.
> >
> >Did I say we need to go into the Balkans or ME ? If current arms racing
> >trends between India and the PRC continue, we will have enough
> >difficulty discouraging either from playing games in SEA.
>
> India or China would not be swayed from their course of action by the
> type of fighter we decide to purchase be it Typhoons or F22's.
> Therefor if a credable deterrant is what we require, then go for the
> cheapest option.
Don;t bet on that. If they know that we can inflict 20:1 losses on
whatever modest force size they can forward deploy or project into SEA,
they will think twice about it.
>
> >> >> Thats where our location gives us a big edge, we should be more
> >> >> focused on our Navy for a credable defence.
> >>
> >> We are an island, we are sorrounded by islands, we cannot win by
> >> airpower alone.....
> >
> >Air power is your best tool for this game. What happened in Malaya 1942
>
> What happened in Veitnam?.
Politicians micromanaged the air campaigns.
> I cannot see the Falklands being British now if all they had was
> airpower....
And naval power would have been unusable without the Harriers :-)
>
Cheers,
Carlo
Carlo Kopp
>
> Once Carlo Kopp <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> inscribed in stone:
>
> >David Bromage wrote:
> >>
> >> Various people around Russell are still talking about building 50 new
> >> F-111s at ~$65 million each.
> >>
> >David, this is a curious story to say the least. I doubt that reopening
> >the F-111 line decades after its shutdown would result in a USD 65M
> >airframe :-)
>
> I don't think the RAAF seriously expects to be able to go on forever
> with the F-111, or to be able to get new builds for a reasonable
> price, given that they have been retired by the US. I think in
> political circles there is strong support for "off the shelf"
> hardware.
There is quite some pressure in some circles to get rid of the F-111,
but the RAAF has properly resisted until it gets a decent replacement.
>
> >However, at 3/4 the cost of an F-22 I'd sooner go out and buy 38 F-22s
> >for the money.
>
> Yet again I'd be forced to agree with Carlo.
>
> >The F-111 is an excellent bomber, but in airspace full of Su-27/30 and
> >double digit SAMs, you will not be survivable without an F-22 escort to
> >knock down the Sukhois and wipe out the SAMs.
>
> My main problem with a purchase of F-22, or F-22/JSF is that the F-22
> is very distinctly being marketed as an air-air fighter, and not at
> all as a bomb truck, or even a dual role aircraft. Whether that
> translates to a single mission in production models isn't sure yet,
> but my fear is that air-ground will be at best a secondary capability.
The latest material I have seen is clearly aimed at the multirole
market, including some very difficult missions like loitering deep to
hunt for Scuds. I do agree that the aircraft was oversold for its A/A
capabilities in previous years. No doubt that it is the premier A/A
asset in existence today. However it is also a credible replacement for
the F-117A mission even with the basic 2 x JDAM loadout, and more
survivable in any scenario. With a SAR mode in the radar and JDAM it is
genuine all weather and almost as accurate even with the basic bomb, and
twice as fast therefore more productive. Use precision variants of the
JDAM and it should be just as accurate.
Part of the problem has been that the JDAM has performed so well that
there has been little pressure to develop specialised variants with
seekers which was always the plan. Specialised A/G is always associated
with specialised munition variants. AFAIK there is a "shortbody" HARM in
the pipeline for the F-22 and JSF, as well as the MMTD derivative "small
bombs". The WCMD guided cluster weapon is also earmarked for the F-22
and JSF. All that is missing is a TV/IIR datalink weapon for pinpoint
strikes, and an anti-shipping weapon. That covers the basic spectrum.
The WCMD dispenser should support various goodies like the SFW, CEB and
carbon fibre "bomblets".
This situation sort of reminds me of the F-15A/C scenario. Because of
doctrine in the USAF they are seen as pure A/A, yet they were designed
from day one as multirole and have a decent number of A/G modes. The
Israelis have used them as bombers from very early on. For the basic
tactical strike mission I'd prefer the F-15C over an F-18A or F-16A any
day - more payload radius and performance to get out of trouble.
>
> F-22/JSF as a high-low mixture has its own problems, mostly being that
> the JSF will end up the bomb truck with F-22 flying CAP, and that
> seems to lack the capability of the F-111 in the strike role. I just
> cannot see the RAAF choosing to use the F-22 as the strike platform
> while relying on the JSF as top cover.
The issue is whether you need top cover for an F-22. Once it sheds the
bombs it is a pure A/A fighter again. If there is a need for top cover
then you send in a mixed F-22 force with some carrying only AAMs. With
stealth and supercruise I expect them to go bombing like the F-111 did
in the early days, and the F-117A usually does - solo.
>
> >I do think there is a case though for a force structure mix of F-22 +
> >F-111, until 2020-2025, fatigue life on the F-111 permitting. Use the
> >F-22 to protect the bomb truck F-111.
>
> Then what replaces the F-111 if the F-22 cannot replace it outright?
There are no other choices. You adapt the F-22 by adding A/G modes and
extra weapons.
>
> >The cost issue has to be considered in terms of total lifecycle cost,
> >expended munitions costs for likely campaigns, and aircraft productivity
> >in terms of sorties per combat radius per time.
>
> Unfortunately, defence, and politicians tend to think in the short
> term for large spends, and to think of lifetime costs as a problem for
> another day (at least when the purchase costs have a large disparity).
> That is what makes the chances of buying the F-22 less than they
> otherwise might be. Not to mention that politicians love glossy
> pamphlets with great performance claims. :-)
The politicians will be the problem down here for sure, no matter what
we try to buy ourselves. They are in a serious state of denial over the
defence budget.
Also they are masters at confining their decisions to what looks good in
the next 6 months. If we wnated to buy 120 Typhoons or F-15E/K to
replace what we have they would scream, just as if we wanted anything
else in half decent numbers.
>
> >If you compare the F-22 against new build teen series or Eurocanards on
> >this basis, you will find that the unit cost differences between a USD
> >45-55M conventional fighter, against a USD ~80-90M F-22 are arguably
> >irrelevent.
>
> No such figures can exist for aircraft still in testing, and only just
> entering production. Especially ones so dependant on new
> technologies. One problem with the F-111 is the phenomenal number of
> maintenance hours required for each flight hour.
The F-111 is much better now after the AUP upgrade, they are getting
very decent numbers on the avionics. Could be better with a new radar
and TFR, and new ECM, and F110 engines :-)
AFAIK there USAF imposed some very stringent MMH/FH requirements for the
F-22, those are contractual. It is supposed to cost a small fraction of
wht it costs to support an F-15.
>
> >Let's assume your standoff weapon costs USD 1M per unit (including
> >support, integration, targeting etc). A conventional fighter has to
> >shoot off a mere 25 to 45 standoff weapons for the cost difference to
> >amortised ! Now assume your fighter shoots two such standoff weapons per
> >day, you have amortised the cost difference in a mere 12.5 to 22.5 days,
> >or 2-3 weeks. At the end of these 2-3 weeks or air war you have a
> >conventional fighter beginning to cost more than the F-22 does, in terms
> >of total capability costs, asusming you have the warstocks of standoff
> >missiles to keep up the effort.
>
> But the stand-off weapons can be argued to be only required for the
> initial battle, and suppression of air threats, and enemy air defence.
> Once that point is past, the use of more conventional munitions is
> support of the troops and to attack targets can be considered. Then
> your costs run level. Certainly in the situation of the air defence
> of Australia the number of sea going targets will tend to decrease in
> fairly short order unless there is a major expansion in regional naval
> capability.
The problem with many targets is that they need to be reattacked, for
instance airfields, ports and such. Also there is the issue of "Serbian
tactics", where the IADS elements are used sparingly and you don;t bag
as many as you would like. If you cannot inflict attrition on the IADS
quickly and decisively, and they wait there to snipe at you, then you
have to continue using tactics required to penetrate a full strength
IADS. Even the Iraqis are beginning to learn this after being bombed for
10 years :-)
>
> >There is also the productivity issue, since an F-22 can transit to
> >targets at twice the speed, so you can get twice as many missions into
> >the same cycle, and it is also very good in terms of maintenance
> >man-hours per flight hour. That was a USAF requirement.
>
> But for a price conscious buyer, this balances the smaller number of
> F-22 available. I am actually in favour of a large F-22 purchase,
> much as I'm in favour of a purchase of 4 air defence frigates for the
> RAN, but finances preclude this I fear. Both Australian political
> parties have indicated that they would be comfortable around the 2%
> GDP spending on defence level.
What our political parties are comfortable with is not necessarily what
we need to be strategically secure. There is a serious "reality gap"
between what our political leadership wants and thinks, against what the
strategic circumstances merit. That is why there is this furore over the
defence budget - pollies saying the DoD is dreaming, and defence
analysts saying the parliament is dreaming. The problem is that being
given responsibility for oversight does not make one an expert, despite
what our esteemed parliament may think of itself. I remain unimpressed
with many public statements by the minister and the shadow minister -
they are both behind on their reading :-(
>
> >There isn't really that much more to this issue. In the real world the
> >F-22 works out cheaper, long term.
>
> Yet to be proven, by a very long shot.
These arguments are based on fundamentals. You are right in the sense
that exact numbers won;t be stable for any of the new types for quite a
few years.
>
> More importantly, until all the contenders reach squadron service, it
> will be hard to judge. Fortunately, this will be the case when it
> does come time for the RAAF to make a purchase decision. I hope that
> the F-22 does have a real and proven air-ground capability, but if the
> USAF buys it, and then assigns it as an air superiority fighter only,
> it will make it harder to sell to other customers as a multi-role
> aircraft.
The USAF have made long term plans for two more wings of F-22 to replace
the F-117A and F-15E, these would be primarily tasked with A/G. Money
has not been apporved for them as yet, let alone for the baseline
version.
>
> Only time will tell...
>
Sadly yes, trying to plan anything at the moment is quite difficult.
Cheers,
Carlo
Carlo Kopp
> > > purchase a modest amount, until the regional situation deserves an
> > > extra 500 million invested, you do not have this choice with the F22.
> > > you pay the full amount straight up.
> >
> > Given the lead time to have hundreds of cruise missiles made up, you
> > could be waiting a number of years. Odds are it will be all over by
> > then. Safer to use cheap munitions since you can keep credible stocks.
>
> you are making the old mistake that a machinegunner that fires 500 RPM is as
> effective as 100 rifleman that fire 5 RPM each - you forget that the
> machinegunner only has to be killed once.
Why would you use dumb bombs ? They are too expensive to use these days,
given their poor accuracy and the extra sorties you need to fly to make
up for that. You'll burn up 100K in gas and MMH to deliver 5k worth of
bombs :-)
>
> > > Thats correct, but if you have purchased the F22 you have already paid
> > > that price up front, and I'll wager there will be a requirement for
> > > the F22 to use Cruise missiles, in situations where its too hot even
> > > for a stealth fighter to venture.
> >
> > This does not follow. I cannot see any scenario where you would want to
> > use the F-22 as a cruise missile shooter, it was designed to penetrate
> > and survive in the nastiest conceivable environments.
>
> So was the F-117
Twenty years ago, at the peak of the Cold War :-) A supercruising
aircraft at 45 kft can only be engaged by top end SAMs and fighters,
assuming it can be seen. Add stealth and the number of credible threats
is zip.
>
> >
> > As per my previous comment, you cannot afford to wait 3-5 years to get
> > your cruise missile warstocks delivered. You will have lost by then.
>
> To whom? - what is this threat to Australia that can only be countered by
> the absolute bleeding edge of aerospace technology and at a cost that will
> cripple the rest of the defence forces if purchased in effective numbers?
Do you want to see the PRC or India projecting air and naval power into
South East Asia ? That is a very likely outcome post 2010 given what
both of them are spending on new weapons. Also the argument that buying
100 state of the art fighters like an F-22/JSF mix would cripple the
budget is an overstatement.
However, lets assume you buy cheapie fighters, if there is any such
thing (most cost USD 40-60M), then you will be up for replacement costs
in 10-15 years once they cease to be competitive. The reason why the
F-111 has lasted so long and remained competitive is because we bought
top end gear.
>
> >
> > Standoff weapons will remain in service until all of the non-stealthy
> > types are retired.
>
> They will remain far longer than that - relying totally on stealth is very
> much putting all your eggs in one basket.
Relying on radar in 1940 was putting all of your eggs in one basket and
it held up quite well until 1985 when the F-117A went operantional :-)
Almost 50 years is not a bad run at all. Stealth, like radar, is a
fundamental paradigm change and those are not defeated quickly.
BTW using stealth doesn't preclude using other EW techniques of which we
now have a great many, should somehow magically a counter-stealth
technique be developed.
>
> > > The holes are Carlo with your mini force of F22's Australia is going
> > > to find itself in trouble from the word go, 40 odd aircraft to defend
> > > the top end, and mount offensive strikes to the north!!!!,
> >
> > I never said 40 aircraft, John, you are inventing this number. In fact
> > should the govt decide to go for an F-22/JSF 2 tier force as I have
> > suggested, then the ratio will depend on the mission spectrum they work
> > up and simulations they run against it.
>
> What is the threat that justifies that force and where will the money come
> from?
Try 300 Su-27SK, 100+ Su-30MKI/MKK, Tu-22M3 Backfire, A-50 and A-50I
AWACS, Il-78 tankers, Sunburn SSMs, Kh-31R Krypton ARMs, DF-21X and
Agni-II mobile IRBMs, MiG-29K/CVs ... this is all gear going into
service or being ordered/built for use by the PLA and/or India.
A good proportion of these assets provide the capability to project air
and naval power directly into SEA, our traditional area of strategic
interest.
>
> >
> > You are somehow forgetting the fact that you will need to allocate some
> > proportion of your strike force numbers to CAPs for escort and SEAD.
> > Therefore the ratio of shooters may actually only be 1/3 or at best 1/2
> > for a conventional fighter. Less escort perhaps if you are using cruise
> > missiles, since you won't need SEAD/SEAD, but then how long will your
> > cruise missile stocks last ?
>
> How many targets need to be hit - it's not as if the cold war USSR has
> shifted to Java.
If you need to disable naval bases and airfields being used to base an
expeditionary force in the region, at least 50-100 aimpoints per day,
for several weeks, to be safe.
We may yet see a Cold War between the PRC and the West, and SEA is
politically vulnerable to being turned.
>
> > > To sum up.
> > > The cost issue will alway come back to haunt you, an F22 force with
> > > only JDAMS is still going to cost the earth,and they _will_ require
> > > CASOMs in addition.
> >
> > This is not correct. You will get by perfectly well with stocks of
> > JDAMs. If you think you need standoff weapons, then you use a winged
> > JDAM like the Kerkanya or Diamondwing, that gives you more than enough
> > range for any known SAM system. A winged JDAM costs perhaps an extra
> > $10k per round, still peanuts against a cruise missile.
>
> Since a Typhoon is projected to carry JDAMs what is the advantage to using
> an F22 against a credible threat.
Not having to send an air armada in to be able to drop those JDAMs
without losing aircraft :-)
>
> > You wholly disregard the ability of the F-22 to sit at 1.4 Mach
> > indefinitely, John. See above. You don't need to have "twice the
> > numbers" to do the job, you have about twice the sortie rate and
> > footprint coverage.
> >
>
> You've gone for the old machinegunner V several rifleman mistake again.
I am correct on this point. You cannot use Lanchestrian linear or square
law models for infantry warfare to describe the behaviour of air battles
between stealthy and non-stealthy aircraft. The Lanchestrian model
assumes you can see the other guy to shoot at him.
>
> > >
> > > Wow you mean the airforces around the world have finally sorted out
> > > how to tell the difference between tractors and army trucks from
> > > 25Kfeet .( let alone 40K feet.)
> >
> > The current trend is to use very high resolution SAR and NCTR capable
> > GMTI radars, supplemented by UAVs, to identify the targets and vector
> > the shooters. What happened in Kosovo happened because the systems used
> > were designed for a Cold War scenario. Don't forget you are looking at
> > futures here, which means 2010-2025 or later.
>
> You mean you don't know, but you hope it will be sorted out and that the
> countermeasures deployed by then are ineffective.
Moores's Law provides a direct means of projecting the compute power we
will be able to put into our radars by then, which is largely what
prevents these modes being used at the moment. So I do know. The
technology has all been trialled years ago, only a lack of affordable
compute power has held things up.
Cheers,
Carlo
David Bromage
> On Sat, 06 May 2000 05:17:55 GMT, dbro...@fang.omni.com.au (David
> Bromage) wrote:
> >L'acrobat (hus...@dingoblue.net.au) wrote:
> >> In any credible Australian scenario the Typhoon is a better buy dollar for
> >> dollar than the F22.
> >
> >I think the short list for Air 6000 will be the Typhoon, F-15E and F/A-18E/F.
> >This is solely to replace the existing F/A-18s.
> Hmmm I would strike the F15 out (too old), and add the F22 and JSF,
> and also the Russians have briefed air staff on there kit!!!.
The JSF won't get onto the short list because it's not even being
tendered. Sukhoi has been making noises, but I dount anything will make
the short list.
> The Rafale would seem to be out, unless they sell them at a loss!!.
There was some talk about the Rafale. Haven't heard much, but the tender
may not proceed.
> The Typhoon seems to be the front runner as its available and its an
> all rounder (I recommend getting a gun with it!),
That's the problem with the Typhoon. I think RAAF is insisting on a gun.
> There's the Gripen, but it may be too small for Ozzie requirements.
Legs are too short. Might be suitable if we only had to defend Tasmania. :)
Cheers
David
L'acrobat
"David Bromage" <dbro...@fang.omni.com.au> wrote in message news:ANnR4.469
> > The Typhoon seems to be the front runner as its available and its an
> > all rounder (I recommend getting a gun with it!),
>
> That's the problem with the Typhoon. I think RAAF is insisting on a gun.
Then there is no problem - the Typhoon comes standard with a gun - the RAF
are talking about deleting theirs and replacing them with a weight to save
money, the other 4 operators will have a gun fitted (so far).