RAAF may halve F-35 purchase

[Capricorn]

That is not particularly correct. JSF simply happens to be the best of the so called next generation fighters currently being developed. If we took the line that Australia is buying military hardware from the US SOLELY on alliance issues then why is the RAN looking at a Spanish design for our two carriers, or our subs being based on a Swedish design. Our trainer A/C, the BAe Hawk 127 LIF and the Piletus PC9's are not US hardware either. The ADF looks at all available options when chosing a replacement or new asset for our defence forces.

Most of the examples you mentions are platforms/systems/weapons with a strong or exlcusive European orgin. The US is not building conventional subs, no small aircraftcarrier are constructed and the"PC9"and "Hawk" were choosen by the US itself.

But its impossible too overlook the strategic partnership between US and Australia, the ANZUS treaty,the long Aussie tradition of support of US led interventions and the JSF. Interoperability,standarizations, pooling of resources, acts of goodwill, have always be important in keeping alliances or frienships strong or renewing decaying one. In such context high profile programme like JSF seems too be an asset to both.

Too put it bluntly:It's very interesting to study the link between Australias participtation in "war on terror", the present political connection between Canberra and Washington and the structure and preferretial nature of the JSF programme.

Many of you are overrating a new fighters radius of action and the vastness of Australia , without consideration from whom and were a new threat is like to materialize. The old communist threat and Australia as a carrier and barrier of Soviet expansion seems to be enduring.

Edited January 5, 2006 by Capricorn

[Vliegenier]

Ken

I am sure they could add that functionality to our tankers if need be. Not sure if the same situation exists with our F-111 and F/A-18A assets currently.

MikeJ

I don't think they are equiped with a boom . I remember from somewhere that the F-111's would train with USAF-tankers during the joint exercices ( don't recall their names ) .

:D

Stef

[Raymond]

Too put it bluntly:It's very interesting to study the link between Australias participtation in "war on terror", the present political connection between Canberra and Washington and the structure and preferretial nature of the JSF programme.

indeed it is!

I coudl talk/rant about that for hours, but a closed thread is good for no one! ;)

........suprise; we never got offered JSF :D

Edited January 5, 2006 by Raymond

[madmike]

Many of you are overrating a new fighters radius of action and the vastness of Australia , without consideration from whom and were a new threat is like to materialize. The old communist threat and Australia as a carrier and barrier of Soviet expansion seems to be enduring.

Overrate?

I live in Australia mate, I live in Perth, the most remote city in Australia. I think I would know how vast my country is and what sort of aircraft are needed to defend it. The most open portion of our country is our Northern border where it is sparsely populated. This is where our air assets train and operate from. RAAF Tindal is one of our most important bases in the north and where the ADF staged our East Timor operations from.

Most of the examples you mentions are platforms/systems/weapons with a strong or exlcusive European orgin. The US is not building conventional subs, no small aircraftcarrier are constructed and the"PC9"and "Hawk" were choosen by the US itself.

But its impossible too overlook the strategic partnership between US and Australia, the ANZUS treaty,the long Aussie tradition of support of US led interventions and the JSF. Interoperability,standarizations, pooling of resources, acts of goodwill, have always be important in keeping alliances or frienships strong or renewing decaying one. In such context high profile programme like JSF seems too be an asset to both.

Let's break this down to two replies shall we. The Goshawk is a modified version of the standard T.1A Hawk. Australia looked at multiple trainer choices, before settling on the Hawk to replace the aging AeroMacchi MB326 trainers (Italian origin). The PC9 was the winner over the Shorts version of the Embraer Tucano. I quote these examples as the ADF is embarking on a re-armament programme. We are building our frigates and AA Destroyers here in Australia based on Australian designs, likewise our transports and patrol boats are built here in Western Australia.

Our army use Austrian Steyr assault rifles as well!

The ADF purchased Eurocopter Tigre over the AH-64D and are replacing Blackhawk transports with another Eurocopter design.

To say that the ADF relies solely on US designs is quite plainly false.

Second point, you are right to say we are heavily involved with the war on terror, rightly or wrongly I believe in what Australia is doing as terrorism affects every free nation on Earth.

The ANZUS treaty was born out of US assistance in WW2 when our motherland, the UK, traditionally supportive, could not support us in those darkest years when Japanese forces were knocking at Australia's northern coastline.

JSF continues a long tradition of the RAAF wanting the best A/C available. When selections were being made for a long range nuclear weapon abled strike fighter TSR-2 was looking to be a winner, while the F-111 was only just being deployed to USAF squadrons. The RAAF decided on the F-111 and waited several years for delivery, flying Phantoms as a substitute. If JSF was a Eurofighter design, then Australia would buy from Eurofighter; pure and simple.

Do not think Australia went for JSF because it is a United States based project. The ADF selects from a wide variety of sources to suit it's operational requirements regardless of the ANZUS treaty.

MikeJ

Edited January 5, 2006 by madmike

[Capricorn]

indeed it is!

I coudl talk/rant about that for hours, but a closed thread is good for no one! ;)

........suprise; we never got offered JSF :D

I am not trying to be political, just analytical, but emotions are easy to stir as your answer implies.

[phantom works]

hey, good deal.........they unlocked the thread...

Provided our F-15Es ended up being new build, it wouldn't be hard to design a retractable IFR probe. Easier than adding a flying boom to our tankers, if you ask me anyway.

there's been several aborted studies to do just that, one for UAE I think it was, and possibly greek......both of whom ended up with advanced 16's......because the F-15 is simply more aircraft than they needed (or wanted to pay for).........I will make a fairly bold statement here, and I may eat my words because of the AESA radar and ability to carry 10 amraams......(although purely performance speaking it's somewhat of a dog) but I find it very difficult to forsee any customer other than the US navy ever buying the F-18E/F. Same as the T-45........highly unlikely. These things get so highly loaded up with US Navy requirements and so overly constrained that in the end they find themselves unable to compete for the services of anyone else EXCEPT the US Navy. And the cost driven into the programs BECAUSE of the US Navy makes them a non starter. Not to mention that the F-18E/F doesn't compete well cost vs capabilities vs the advanced F-16's and it cost so damn much that a country might as well buy an F-15E+.....in short, the F-18E/F ends up odd man out.....same as the T-45.

Edited January 5, 2006 by phantom works

[Murph]

These things get so highly loaded up with US Navy requirements and so overly constrained that in the end they find themselves unable to compete for the services of anyone else EXCEPT the US Navy.

By that rationale the legacy versions of the Hornet shouldn't have been able to compete with the F-16 for sales (realizing that the lack of a BVR missile on the original F-16 was a big factor).

Regards,

Murph

[phantom works]

how many countries fly legacy F-16's?

how many countries fly legacy F-18's? (answer, those that had a standing req. for two engines)

how many countries fly advanced F-16's?

how many countries fly advanced F-18's?

time will tell I guess......

I came back and editted this a little, because I don't want to sound argumentative and arrogant again......just wanted to put out some food for thought.

Edited January 5, 2006 by phantom works

[Vesper]

Well, the Aussie could end up with B-1's (Now where have I heard that before ? )

Ves

[Capricorn]

Overrate?

I live in Australia mate, I live in Perth, the most remote city in Australia. I think I would know how vast my country is and what sort of aircraft are needed to defend it. The most open portion of our country is our Northern border where it is sparsely populated. This is where our air assets train and operate from. RAAF Tindal is one of our most important bases in the north and where the ADF staged our East Timor operations from.

Let's break this down to two replies shall we. The Goshawk is a modified version of the standard T.1A Hawk. Australia looked at multiple trainer choices, before settling on the Hawk to replace the aging AeroMacchi MB326 trainers (Italian origin). The PC9 was the winner over the Shorts version of the Embraer Tucano. I quote these examples as the ADF is embarking on a re-armament programme. We are building our frigates and AA Destroyers here in Australia based on Australian designs, likewise our transports and patrol boats are built here in Western Australia.

Our army use Austrian Steyr assault rifles as well!

The ADF purchased Eurocopter Tigre over the AH-64D and are replacing Blackhawk transports with another Eurocopter design.

To say that the ADF relies solely on US designs is quite plainly false.

Second point, you are right to say we are heavily involved with the war on terror, rightly or wrongly I believe in what Australia is doing as terrorism affects every free nation on Earth.

The ANZUS treaty was born out of US assistance in WW2 when our motherland, the UK, traditionally supportive, could not support us in those darkest years when Japanese forces were knocking at Australia's northern coastline.

JSF continues a long tradition of the RAAF wanting the best A/C available. When selections were being made for a long range nuclear weapon abled strike fighter TSR-2 was looking to be a winner, while the F-111 was only just being deployed to USAF squadrons. The RAAF decided on the F-111 and waited several years for delivery, flying Phantoms as a substitute. If JSF was a Eurofighter design, then Australia would buy from Eurofighter; pure and simple.

Do not think Australia went for JSF because it is a United States based project. The ADF selects from a wide variety of sources to suit it's operational requirements regardless of the ANZUS treaty.

MikeJ

Living in a long but small country I tried explicit not to underrate the vastness of Australia. But most of the worlds wilderness and vastness is not contested territory, has no strategic value, pose any threat or have any military value. Threats are specific, they are not natural, they are shifting, decaying and rising, has different sources and actors. But I am not impling that Australia has no threats to its territory, only that they have to be indentified and measured openly. Only then can we begin a discussion whats best, JSF, Flanker, F-111 etc. There is no locigal connection between Australias territory if the treat comes from Afganistan, Iran or any out of area contingency. Contrary if you are of the opinion that there exist deep strategic patterns that one day may recycle and be threathning it must be factored in your argument.

I am not impling that Australia is a vassall of the US, that every weapon must be of US orgin or that ADF is part of Pentagon. Modern democratic alliances among formal equals are enduring because there is latitude of action, freedom of expression, disagreements but always with a subtle differnces in power. Commitments and acts of screening againtst the powerful is a classic and intergral feature in most alliances. Australias diversified arms policy may be analysed that way.

As your quotation shows there are weapon from different sources with diffrent programmatic history. But as I wrote there are certain high level programs placed in a certain political /strategic enviroment that can not be reduced too static cost /effective analyses.

In general, selling advanced fighers is not principially about selling an airplane. Official statments, press relases and the general press sadly gives that impression. If so, why has the F-15 been sold to only a handful countries that happen to be close allies to the US, be of great strategic value (Japan), have oildeposit outstretcing anyone(Saudi Arabia), a neighbour to a nuclear power (S. Korea) or being a moral obligation (Israel). Why was Australia allowded to buy the F-111 in the first, an act of goodwill, a money spinner for GD, or more realistically to free and bolster US resorces in the Pacific? I am not implying any evil or bad behavor in this, only that weapons are political in the same way that war is politics by other means.

Edited January 5, 2006 by Capricorn

[Jim Barr]

A lot of good stuff in there Capricorn

Politics is something that is often forgotten in groups such as ours when discussions about different aircraft for different countries come up. Do most here know for example that an American defense contractor can not even approach a country with a marking campaign if that country is not approved for that product by our State Dept? (And you don't get much more political then those guys) Oh we can talk to them if they come by our exhibit at an air show and give them some "for public release" literature, but take them to a back room and give them a "real" briefing, no way. For example; at the first Paris Air Show that we flew the F-16 after a couple of days a gentleman from one of the Middle East countries came to our chalet and said he would like to talk to someone about buying some F-16s, well as you can imagine this brought out a few of our marketing people, they took him in to one of the conference room where he pulled out a check book and said he was ready on the spot to buy a squadron of F-16s, he gave his credential and they were check, he was for real, unfortunately his country was not on the State Dept list, so he was told, much to our guys sorrow, that it was just not possible to hold these types of discussion with his country. (This was told to be by my boss who was there.)

We can discuss all we want about the different merits of aircraft X verse Y but for the vast majority of countries it is the politicians that decide what aircraft their air force gets, oh the military have an input and sometimes the politician even listen, but by and large the decision is all about politics at all its many levels.

Regards

Jim Barr

[Raymond]

....and thats why politicans are mans greatest enemy!

....must...kill.....clark......

[madmike]

As this discussion has appeared to turn to politics yet again, I will be refraining from replying in a thread I started and asked to be unlocked.

Unfortunately there are several posters who seem intent on keeping it political which was never the intention or the reason for the thread in the first place.

What a pity there are so many armchair experts who want to analyse/theorise the politics of defence spending and alliances rather than discuss the type of aircraft that MY country needs as a front line fighter.

Right now I would be happy for the mods to lock or delete this thread.

Edited January 6, 2006 by madmike

[Jim Barr]

But Mike, like it or not, politics are a huge factor when it come to which aircraft a country ends up with. In a perfect world sure it would all be up to which aircraft is best, but that is not realistically how it works, say in country X the military decides that the F-22 is just what they need, it fill every requirement that they have and they need 100 of them, but the civil government says "are you crazy, there is no way we can afford that unless we cancel X,Y, & Z", well that's politics and it should be part of the discussion, This thread started off because the price of the JSF has increased and the question is should it still be the choice of the ADF or should other alternatives be looked at, if the price had stayed the same would we be having this discussion? Why is price a factor, because there is only so much budget to be given to it without taking away from something else or cutting the numbers you were going to buy and that budget comes from the civil government which means politics.

Is it really useful to discuss which aircraft your country needs without taking in the political ramifications when that is such a big part of the decision? You can compare rate of climb, combat radius, max speed, weapons compatibility, airspeed bleed off in a max G turn, etc. but if you know that there is not a snowballs chance of getting aircraft X because the military or the government will never go for it what’s the use? If the discussion stays civil and does not turn personal why not see what people think is the best aircraft when all the factors are considered?

Regards

Jim Barr

Edited January 6, 2006 by Jim Barr

[madmike]

Jim

The issue is not what country we are aligned to at all. As I said earlier. The ADF purchases equipment from many sources. I am not going to repeat examples again.

I am not interested in politics. If I want to argue that I will go back to the whirlpool forum's news sections and trade insults and politcal viewpoints there.

Politics does play in decisions true, but this is not what this thread was intended to be about.

Personally, the quicker Australia ditches the JSF programme, cuts it losses and looks for a tangable product in service now. The delay without a third of our airwing is 4 years, I doubt any airforce would like that situation even for only 2 years as was originally mooted when we were supposed to get JSF in 2012.

Australia may only be a small player or as some people like to call it "a junior player" but we still have some say in this matter.

the RH-66 helicopter programme was full of pormise as well and that was terminated. JSF might not be terminated but the costs may preclude the ADF from purchasing the numbers required to form a viable force and that is what concerns me!

MikeJ

Edited January 6, 2006 by madmike

[Mandrake]

Regardless of your preference not to discuss politics it is simply not possible to have a productive discussion about defence procurement without relying heavily upon political factors and considerations. Afterall the end decision is in general one made by the politicians and thus is a heavily poltically calculated and motivated one.

What aircraft is best is infact a disturbingly redundant question because it fails to account for the bigger picture.....what aircraft is best for Australia? In saying that I do not refer to the airframe itself, nor its capabilites but also whats best for Australian industry/industrial advancement, finances and international political relation and status.

Yes it would be fun to discuss ADF Su-35 but it would be totally unrealistic and this is the real aviation forum afterall

[Dan 88]

Been following this topic lately, and I have to agree with the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and advanced F-15E. These are proven jets that get the job done and are cheaper than buying the JSF. The F-16 would be good, but it's range just isn't big enough.

[Jim Barr]

Mike

Ok, lets look at a couple of thing you brought up that started this thread and what you suggested.

First off was the newspaper article which I went back and read, man they sure like to use the term "blowout" and "slash" a lot, an example:

"The US Congress has already recommended slashing $270million from the Pentagon's joint strike fighter budget next year."

Where in another paper it was;

"The $453 billion defense appropriations bill sent to President Bush trimmed $230 million from the nearly $5 billion the Pentagon requested for the F-35 in 2006."

Now in my book $230 mil from $453 Billion is more of a "trim" then a "slash"

And the rest of the story; "But the final bill appears to be in line with what Lockheed has said was needed to keep work on the next-generation aircraft on schedule.

Most important to Lockheed: The bill passed by the House and Senate contains $120 million in advance funds. Lockheed has said that money was needed to proceed with planning and purchasing materials and components so work on the first five production jets can begin in 2007."

Another example is:

"But US Defense News has cited Pentagon sources as saying the US Air Force may be forced to scrap the CTOL version and opt for a smaller number of the more expensive navy version of the fighter.â€

This will of course will cause more of a "blowout" in the price and force more "slashing" of the numbers that can be bought, only problem is that is an old story, that, from all that I have heard, has been pretty much laid to rest as not going to happen.

But lets move on to the price; lets say it gets "blowout" to $65 mil, I take it that is in OZ Dollars since it is an Australian paper and did not specify US dollars, any way so we are talking apples to apples that converts, at today’s exchange rate, to a unit cost of US $48.6 mil (rounded up for a tad more blowout , sorry couldn't resist) and I take it an unacceptable price to you since you posted:

No matter how capable the F-35 is vaunted to be, time to drop the coat tails and purchase the correct numbers of a fighter(s) that is not going to cost the bloody earth.

F-18E and F-15E combo would be a good start for investigation.

On price alone after doing some googling I came up with; (and you can come up with lower and higher but you have to look at what fiscal year the dollar amount they are talking about was calculated)

F/A-18E/F = USD $70-74 mil unit cost

F-15K (figured you would want the latest) = USD $100 -105 Mil unit cost

So from a cost comparison alone I don't see that Australia is better off.

So if the cost saving is not there, is it a matter of capabilities, I know you seem to be leaning towards the feeling that the F-35 will turn into another RH-66, but for a number of reasons IMHO that is not going to happen, but for this response let’s say the F-35 goes into production. I do believe that everyone agrees that the F-35 will have a lot more capabilities in most areas then the two you listed, especially when it comes to stealth, systems, net centric integration, and it definaetly has the range over the 18, factors that are extremely critical in any future conflict that Australia would be committing their air assets. Is there a chance the F-35 will turn out to be a failure, it’s possible, but with all that is going into it, like the lessons learned on the F-22 (both the good and the bad) it is not probable, there is already starting to be a buzz about how much better it will be in certain areas then even the 22.

So the one thing that you brought up that then becomes a factor is - time till it is in service with the ADF. I have an honest question as I can not find the answer anywhere I have looked; when was it originally scheduled to be in service? I can not debate that issue until I have some info to compare.

Oops see where you have that it was to be in service in 2012 near the end of your last post, will get back to you in the morning.

Regards

Jim Barr

Edited January 6, 2006 by Jim Barr

[Jindivik]

Provided our F-15Es ended up being new build, it wouldn't be hard to design a retractable IFR probe. Easier than adding a flying boom to our tankers, if you ask me anyway.

The Airbus tankers that the RAAF has commited to buying will have both hose and drogue and flying boom systems.

[Jindivik]

Hi Chris,

The guys you know at 6sqn obviously have a different outlook from the guys of my era from my trade course who went to either 482 Sqn or 3AD as they were then called and who had to do deep cycle maintenance of them. One of those guys who went to 3AD was later posted to what was 486 sqn and he reckoned the Hercs were a dream to work on comparatively.

Cheers,

Ross.

Doesn't really suprise me Ross, all the guys I know at 6Sqn at the moment I think only like working on the Pig's due to the reasonably close proximity of the Gold Coast beaches. :lol:

But most of the older guy's I have spoken to who have worked on the Hornets, Macchi's etc. before being posted to Amberley have said that there is not much difference in maintenance difficulty between the types.

I guess it's just a case of horses for courses.

[ross blackford]

B) Hi Chris,

They certainly couldn't be any worse than the Mirage. I had the smallest hands in OCU elec section and there were some spots I could reach, but with difficulty. Blokes with bigger hands than mine had no hope. So guess who used to get all the crap jobs, as well as everything else. Changing a main or 46A inverter was a real challenge. Upside down on the seat, legs either side of the head box (knees bent), screwdriver in hand, reach down either left or right side of the centre console with your shoulder against the control column, reach to full reach and you could just about reach the forward most dzus fastener. It was a job we all hated. We tried a static inverter in the electronics bay for a while and had no trouble with it, but that was about the time I got posted to Richmond so I never saw the results of the trial or heard if the idea was adopted.

Cheers,

Ross.

[ross blackford]

B) Hi Mike,

I am sorry you feel the way you do about how the thread is going. I do tend to agree with you (having been chatted for some of my comments by one of the mods). To all those who are posting things political, let's remember that this thread has already been locked down once and it was only due to Mike's efforts that it was reopened. I for one am suitably chastened, and don't want to push the envelope. Mike, try and see beyond all this, the thread you started is important to all us Aussies and your opinions are important to us at least, even if we differ on what would be a suitable replacement for the F18s and F111s there is still a lot of life left in the debate yet.

Let's just not jeapodise the discussion. We are all mature people here and we should be able to have a discussion on the merits or otherwise of the various possible contenders. To our overseas readers this is ultimately a matter for us aussies to sort out for ourselves, and if the politicians and Their Airships make the wrong decision we will let them know in about 18 months time. How you people overseas who know probably more about the potential contenders can help us is by telling us what the pro and cons of each design is. May I suggest that if you do decide to do so then tell us about your country's potential contenders. I am rather tired of Americans bagging anything Russian or Western European, or the Brits bagging anything French or American etc,etc, etc. There are some here who do what i'm suggesting, but there are many who don't. I have learned not offer an opinion about other countries' problems or issues facing that country because I am not there and thus my opinion on the matter is irrelevant to situation at hand.

Cheers,

Ross.

[phantom works]

there is already starting to be a buzz about how much better it will be in certain areas then even the 22.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

where's that raptor driver at? ;)

I always wondered that myself........how they can justify a "high/low mix" concept when the low part of the mix (F-35) has generally the same weapons load in air to ground stealth mode as the high part of the mix (F-22).......

something has gotta give folks..........I expect the next 6-12 months to be very interesting.

[Jim Barr]

The operative part of the statement is "certain areas".

Regards

Jim barr

[Murph]

I always wondered that myself........how they can justify a "high/low mix"

The same way they justified it with the F-15 and F-16.

Regards,

Murph

Edited January 6, 2006 by Murph