RAAF Stopgap air plan is 'dumb'

[Cootamundra]

Dick and by default Kurt thanks for the interesting update. As I've maintained the JSF is going to end up costing more than planned, perhaps much more. I still maintain the point that for now ALL of this is just speculation. I also still maintain that the RAAF will take up the most effective (that's capability and cost price) airframe. This may or may not end up being a mix of JSF and F-15, or JSF and UCAV or no JSF at all and just F-15 or F-15 and UCAV and on and on an on it goes.

We have NOT committed to a purchase contract at this stage and despite views by people like rb I think that the AusGov would walk away if the deal made no sense (whether that be because of price or decrease in capability - just as the Brits will). I'm not convinced however that the tech transfer issue is finished, time will tell. You now I'm a big fan of US arms tech but if in the end the JSF does not fit I won't shed a tear....what I want is the best capability for the best price AND I want the RAAF to be the meanest airforce in our neck of the woods!

Coota

 

[Cootamundra]

Re: Price for JSF

I keep reading about reliability problems with the F-111s, but this does not tally with other things that I've read.Apparently the F-111 airframes are better tested and certified than the F-18s.cheers rb

Yeah, the F-111s scored a perfect operational record when they played over in the US and YES, from what I've read we have plenty to be proud of, however the F-111 is an ageing aircraft that has limited operational life left if you take into account the increasing cost to maintain and sustain the fleet, similarly for the Bugs. This is why they are looking for new aircraft to begin from earlish next decade.

Coota

 

[Whiskyjack]

Re: Price for JSF

I see in one of the latest AW&ST that the JSF for Australia will be around US$80mil a plane, including spares etc..., however the USAF may only get 1200 of the 1700 odd planes that it has asked for, which will drive up the cost. The Australian Defence Minister has also categorically said no to F-22.

Also talk of US Navy cancelling the F136 alternative engine that has a high British industrial participation.

The next year will be interesting for the JSF.

 

[machina]

Here's a question, what sort of percentage are the costs for things other than the aircraft themselves in this sort procurement?

Even if you looked at the JSF costing at the high end of the estimates at $100bn a plane, then 100 would cost $10bn. If you're looking at spending $12 to 16bn then there's still alot of money to be spent in other areas.

 

[knightrider4]

I dont know what percentage it would be but a lot of the costs are in the lifetime support of the aircraft.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Here's a question, what sort of percentage are the costs for things other than the aircraft themselves in this sort procurement?

Even if you looked at the JSF costing at the high end of the estimates at $100bn a plane, then 100 would cost $10bn. If you're looking at spending $12 to 16bn then there's still alot of money to be spent in other areas.

The cost to maintain and support the aircraft, provide training and integrate new systems and munitions for the aircraft, normally exceeds by a fair margin, the actual cost of the aircraft itself...

 

[Cootamundra]

Yeah I was wonderingt he same thing myself. $16 billion has been earmarked for the program and I take it that is to cover through life costs as well as the initial purchase. This will be Australias largets ever military procurement.
Coota

 

[Rich]

Australia is to important an ally, positioned in to important a region, for me to believe the US would stupid enough to not find a way to work this out. If its "leasing" of Strike Eagles then it should be at prices that "make sense". The bottom line is a strong ANZUS, a strong maritime strike capability for the RAAF, makes America safer and would free up USN assets in case of war. Also add in the fact that losing the RAAF to another warplane industry would be a political and economic blow to the US. It would also weaken ANZUS and serve the Chinese interests.

Like I said I'd be surprised if our Govt.'s would be to stupid to not find a way to fix this. But Ive been "surprised" before.

 

[rossfrb_1]

Bollocks, with due respect rb Hill has been one of best DefMins in awhile and Howard as much as he is the master of wedge politics believes strongly in Australia maintaining an edge against regional powers. Also he is a stong advocate (as is Hill, Downer and to a lesser extent Costello) of Australia as a middle power. I don't believe that they would proceed with the purchase just so that they wouldn't have to back down.
{snip}
Coota

Coota, I know that the RAAF is not committed to a JSF purchase absolutely come what may. Maybe I should have tacked a tongue in cheek emoticon in on that statement I wrote.
What I was trying to emphasize was that as things currently stand, the RAAF currently has one stated option regards upgrading the fast jet fleet and that is JSF.
That's where the research money is currently going. Once money starts getting spent on something, it seems that it is difficult to stop. Remember the Seasprite fiasco?
(some of whose airframes started life in 1964 might I add)
Who made this so? I suspect Howard, just like the M1 tanks for the army, the Raytheon combat system for the Collins (STN Atlas got shafted), the Aegis for the AWD, and looking like the C-17.
I'm not against US military technology. I believe that by and large it is generally superior to most other stuff. But once someone starts saying 'buy brand x, and don't consider anything else"
Then I start worrying that defence isn't getting value for money, because the makers of brand x don't have to discount.
It seems to me that Howard's view on things (US centric) has been an over riding factor here. If this is so, then maybe Hill has not been that good a minister. But as of this morning he's gone.
This I believe gives Howard the opportunity to to possibly reverse the JSF mandate, with as you suggest an F-15 buy or somesuch without he- Howard looking like he has backed down.

 

[cherry]

Something worth considering is this:
- If all $16B is spent on a purchase of 100 JSF then, this will equate to each JSF unit with (I assume) training manuals, spare parts, through life support costs, adding up to $160m per aircraft.
- If only $12B is spent on a purchase of 100 JSF then, this will equate to each unit costing $120m each.
- If this scenario is put to a purchase of just 50 JSF that the media are preaching, then effectively the price for each scenario is doubled, $320m per aircraft or $240 per aircraft. If this were the case then something such as Typhoon or F-22 would be worth looking at rather than JSF.

Does anyone know of any country in the world of roughly equal status in the world that only operates one type of fast jet?

 

[Cootamundra]

CWho made this so? I suspect Howard, just like the M1 tanks for the army, the Raytheon combat system for the Collins (STN Atlas got shafted), the Aegis for the AWD, and looking like the C-17.

Personally I think the M1, Raytheon Combat System, AEGIS and potentially C-17s are all breat buys or will be. But I do agree with you on your point about keeping options open. I certainly don't like the idea of selecting a single supplier before a program has been confirmed (whether it be technically or $$ wise). In my end of the the business world Corporations are taught to encourage multiple vendors to elicit the best bid. Interestingly despite choosing G&C for the AWD apparently the actual ship design itself is not yet finalised, this is to keep options open. What we should've had for the RAAF is money allocated to the JSF design program and a test program (fly-off) for interim contenders (ala Singapore), that way we could get an interim bird, and start picking up JSFs a little later into their development, with the eventual aim being either a full JSF fleet or post the interims some UCAVs.

 

[pnl3410]

I dont recall australia ever needing to bunker bust anything. Some of the comments on this page are incredible. Who are our enemys? I don't see us launching raids on any of our neighbours in the future, if ever.

If there is a gap in airpower from the retirement of strike aircraft to the aquiring of the new platform, will our so called enemys take advantage of this and take over australia? I dont think so. We have always had a small, capable and very proffesional air force. One of our biggest attributes is flexibilty, if something needs to be done, we use what we have at the time to get it done. If all we have is f-18's in the interim and something requires attention, it will be done. The aquisition of the JSF, the retirement of the F-111 and the time between them is just that, time. Maybe we could spend our massive budget surplace on the the people that really deserve it, the f-111fuel tank reseal/deseal guys who are now getting sick because of the exposure to chemicals.

 

[Cootamundra]

pnl3410, not sure if understand your agenda, in another thread you are asking for opinions on building a new F-111 Aussie built airframe, that would require much investment. Then in this thread you are saying that that funding deserves to go to the F-111 maintenance guys - who probably do deserve some $$$'s, note that this thread is not about where the funding should go but whether or not the decision to only have the JSF as our next choice for the RAAF was sensible. All of the other comments have been related to how to maintain our capabilities when both the PIG and later on HugBugs are all retired, JSF by itself or interim aircraft + JSF later...that is the question

 

[Rich]

""""I dont recall australia ever needing to bunker bust anything. Some of the comments on this page are incredible. Who are our enemys? I don't see us launching raids on any of our neighbours in the future, if ever."""

Really? For one thing you have treaty obligations under ANZUS. Secondly Australia has an interest in the oil development of the Timor gap. Indonesia, a military dictatorship, is a potential rival as are the Chinese. Every Liberal loves to blubber, "no blood for oil", but just let those gas stations run dry so's they cant fill their SUVs and I wonder what we'd hear then.

1/3 of the worlds shipping passes thru the seas in your part of the world, of which Australia has a powerful interest in ocean imports/exports. You also have a huge coastline to protect.

The simple fact is that peace most often comes to the strong. Nobody has a crystal ball and no-one can see all the possible threats coming 10,20, 30 years from now.

 

[gf0012-aust]

1/3 of the worlds shipping passes thru the seas in your part of the world, of which Australia has a powerful interest in ocean imports/exports. You also have a huge coastline to protect.

The simple fact is that peace most often comes to the strong. Nobody has a crystal ball and no-one can see all the possible threats coming 10,20, 30 years from now.

• actually 98% of australias trade traverses the straits.
• australia also has a recognised responsibility to manage and protect 1/9th of the worlds oceans

The most critical element for protection of our aquatic responsibilities, be they SLOC or territories is a strong navy, a strong maritime patrol capability and a strong capability to pursue and prosecute force against anyone who threatens our trade and carriage routes.

we also have a responsibility to provide a stabilising and temperant influence on our PACRIM neighbours as this region is becoming fractious.

The Solomons is contained, but could deteriorate at the drop of a hat, I predicted 18 months ago that Fiji would start to unravel as it approached the next election - and all the intel coming back from traders and tourists points to a rapid deterioration in race relations (again) between indigenous Fijians and Fijian Indians. And of course there is the rapidly deteriorating situation of PNG where she is stumbling into a failed state status. Then there are minor but just as serious collapses portending in Vanuatu

All of this is in our immediate area. I spent 25 years in Fed Govt in positions involving political interaction with our immediate region - and both Govt parties in power never had any inkling about how quick things turned in any of the above examples. We were caught flat footed every time. Even now the head in the sand mentality is present over Fiji, the Govt does not want to be seen to be having to prepare for a poss military intervention, and the opposition party is completely oblivious to what is happening even though the signals are getting louder every day.

The long and the short of it is that if your military is not flexible enough to deal with immediate regional issues - then your political capacity to influence and intervene without force is considerably reduced.

Although, as a country we have redeemed ourselves with the Solomons - and the Solomons is used by the UN as a standout example of how more powerful regional nations can step up to the plate before acts of genocide can take place.

Not planning ahead with a flexible force mix is just the height of naivete.

 

[Rich]

Even a generation ago a foreign power coveted the huge land mass and resources of the Australian continent. Certain brilliant strategists in the Japanese high command, who BTW we rent listened to, recommended an invasion of Australia while most of her sons were off fighting for the British empire. This would have been the correct way to prosecute the war. The loss of the Australian bases for the allied navies would have been a huge, if not fatal, blow.

Could Japan have pulled it off? Without modern tanks and a mechanized army??? We will never know, but surely trying to made more sense then sending 100,000 of thousands of troops to swelter and starve garrisoning Islands of no strategic importance. Which MacAthur and the Allies were more then happy to by-pass while strangling Japan with long range submarines basing out of Australian ports.

No matter what the individual politics of her individual citizens every Australian must understand their country sits smack in the middle of an extremely strategically important piece of the world and one that's getting more critical with each passing year. And Yanks have to come to understand that our alliance with Australia is perhaps the most important alliance we have. Without it our security would be weakened, as would the Aussies without their ANZUS partners.

And this maritime strike capability of the RAAF is "critical". Without it we will both be hurting and if we can give away war planes to 3'rd world Govt.'s of questionable friendship we can most surely find a way to resolve this issue in a way that makes sense both to us and a fellow Democracy that has showed such loyalty to their allies, and to the idea that freedom should exist in this world. It is imperative that the RAAF have a strong maritime strike capability.

A strong,flexible Australian navy and air force is an example of a Democracy deterring war thru strength, in a region mostly known for a lack of Democracy. And our best hope for preventing aggression is in strengthening our alliances in the region, as well as the military capabilities of the nations we are aligned with.

 

[corzair]

Even a generation ago a foreign power coveted the huge land mass and resources of the Australian continent. Certain brilliant strategists in the Japanese high command, who BTW we rent listened to, recommended an invasion of Australia while most of her sons were off fighting for the British empire. This would have been the correct way to prosecute the war. The loss of the Australian bases for the allied navies would have been a huge, if not fatal, blow.

Could Japan have pulled it off? Without modern tanks and a mechanized army??? We will never know, but surely trying to made more sense then sending 100,000 of thousands of troops to swelter and starve garrisoning Islands of no strategic importance. Which MacAthur and the Allies were more then happy to by-pass while strangling Japan with long range submarines basing out of Australian ports.

No matter what the individual politics of her individual citizens every Australian must understand their country sits smack in the middle of an extremely strategically important piece of the world and one that's getting more critical with each passing year. And Yanks have to come to understand that our alliance with Australia is perhaps the most important alliance we have. Without it our security would be weakened, as would the Aussies without their ANZUS partners.

And this maritime strike capability of the RAAF is "critical". Without it we will both be hurting and if we can give away war planes to 3'rd world Govt.'s of questionable friendship we can most surely find a way to resolve this issue in a way that makes sense both to us and a fellow Democracy that has showed such loyalty to their allies, and to the idea that freedom should exist in this world. It is imperative that the RAAF have a strong maritime strike capability.

A strong,flexible Australian navy and air force is an example of a Democracy deterring war thru strength, in a region mostly known for a lack of Democracy. And our best hope for preventing aggression is in strengthening our alliances in the region, as well as the military capabilities of the nations we are aligned with.

Rabbit-Proof Fence 9:10pm - 10:35pm BBC2 North West
Though rather worthy and self-important, director Phillip Noyce's superbly photographed true-life drama is not without impact as it throws light on a shameful period in Australia's past. In 1931, 14-year-old Molly (Everlyn Sampi) is interned by the Australian government as part of their policy to forcibly integrate "half-caste" Aborigines into white society (a policy which continued up until the 1970s).

I'm all for representative governments who repect law and rule in a consultative manner
but democracy is not automatically a good thing like austrailia for quite a while or like palastine and hamas - can lead to a sort of mob rule

 

[Brosy]

Hi guys, this is interesting reading on the Australian problem. Couple of facts for you gents:

(1) On price, JSF (F35 CTOL) is now budgeted officially at $95 mil percopy - that's our dollars guys -Pentagon figures.

(2) There is still domestic pressure in the US which opposes selling some elements of stealth to foreign governments - and this has not been entirely resolved - watch the limey experience.

(3) Our Congress doesn't much like work on defence contracts going offshore. If you take a close look at the US defence industry - only 2 percent of purchases in the supply chain are placed outside the US. There are no congresional votes for jobs in Australia, guys - only here. So despite the best efforts of LM and the Federal Government here, there is still intense resistence to this occuring.

So, I hope you guys get the JSF, and I hope it fits the bill. But it will come at a price - more than some people on your side are saying, and there are risks around just what technology you will actually get access to. Fortunately, you have friends stateside who will root for you - but there's only so much we can do.

Happy holidays, guys.

Brosy

 

[Cootamundra]

I'm all for representative governments who repect law and rule in a consultative manner but democracy is not automatically a good thing like austrailia for quite a while or like palastine and hamas - can lead to a sort of mob rule

What are you talking about?!

 

[knightrider4]

Getting back on track..... Anything less than 100 airframes is going to be unworkable in my opinion. Now whether we have to get a mix of F-15's or Typhoons to bolster the numbers then so be it. The UCAV's are a few years away from being a workable viable alternative to deep strike/SEAD.