Tee_Centre_10
Member
F-35 electronic attack capability isn't due until Block 6 with an IOC of 2019, and maybe the RAAF would prefer to not be on the bleeding edge of non-core F-35 development. Let the USAF/USN bed in the capability first.
This probably seems a silly question to the experts but why is Australia investing in Growlers with delivery date of 2018 when the F-35 is "just around the corner"?
I thought the F-35 would have some very significant EW capabilities? Seems I was wrong? Or am I missing something else?
is there that much extra infrastructure required to support the growlers?
The ADF/Government usually "buy's" a specific platform such as Growler ,with a "Life of type" style Contract.That includes training of the pilots,training ground staff,technicians,servicing the aircraft,wages for crew,simulators and upgrade,ect,all priced into the cost of purchasing the platform.
The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of 12 EA-18G Modification Kits to convert F/A-18F aircrafts to G configuration, (34) AN/ALQ-99F(V) Tactical Jamming System Pods, (22) CN-1717/A Interference Cancellation Systems (INCANS), (22) R-2674(C)/A Joint Tactical Terminal Receiver (JTTR) Systems, (30) LAU-118 Guided Missile Launchers, Command Launch Computer (CLC) for High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) and Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM), spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government (USG) and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated cost is $1.7 billion.
I love the inherent contradiction in Australian defence planning. Apparently spending $250 million on SPGs is too extravagant, because there is no threat that requires the capability, yet randomly spending $1.5 billion on a niche capability that is necessary only at the extreme end of high intensity conflict is perfectly fine. Apparently we don't need modern armoured vehicles for another 20 years, yet we need to spend $36 billion dollars on the most advanced conventional submarines in the world.
Do these supposed enemies that require Growlers and 100 JSFs and Wedgetails and AWDs and Collins IIs not have an Army? I never have worked out how the service that has by far seen the most operational service over the last 15 years can be so neglected.
Reading between the lines, it does seem as if the government is tailoring the ADF for niche partnerships in a coalition, where we send some top shelf assets that can stay as far out of harm's way as possible. Sending our army would be very politically risky, but a token contribution of high end assets not too dangerous to one's re-election prospects.
Too bad if we ever have to act as an ADF combined arms force.
Army would not be my career choice if I was considering entering the ADF ATM.
I love the inherent contradiction in Australian defence planning. Apparently spending $250 million on SPGs is too extravagant, because there is no threat that requires the capability, yet randomly spending $1.5 billion on a niche capability that is necessary only at the extreme end of high intensity conflict is perfectly fine. Apparently we don't need modern armoured vehicles for another 20 years, yet we need to spend $36 billion dollars on the most advanced conventional submarines in the world.
Do these supposed enemies that require Growlers and 100 JSFs and Wedgetails and AWDs and Collins IIs not have an Army? I never have worked out how the service that has by far seen the most operational service over the last 15 years can be so neglected.
That is probably just the flyaway price ... and even that seems a bit low.Can anybody explain to me why this conversion is so expensive? $1.5b seems exorbitant when the flyaway cost of a growler is approx $68.2m (according to wiki - accuracy?). This means to buy 12 growlers outright would only cost around $800m..
wiki also makes note that the conversion was only expected to cost $300m in Feb of 2012, so where is the extra $1.2b going? is there that much extra infrastructure required to support the growlers?
Please correct me if any of these figures are wrong!
Can anybody explain to me why this conversion is so expensive? $1.5b seems exorbitant when the flyaway cost of a growler is approx $68.2m (according to wiki - accuracy?). This means to buy 12 growlers outright would only cost around $800m..
wiki also makes note that the conversion was only expected to cost $300m in Feb of 2012, so where is the extra $1.2b going? is there that much extra infrastructure required to support the growlers?
Please correct me if any of these figures are wrong!
yes you are
welcome to Govt decision making - not Defence decision making
It is widely accepted that there is corruption in procurement, it would be strange if Australia was the only country not affected by this disease
I love the inherent contradiction in Australian defence planning. Apparently spending $250 million on SPGs is too extravagant, because there is no threat that requires the capability, yet randomly spending $1.5 billion on a niche capability that is necessary only at the extreme end of high intensity conflict is perfectly fine. Apparently we don't need modern armoured vehicles for another 20 years, yet we need to spend $36 billion dollars on the most advanced conventional submarines in the world.
Do these supposed enemies that require Growlers and 100 JSFs and Wedgetails and AWDs and Collins IIs not have an Army? I never have worked out how the service that has by far seen the most operational service over the last 15 years can be so neglected.
But I'll try it anyway because techno-thrillers about the ADF are few and far between.