Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

[Aussie Digger]

Not a breach of contract, just an insult to the time and effort put in when responding.

IIRC The original date was to be 2014 , The RFI was against a set of criteria, this was all thrown out and another aircraft all together was selected in 2002 (the JSF).

Now which set of criteria did the JSF meet?.... considering it was a paper plane at that time? first flight was in 2006!! and that wasn't even a production representative variant!. so it was judged against aspirational targets..:unknown

JSF deliveries in 2014-2020 timeframe.. that should have gone straight into basket 3

As for the SH it may have some training commonality with the current hornets, but I can't see it vastly exceeding the Typhoon in capability and I believe an attempt should have been made to fully compare several alternatives.

As I recall the Royal Australian Air force wasn't even aware they required an interim aircraft!!, let alone actively accessing alternatives, its a ministerial decision as far as i can tell with no interference from the experts.

I'm happy that the current governments review is going ahead, as Brendon Nelson can't quite explain why or how he arrived at the decision!.

People in Australia should give a damn.. its my tax money there spending..



You usually don't look at the public arena to judge capability, some figures publically published for the Typhoon are way out, its more usual to get a brief from the vendor and then get your pilots to have a play with it to see if it does what it claimed, this takes quite some time.

Deliver was a problem for Typhoon before about 2014 but the selection of another aircraft taht was supposed to be available in that time frame does not seem to be a bar to selection!.

Cheers

Delivery for the Typhoon was a problem, unlike the Super Hornet, which is officially known as the BACC (bridging air combat capability) because the bridging aircraft is required to be in-service by 2010 and I think it extremely unlikely that the Eurofighter Consortium could meet this requirement.

Delivery by 2014 may not be a problem, but then no Typhoon variant is ever going to have the capability RAAF wants for it's NACC (next generation air combat capability) as that includes a full LO capability.

There are only 2 aircraft in the world that meet that criteria and only one is available AND affordable...

 

[phreeky]

Sorry, I've seen this submitted by losing advocates so many times its not funny. Welcome to commercial reality which is often yet to be comprehended by some when dealing with procurement/government obligo reality

If companies want the contract they'll spend - its part of the process and anyone in this game knows that it's on a high road to being dead money if they don't win. They submit and spend on that submission knowing full well that the cost may be dead. If they win then they recover. if they don't - then welcome to the reality of procurement.

Actually I think the point that is being made is not that not being selected/chosen is the insult. I believe JWCook is indicating that they're not submitting to have to potential for $$$, but they're simply submitting to make up the numbers and appear as if the proper process has been followed.

It's about as useful as applying for a job where an internal employee is already lined up, but they have to advertise and interview for legal reasons.

 

[gf0012-aust]

As I recall the Royal Australian Air force wasn't even aware they required an interim aircraft!!, let alone actively accessing alternatives, its a ministerial decision as far as i can tell with no interference from the experts.

Sorry, thats completely false and has been promulgated in the open press. The interim review was done as par for the course when the risk analysis and risk benefit was established.

I'd regard senior RAAF and active pilots as being far more credentialled than ex ADF staff who have black clouds over their severance of ADF relationship and with people who do not even have the remotest security level to see the relevant data

I'm somewhat bemused when some of the public detractors engage in some baskervillian type protest about capability differences when they don't even have "Secret" security access (which is the lowest classification).

In australia, the usual protesters fit the above criteria admirably. Sub contracted cleaners in the ADF have a higher level of access to information than these "knowledgeable outsiders" do.

I'm a fan of the Typhoon btw, but some of the rubbish promoted in the press about the Shornets decision is plainly ignorant and bereft of any comprehension of what was and is actually involved.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It's about as useful as applying for a job where an internal employee is already lined up, but they have to advertise and interview for legal reasons.

ADF (as well as other militaries) actually have a preferred vendor list for some programs.

In other words, if the project identifies an unimpeachable case based on performance, requirement, speed of implementation, capability, cost etc... then ADF can and will choose the vendor if they are already cleared for baseline capability. It means that they can shorten what is potentially an atypical 5-15 year cradle to grave delivery procurement process into a matter of years.

As far as I'm concerned, anything that facilitates the procurement decision loop and meets all of the clients requirements is a win. Its the end user that makes the decision. Its not the Minister.

 

[AGRA]

Delivery by 2014 may not be a problem, but then no Typhoon variant is ever going to have the capability RAAF wants for it's NACC (next generation air combat capability) as that includes a full LO capability.

There are only 2 aircraft in the world that meet that criteria and only one is available AND affordable...

Two? The requirement also had a significant air to complex ground capability, don’t think there are two that can meet that, only one ;-)

The other element of the 2002 early down-select to the JSF is it was the only offering that enabled the RAAF to be involved in developing the detail specifications of the system and enable Australian industry to be involved as partners in the development and production of the system.

At best Typhoon et al could just offer Australian industry the role of assembling knock down kits and maybe sole sourcing a tiny, single component.

 

[gf0012-aust]

At best Typhoon et al could just offer Australian industry the role of assembling knock down kits and maybe sole sourcing a tiny, single component.

The other issue is that as a legacy of JSF work, at least one australian supplier is unofficially involved with some F-22 future development work - and thats using australian developed technology.

We would never have got that capability with any of the others except to stay with platform delimited technologies.

Quite frankly, none of the other competitors could offer anything to the same level of future opportunity at both the participation rate or at a new technology exposure rate.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Two? The requirement also had a significant air to complex ground capability, don’t think there are two that can meet that, only one ;-)

True, I was trying to be kind...

The other element of the 2002 early down-select to the JSF is it was the only offering that enabled the RAAF to be involved in developing the detail specifications of the system and enable Australian industry to be involved as partners in the development and production of the system.

At best Typhoon et al could just offer Australian industry the role of assembling knock down kits and maybe sole sourcing a tiny, single component.

Agreed. For Australia to gain any significant work beyond assembling and supporting our own aircraft, existing partners in the Eurofighter Consortium would have had to be willing to forgoe some or all of their own work packages. With the order numbers they already have, I doubt many would be willing or able to do so, simply to help facilitate any relatively small Australian order...

 

[JWCook]

Two? The requirement also had a significant air to complex ground capability, don’t think there are two that can meet that, only one ;-)

The other element of the 2002 early down-select to the JSF is it was the only offering that enabled the RAAF to be involved in developing the detail specifications of the system and enable Australian industry to be involved as partners in the development and production of the system.

At best Typhoon et al could just offer Australian industry the role of assembling knock down kits and maybe sole sourcing a tiny, single component.

This is plainly wrong.

Australia was already involved in the Development of the Typhoon!, was offered tranche 2 and 3 development input, plus production and offsets, it was also promised full and open access to all areas of technology, including software and codes (operational sovereignty), something the JSF team are unwilling/unable to do.

I wonder what access we'll get to the Radar on the SH, that should be interesting.

BTW BAESystem is using Australia for UAV testing (IIRC at Woomera), ie 6th generation aircraft, so don't think the US is the sole answer to getting technology.

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

This is plainly wrong.

Australia was already involved in the Development of the Typhoon!, was offered tranche 2 and 3 development input, plus production and offsets, it was also promised full and open access to all areas of technology, including software and codes (operational sovereignty), something the JSF team are unwilling/unable to do.

I wonder what access we'll get to the Radar on the SH, that should be interesting.

BTW BAESystem is using Australia for UAV testing (IIRC at Woomera), ie 6th generation aircraft, so don't think the US is the sole answer to getting technology.

Cheers

At best Australia could have had input on the upgrades to the basic Typhoon platform which was finalised MANY years before AIR-6000 was kicked off, unlike the JSF, of which the CV variant only achieved CDR in 2007...

 

[JWCook]

True, I was trying to be kind...



Agreed. For Australia to gain any significant work beyond assembling and supporting our own aircraft, existing partners in the Eurofighter Consortium would have had to be willing to forgoe some or all of their own work packages. With the order numbers they already have, I doubt many would be willing or able to do so, simply to help facilitate any relatively small Australian order...

It would depend on the size of the order, with EADS\Baesystem Offset work could be enormous you have Airbus and access to the US market via BAE.

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

BTW BAESystem is using Australia for UAV testing (IIRC at Woomera), ie 6th generation aircraft, so don't think the US is the sole answer to getting technology.

Without wanting to be unkind. So what??

So are the Poles and so are the Japanese. In the next 6-12 months there will be another LO consortium in place.

The issue is the relevance of that tech to our requirements.

BAE are also using Woomera due to leasing advantages - not because of any implied tech sharing.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It would depend on the size of the order, with EADSBaesystem Offset work could be enormous you have Airbus and access to the US market via BAE.

Cheers

A few of the JSF participants are already Airbus and Boeing providers.

I've dealt with BAE in a prev life - I think you give them much too much credit on their willingness to play nice.

 

[JWCook]

A few of the JSF participants are already Airbus and Boeing providers.
I've dealt with BAE in a prev life - I think you give them much too much credit on their willingness to play nice.

I never ever said hat BAE were nice, they have on occasions been quite horrible, and have put some governments/organisations noses out of joint.

But please remember exactly where we are in the JSF pecking order!!.

International partnership in the SDD phase is at three levels. The UK is the only Level 1 partner, having committed US$2bn. Italy and the Netherlands have joined as Level 2 partners for US$1bn and US$800m respectively. Australia, Canada, Turkey, Norway and Denmark are Level 3 partners, with an investment in the order of US$150m. Israel and Singapore are Security Cooperation Participants with a degree of involvement below partnership status.

Our sway over any design changes are minuscule in such a large program, as reflected in our work share so far for our $150m investment, which if I'm not mistaken is at about $150m..

Just look at the sort of tech transfer you've gotten so far in this program, tin bashing, training course software, and lets not forget the engine removal trailer!!. have you looked at the values of some of the contracts won so far?, and what there for?

Were not exactly getting the cream!!... and for $150m were getting crumbs.

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

Our sway over any design changes are minuscule in such a large program, as reflected in our work share so far for our $150m investment, which if I'm not mistaken is at about $150m..

Just look at the sort of tech transfer you've gotten so far in this program, tin bashing, training course software, and lets not forget the engine removal trailer!!. have you looked at the values of some of the contracts won so far?, and what there for?

Were not exactly getting the cream!!... and for $150m were getting crumbs.

Cheers

I'd take a different view. I've got an association with one of the JSF partners who's now contributing to an iterative improvement to the F-22.

You can't measure the value of that in dollar terms - it's an access and development opportunity that is without measure.

quite frankly, none of the other offers by any of the other vendors was earth shattering.

if you don't think we're getting much out of JSF, then I'd argue that what we get peripherally through the annual DARPA/NAVSEA visits outweighs anything we could have got from (eg europe) by a golden mile.

 

[Aussie Digger]

But please remember exactly where we are in the JSF pecking order!!.

A level 3 partner and only 4 Countries in the world have invested more than us...

Our sway over any design changes are minuscule in such a large program, as reflected in our work share so far for our $150m investment, which if I'm not mistaken is at about $150m..

Just look at the sort of tech transfer you've gotten so far in this program, tin bashing, training course software, and lets not forget the engine removal trailer!!. have you looked at the values of some of the contracts won so far?, and what there for?

Were not exactly getting the cream!!... and for $150m were getting crumbs.

Cheers

That's equalled our investment on the development phase only... The production phase is where the big contracts will be let and even if the percentages of work remain the same, they will provide $billions in work share...

 

[JWCook]

A level 3 partner and only 4 Countries in the world have invested more than us...

That's equalled our investment on the development phase only... The production phase is where the big contracts will be let and even if the percentages of work remain the same, they will provide in work share...

What will we get? what is the $$$ figure?.. what are the guarantees?.. its not a percentage work share.. So what happens when we commit to buy 100 jsf and the US then says "well boys - non too many of your Australian companies got any production contracts! I guess there just not as competitive as our stateside companies!!", do we have any recourse? or do we just shrug our shoulders?.

Do you really trust a foreign power that much without any written guarantees?, whats the deal with US$1b spent on a exportable (non US) version for? that puts our A$150m into perspective, we just payed a small percentage of what it cost just to lock us out of the tech stuff!!.
.:nutkick
Forgive me if I feel that we are subsidizing the US, - (Israel and Singapore are not paying up front!), the technology that is being used will not be 'freely' available to partner nations, while the US is free to use that technology in its other products.. while we are given tech tidbits here and there with strings attached.

Where will this leave our industrial base in 20 years time? Then we don't own the technology and are bound by a very one sided agreement, the UK is worried enough to seek written assurances, they got something, but its not a rock solid contract, just a vague assurance that they get what they need to do what they need to do it, its made the UK Government very nervous, and as a tier 1 partner they shouldn't be in such a position.

Are you not concerned?

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

What will we get? what is the $$$ figure?.. what are the guarantees?.. its not a percentage work share.. So what happens when we commit to buy 100 jsf and the US then says "well boys - non too many of your Australian companies got any production contracts! I guess there just not as competitive as our stateside companies!!", do we have any recourse? or do we just shrug our shoulders?.

Do you really trust a foreign power that much without any written guarantees?, whats the deal with US$1b spent on a exportable (non US) version for? that puts our A$150m into perspective, we just payed a small percentage of what it cost just to lock us out of the tech stuff!!.
.:nutkick
Forgive me if I feel that we are subsidizing the US, - (Israel and Singapore are not paying up front!), the technology that is being used will not be 'freely' available to partner nations, while the US is free to use that technology in its other products.. while we are given tech tidbits here and there with strings attached.

Where will this leave our industrial base in 20 years time? Then we don't own the technology and are bound by a very one sided agreement, the UK is worried enough to seek written assurances, they got something, but its not a rock solid contract, just a vague assurance that they get what they need to do what they need to do it, its made the UK Government very nervous, and as a tier 1 partner they shouldn't be in such a position.

Are you not concerned?

Cheers

About as much as I trust any other foreign power from whom we need to purchase military equipment.

A darn sight more than most actually. Show me an occasion when American support for our military has been found wanting?

I can provide 2 distinct occasions when European suppliers have failed to support us when we WANTED it.

Where was this so-called "operational sovereignty" when we DID buy European fighters?

When we as a democratic nation decided as part of our foreign policy that we wanted to deploy Mirage fighters operationally, it was blocked by France. When we wanted to deploy Carl Gustav anti-armour weapons operationally, it was blocked by Sweden.

As for "funding" the US, well our pitiful $150m is going to make a huge difference to a $250b program isn't it?

In addition to the Industrial benefits, which have already matched our investment, we have access to all data within the Joint Strike Fighter project office.

Like Britain we have our guarantee on tech access, that was written and signed before we agreed to the MoU for the PSFD phase... At least something is in writing eh?

As for the"downgraded" export version, that is the JSF version being developed for Countries that may want to buy the JSF but didn't sign up for SDD...

All partner nations have stated they are happy with their level of involvement and understanding of the platform they will receive. I guess their "all" putting the best face on things eh?

Unlike the ever truthful Eurofighter Consortium who boast that LO and "supercruise" were design goals of the Typhoon (despite not appearing in any literature until AFTER F-22 showed the same) all along eh? nfloorl:

 

[oldsoak]

Which countries denied Aus weaponry when she needed it - not the UK or any of the Eurofighter consortium that I recall.
As to how you have full access to all data within F35 project - we, a tier one had difficulty ( and its not solved yet ) with that, so just how does a tier three get there ?

 

[Cooch]

Hmm......

We seems to be swapping between issues here.
I see little connection between the timeframe for F35 availability, and the question of whether the Typhoon or the SuperHornet would make a better interim purchase.

Please explain to this simple country lad...

Peter

 

[oldsoak]

Hmm......

We seems to be swapping between issues here.
I see little connection between the timeframe for F35 availability, and the question of whether the Typhoon or the SuperHornet would make a better interim purchase.

Please explain to this simple country lad...

Peter

AIUI, F111 is allegedly running out of hours, and its replacement - F35 - wont be in RAAF service in time, leaving a gap in capability. SH was chosen to fill that gap and there is interest as to whether it was the right choice given the alternatives. Now that there is a new administration in Canberra, the choice is coming under review.