Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
IIRC weren't these both from Vietnam era??, when we were fighting for the US again!!
What guarantee is in writing?, care to quote the text? what has been said by ministers has holes large enough to drive a truck through!, I've not seen anything written, just heard vague assurances everything going to be OK..
The tech transfer from the US is a patchwork of processes that is used for each request individually!.. no blanket access to the technology being fielded, any Urgent Operational Requirement will be subject to this 'process' and the delay imposed while the US decides if and what it will give you or if the unit has to be reprogrammed/repaired by US personal only.
Its not quite the flexibility require in times of conflict.
see http://www.publications.parliament..../107/10705.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match
The UK is worried about its own technology being embargoed if its in the JSF!!, and still has little assurance that the UK would get all the technology transfer it required to operate the JSF independently.
Cheers
We're getting down to basics here, with intelligence even some Americans shouldn't know much less any other nation should know. And any nation should have private intelligence meetings. I am sure Australia has intelligence not known in America, and vice a versa.
And nations selling arms around the world should have a say on whether any weapon can be used. Of course, a nation which buys arms on the world market has a right to make a list of incidents when the seller tells the buyer, no you can't use this weapon.
While Australians tend to watch big brother, and thinks big brother will drag them into a war, the same can be said in the other direction too.
And nations selling arms around the world should have a say on whether any weapon can be used. Of course, a nation which buys arms on the world market has a right to make a list of incidents when the seller tells the buyer, no you can't use this weapon.
While Australians tend to watch big brother, and thinks big brother will drag them into a war, the same can be said in the other direction too.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Cookie whats you point mate? That the yanks are bad allies? That we didnt get a good enough deal with the F35? If so do you have a better idea? That we made the wrong choice with the Rhino? If so again, do you have a better idea?
We just seem to be going arround circles. First we didnt look into typhoon enough as the NABC, even though it was clearly not going to be available in the timeframe we need. Then we would have apparantly got a better deal with Typhoon for the NACC, even though F35 was chosen & deemed to be head and sholders above the rest of the contenders (including typhoon), and we got a decent work share considering the pretty minimal investment.
Now were on to bad allies again. Whats the point mate?
We just seem to be going arround circles. First we didnt look into typhoon enough as the NABC, even though it was clearly not going to be available in the timeframe we need. Then we would have apparantly got a better deal with Typhoon for the NACC, even though F35 was chosen & deemed to be head and sholders above the rest of the contenders (including typhoon), and we got a decent work share considering the pretty minimal investment.
Now were on to bad allies again. Whats the point mate?
Pardon.
I should have made it clear that I was being slightly ironic.
There seems some willingness to argue that the choice to buy the SHornets as an an interim measure is rendered less valid - or politically less acceptable - by the previous decision to purchase the F-35.
I suggest that the F-35 decisions should be debated on its merits and, given that it does leave us with a capability gap, the decision to purchase the SHornet be debated on its merits. The choice of the former should not be used as a reason to not choose the latter - not so far as anyone has yet demonstrated. Therefore we should be careful to separate the dabate.
Thankyou............. Peter
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Considering the source, no. Expecting a broadsheet newspaper to be capable of accurately reporting on Intelligence matters is ridiculous...
Read the "Lessons learned" on Operation Catalyst and I don't think you'll find improved intelligence arrangements as a recommendation...
Yes those examples were from the Vietnam era, and prior to the deployments in 2002/3 were the last attempted operational deployment of tactical fighters, which still makes it relevent in my opinion.
As to the guarantee this is what Australia has signed, and the UK and Canada and the Netherlands too...
[FONT="]AUSTRALIA ENTERS NEXT PHASE OF THE JSF PROGRAM[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]The PSFD MoU was signed for the US Government by the US Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr Gordon England, and by me on behalf of the Australian Government. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]The MoU signing was completed in association with the AUSMIN defence talks in Washington D.C. and re-emphasised the strength of the long-term relationship between Australia and the United States and emphasised the mutual benefits of defence cooperation. [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Australia is the fourth international Partner to sign the PSFD MoU, the Netherlands, Canada and the United Kingdom formally committing to the next phase of the program. The four remaining Partners in the Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase are expected to sign the MoU in the next few months.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]The PSFD MoU provides the cooperative framework for the acquisition and support of the JSF over its life and provides significant financial and non-financial benefits from the ongoing partnership. The MoU and associated documents also guarantees Australia’s access to the technology and data it needs to operate and support the JSF to meet Australia’s sovereign defence needs. Entering into the MoU also opens up billions of dollars in opportunities for Australian industry, building on its success in the development phase.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]To date 21 Australian companies have won approximately US$100 million worth of work in SDD phase. That work is expected to multiply significantly into the production and subsequent sustainment phases.[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]The Minister for Industry also welcomed signature of the MoU saying “The Departments of Industry and Defence will continue to work with Australian industry as JSF Team Australia – all of Government and all of industry working together – to secure the opportunities through the life of the JSF Program.”[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]The Government gave First Pass Approval for the AIR 6000 New Air Combat Capability project last month but Australia will not make an acquisition decision for the JSF until after Second Pass, scheduled for late 2008.
[/FONT]
It was argued only in the sense that the interim fighter measure was required by 2010 which excluded certain options, when the original JSF delivery was to be 2012-4.
Seemed some compression of the lead time was required for whatever reason
.
Ozzy the yanks are not your only allies!, all your eggs in one basket etc, Yes you could have got a better deal by leaving some aircraft in the competition as it focuses the mind of those who wish to sell you their product, if you just say 'we will buy it above all others' before its even built or even to a fixed price, then you are leaving yourself in a very poor bargaining position, look at Norways return on investment even Turkey has got a single contract worth more that all of Australia's so far!, its no coincidence IMHO that they played one against another.
see http://www.dedefensa.org/choix.php?link_id=2781&comm=1
more on the Delta SDD version of the F-35 here http://www.dedefensa.org/choix.php?link_id=2781&comm=1
As for good and bad allies - its what you get out of it that counts.
cheers
Seemed some compression of the lead time was required for whatever reason
.Ozzy the yanks are not your only allies!, all your eggs in one basket etc, Yes you could have got a better deal by leaving some aircraft in the competition as it focuses the mind of those who wish to sell you their product, if you just say 'we will buy it above all others' before its even built or even to a fixed price, then you are leaving yourself in a very poor bargaining position, look at Norways return on investment even Turkey has got a single contract worth more that all of Australia's so far!, its no coincidence IMHO that they played one against another.
see http://www.dedefensa.org/choix.php?link_id=2781&comm=1
more on the Delta SDD version of the F-35 here http://www.dedefensa.org/choix.php?link_id=2781&comm=1
However I remain to be convinced that the JSF is the correct decision, we will have to see how it all plays out this year.
As for good and bad allies - its what you get out of it that counts.
cheers
but it does illustrate the mindset we are dealing with quite adequately. you wanted an example I provided a relevant and recent example, not a 30 year old one.
Operate and support...
Much like the GPS codes where you have two US officers stationed to load the software into aircraft.....
Cheers
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I'll leave Barra or Magoo to answer that one. If they feel inclined... I'm sure Barra would have noticed US personnel standing around loading software into our Aircraft...but it does illustrate the mindset we are dealing with quite adequately. you wanted an example I provided a relevant and recent example, not a 30 year old one.
Operate and support...
Much like the GPS codes where you have two US officers stationed to load the software into aircraft.....
Cheers
GOUHAR ALI KHAN
New Member
who love pakistan
Mod edit:
What has this to do with the Royal Australian Air Force?
Please read understand and abide by these:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php
else I fear you won't be allowed to post here for long...
Regards
AD
Mod edit:
What has this to do with the Royal Australian Air Force?
Please read understand and abide by these:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php
else I fear you won't be allowed to post here for long...
Regards
AD
Last edited by a moderator:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
You don't believe everything you read in the newspaper do you? Some of the things I have read in newspapers re military matters are so far from the truth it is funny. I am not sure if this is due to the reporters poor efforts or something more sinister like deliberate misinformation. Possibly another topic for debate.....
Being asked to leave during intel briefings is nothing new, any foreign nationals present before an AUSTEO brief would be asked to leave. It is the same the world over, foreign officers doing courses within Australia are regularly asked to leave if subjects above their security classification are about to be discussed. Nothing new here.
GPS code is not particularly high grade code, I think someone has fed you a line here. If there are two yanks at the end of the strip loading our jets with code after they have taxied then they aren't doing any paperwork!!
I love AKistan, in fact I have to say its capital city of Klashnikovia is my favourite place and I’m quite partial to the PKM Mountains and the 7.62x39 River…
But back in the real world I must say its refreshing to hear criticism of the Super Hornet and the JSF not motivated by a desire to rebuild the F-111s into stealthy supercruisers and buy unavailable F-22s.
However the argument is, like most, built on some tenuous facts. Firstly Australia’s involvement in the JSF program has not been finalized. Norway and Turkey have received big slices of the production program. Australia’s slice is still under negotiation. I’m not going to reveal it for you here but it will be significant and it will be cutting edge, dual use technology.
How anyone else could offer us something better is beyond me. Australia has gained very little from assembling knockdown kits. The Hornet program was a disaster. Even the assembling of the Hawk LIFs provided us with very little after the fact. Especially considering how much the Hornet Industry Coalition at Willytown is struggling to put together the CBR crew. The JSF alternatives could provide us with little industrial incentive.
Talk of big bad USA not giving us access is BS.
No... but this and similar incidents made news in the UK, IIRC the UK guy embedded with the US started to wear US uniform so as not to be excluded!!, and it worked a treat, I believe this was quoted first hand in a book by the CO of the guy.
The translated phrase I was working with is "navigation and communication software".. GPS was just easy to type!, I should have gone with IFFGPS code is not particularly high grade code, I think someone has fed you a line here. If there are two yanks at the end of the strip loading our jets with code after they have taxied then they aren't doing any paperwork!!
.The necessary software was to provide interoperability with US/NATO forces, and the codes could not leave US hands..
Cheers
There are a few problems here.
1) the level of access that australia has is now equal to the UK. That changed 1/3rd of the way through last year.
2) It's actually quite normal for foreign personnel to be excluded from briefings if its outside of their clearance level.
eg a number of contractors from major primes (eg Thales and BAE) get excluded from Collins when work hull tuning is done. Discrete systems are firewalled. eg, we don't allow Thales around the sig management tech.
That's why NOFOREYE/AUSTEO exists.
It would pay to read Hansard from that era now that the 30 year limits are well gone - and to also read Sextons "War for the Asking".
Australia invited herself into Vietnam - the americans initially only wanted token forces.
The urban myth that we followed the US into Vietnam has been comprehensively challenged and refuted by Sexton with Govt documents.
Well IFF and GPS are two very different codes with obviously different purposes. IFF(Mode 4) being one of the main ways to avoid blue on blue engagements it is obviously important to all coalition partners to be on the same code at the same time. AFAIK we have had unfettered access to IFF codes for as long as we have operated Hornets.
No foreign nationals touch any of our jets without SQN personnel being present and only if invited. Foreigners certainly don't load code for us either, whether on deployment overseas or within Australia. Without getting into to much detail it all sounds like a crock of s**t to me.
Surprised me too.
If I find a link I'll post it, You'll have to forgive me as its a bugger searching in another language.
I've said what I think, I'll leave you to think about the free and easy access you enjoyed with the previous generation of jets.
Cheers
I think thats the good thing about the JSF it can use its AESA radar to communicate, well thats what I got from going onto the Rayethon website. If it can communicate using WIFI on secure channels then the wifi area it projects with its radar can then see all friendly units on the same frequency (if they are also using a WIFI type device).
But that is the problem IF it could be secure. Wifi isn't very secure.
But that is the problem IF it could be secure. Wifi isn't very secure.
It's not just an issue of jets though, the level of technical access we get across a number of disciplines from the US way surpasses what the EU can provide us with. We buy packages that are sympathetic to combined operations. We buy packages that ease transition and merge in reflecting operations with major allies. Our major ally is the US. We've been stating for years that protracted procurement cycles need to go and that there needs to be a level of brutality in the decision making process. As soon as that's attempted, all the "losers" start raising questions of probity etc....
and quite frankly why the heck would we want to go with europes last manned aircraft when that manned aircraft is less capable and future proof than what we can get across a number of tech sectors from the US?
I've dealt with procurement at a number of levels, and to be brutally frank, we get far more support holistically from the US than any of our euro allies in combination. Competition is either effective, or its not.
Trying to make a case in the public domain is usually a classic example of the cry of the commercially disenfranchised or wrt the usual broadsheet bleaters - they have their own personal axes to grind.
I for one get sick and tired of listening to Vendors complain about being locked out of competition or squealing that they were unfairly treated when their own track record sometimes should be the subject of internal navel gazing before resorting to managed public outcry as a reflection of their own vehicle of discontent.