t68
Well-Known Member
that's good to hear that they committed the RAAF, Goon & co must be spitting chips over their beers
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
the road runner
Active Member
Glad they finally made the decision to buy a grand total of 72 JSF thus far.
Even Labour are supporting the governments decision of the purchase.
Yep APA,RAND and a number of jurno's must be drowning their sorrows.
Is this a joint purchase with the US and other nations?
Even Labour are supporting the governments decision of the purchase.
Yep APA,RAND and a number of jurno's must be drowning their sorrows.
Is this a joint purchase with the US and other nations?
the good thing is that most of the media have worked out that he and his self aggrandizing cohort are out to lunch. I've heard some choice descriptors from a few of the other broadsheet editors and journos....
unsure on the external loadout impact on the 30's, although the USAF has enough data on the 2 x 27's they have to build up an RCS and reflection map
t68
Well-Known Member
It’s to be ordered under FMS I believe everything is sweet with the “A” the UK is poised to make an order for “B” soonish if the scuttle bug is too believed. Now that a five eyes partner has made the push with a large order on the table others should see the aircraft for what it is a major capability enhancement to the RAAF order of battle in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities when working with other platforms such as Wedgetail, P8 Poseidon and Super Hornets and Growler.
Quick question do the pom’s order under FMS or directly with the manufacture?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #4,145
I believe everybody except the US and Canada fall under FMS when ordering US kit. IIRC there were some changes (or perhaps exceptions) made in US law with respect to Canadian orders and FMS/ITARS.
Australia and the UK, both being ABCA nations would have little trouble getting approval from State and Congress.
-Cheers
According to APA and 'REPSIM' there is none.
According to those who dwell in the real world, increased drag, increased fuel burn, decreased acceleration and decreased sustained turn performance...
Which is why it's a smarter idea to put weapons inside the airframe if you can... Yes the airframe tends to become bulkier and you 'always' have that increased drag over a clean airframe with no weapons, but the impact of external stores is greater than the impact of a bulkier airframe, especially if you need to factor LO into the equation as well...
Both UK and Aust were elevated to a different level a few years back. Can't remember exact details but we did get internal advice on fast tracking and elevated access benefits
was put through and approved by Congress a couple of years back. Around the time that we were negotiating satellite access for WGS
F-35 Purchase
It seems that there are a lot of people angry over this purchase, I was looking at the RAAF Facebook page and their recent post on the purchase seems to be copping a lot of flak, I also saw this on the article posted earlier, I'm no defence expert just a beginner Enthusiast
but Many are saying that it should be spent on other things like pensioners and Healthcare, I was under the impression though that this money had been saved up over many years, is this the case or is it being drawn from other areas of the Budget? I know this May be a bit off topic sorry if it is
It seems that there are a lot of people angry over this purchase, I was looking at the RAAF Facebook page and their recent post on the purchase seems to be copping a lot of flak, I also saw this on the article posted earlier, I'm no defence expert just a beginner Enthusiast
but Many are saying that it should be spent on other things like pensioners and Healthcare, I was under the impression though that this money had been saved up over many years, is this the case or is it being drawn from other areas of the Budget? I know this May be a bit off topic sorry if it is
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #4,149
The funding for the F-35 purchase would/will come from areas of the Defence budget, and that the purchase was made has been known for some time. The 'Classic' F/A-18 A/B Hornets are approaching 30 years old in some cases, so a planned replacement fighter purchase has been known and planned for, for perhaps a decade or so.It seems that there are a lot of people angry over this purchase, I was looking at the RAAF Facebook page and their recent post on the purchase seems to be copping a lot of flak, I also saw this on the article posted earlier, I'm no defence expert just a beginner Enthusiast
As for those who thought or felt that the money should be instead spent on pensioners or healthcare... They are either extremely short sighted, or a bit dim. If no replacement fighter purchase was made to replace the 'Classic' Hornets, they would either need to be withdrawn from service (and therefore no RAAF fighter/air defence capability) or a CBR (Centre Barrel Replacement) programme could be attempted. A CBR programme had contemplated and proposed for RCAF and RAAF Hornets, but IIRC after only a few having been done, it was determined that the cost, effort, time and risk was not worth the potential life extension.
-Cheers
The gov doesn't save up over the years for new fighters, it certainly impacts on non-defence spending. But afaik the money doesn't get spent in one hit either, it's over years, but what else do you do? Either commit now or go without down the track - big purchases are not without risk.
I'll be interested to see what happens with the super hornets. Whether they provide something the F-35 cannot, or even are an asset the ADF is more willing to risk in conflicts. And as the USN phase out supers then spares/replacements must surely become cheap.
I'll be interested to see what happens with the super hornets. Whether they provide something the F-35 cannot, or even are an asset the ADF is more willing to risk in conflicts. And as the USN phase out supers then spares/replacements must surely become cheap.
they'll go back - the only ones worth keeping are the Growlers - and they're not keepers either at this stage.
Having the SHs and Growlers is an opportunity to future proof the air combat force by splitting the buy between blocks and potentially even versions of the F-35. For instance there may be a more capable two seater down the track that would nicely cap off our fleet and that we wouldn't be able to consider if we had bought 100 A's up front. Other outside options would be UCAVs or the new USAF strike bomber the LRS-B, which, if it eventuates, will use a lot of proven F-35 systems.
Not to mention the possibility of a F-35B should the need warrant.
GF001-aust;
As much as i disagree i can 'somewhat' understand the decision to return the Super Bugs but why the Growlers? They bring amazing capability to the table and are a force multiplier.
Does the JSF have the same ewar capabilities as the Growler? If not then i see it as moving backwards.
Id like nothing more than to see the 72 JSF as well as a full complement of 2 squadrons of Super Bugs and another of Growlers as a 1 for 1 replacement of our Hornet/F111 force plus the added capability of the Growlers and I dont think the public will make much of an outcry, the lefties whine when we buy not when we keep existing airframes in service.
As much as i disagree i can 'somewhat' understand the decision to return the Super Bugs but why the Growlers? They bring amazing capability to the table and are a force multiplier.
Does the JSF have the same ewar capabilities as the Growler? If not then i see it as moving backwards.
Id like nothing more than to see the 72 JSF as well as a full complement of 2 squadrons of Super Bugs and another of Growlers as a 1 for 1 replacement of our Hornet/F111 force plus the added capability of the Growlers and I dont think the public will make much of an outcry, the lefties whine when we buy not when we keep existing airframes in service.
Not questioning the utility and benefit of Growler in current warfighting constructs and paradigms - I'd question same against proposed force development and integration a-la systems integration into the broader force capability model
Growler brings unique benefits via a backseater - but that benefit is rapidly changing as the EW capability evolves - and its evolving rapidly
As the US is experiencing (and as everyone else has discovered a few years back when their budgets and economies constricted) - if you want to seriously realise savings across force structure, then you need to remove fleet elements by type, as the maint constraints just hurt while they sit there.
Shornet/Growler/JSF is an anomaly - it was never intended as the final fleet package
Without contingency it would have been worse
So the plan is still to get back to ~100 F-35's? I thought the larger SH order prevented that from happening easily?
I would imagine by the time we are ready to hand back the SH, the F-35 EW variant (or general EW capability) may be a ways along, exceeding Growlers. I recall there was talk about a two seat EW F-35 that used the F-35B layout but removed the lift fan for extra seat and electrical generation capability/Fuel/Equipment space. Parts/logistics and maintenance would be essentially exactly the same as regular F-35.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Below is a transcript from the press conference for the F-35 announcement:
Defence Ministers » Prime Minister and Minister for Defence – Transcript – Joint Press Conference
Press conferences always throw up a few interesting comments, this from the PM:
Successive Governments have always mentioned the figure of 'up to 100', and it's been assumed that the additional squadron would be for an up to additional 28, but the comment from Abbott mentioning a figure of 18, (I didn't hear the conference live and have only seen the transcript, so I assume 18 is correct and not a typo, eg, 18 instead of 28).
If 18 is correct, the total number of aircraft, in the current Government's mind, appears to be now 90 and not the up to 100 of the past.
And in a way its probably not surprising when in the past the two different types in service, Classic Hornets and F-111's, consisted of 4 operational squadrons and 2 training squadrons, and the plan (as I understood it) was to eventually end up with 4 operational squadrons and one training squadron, probably 90 is enough to cover that.
And one other possibility for reduced overall numbers of F-35's (if the option of the 4th sqn is exercised), could also be due to continuing to operate the 12 Growlers side by side with the F-35's long after the Super Hornets are replaced.
Defence Ministers » Prime Minister and Minister for Defence – Transcript – Joint Press Conference
Press conferences always throw up a few interesting comments, this from the PM:
As mentioned in the RAN thread, the comment of 'precisely what type' is interesting, but probably a mis-speak, (F-35B's anyone? No?) Probably not. In the same paragraph is the other interesting comment in relation to the option of the additional (fourth) squadron.
Successive Governments have always mentioned the figure of 'up to 100', and it's been assumed that the additional squadron would be for an up to additional 28, but the comment from Abbott mentioning a figure of 18, (I didn't hear the conference live and have only seen the transcript, so I assume 18 is correct and not a typo, eg, 18 instead of 28).
If 18 is correct, the total number of aircraft, in the current Government's mind, appears to be now 90 and not the up to 100 of the past.
And in a way its probably not surprising when in the past the two different types in service, Classic Hornets and F-111's, consisted of 4 operational squadrons and 2 training squadrons, and the plan (as I understood it) was to eventually end up with 4 operational squadrons and one training squadron, probably 90 is enough to cover that.
And one other possibility for reduced overall numbers of F-35's (if the option of the 4th sqn is exercised), could also be due to continuing to operate the 12 Growlers side by side with the F-35's long after the Super Hornets are replaced.
the road runner
Active Member
One thing is for sure ,the JSF purchase has stirred up debate.
I saw a Sydney Morning Herald poll on the JSF .
*Should the Abbott governments spend 12 billion on fighter jets given the budget situation.
14170 people were polled and 80% thought JSF was a bad buy.
Liberal MP Dennis Jensen attacks Joint Strike Fighter order as a 'dud' decision
Being in the minority has never felt so good:
Australia may also win more contracts to build parts for the JSF now we have placed an order.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/23/lockheed-fighter-idUSL2N0NF2EZ20140423
I saw a Sydney Morning Herald poll on the JSF .
*Should the Abbott governments spend 12 billion on fighter jets given the budget situation.
14170 people were polled and 80% thought JSF was a bad buy.
Liberal MP Dennis Jensen attacks Joint Strike Fighter order as a 'dud' decision
Being in the minority has never felt so good
:Australia may also win more contracts to build parts for the JSF now we have placed an order.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/23/lockheed-fighter-idUSL2N0NF2EZ20140423
Jensen is still smarting over the fact that the Lib Executive decidedly didn't want him as a Science Minister and decided long ago that his posturing along with the usual suspects placed him in the fruit basket as well. They also weren't going to give him the Defence gong.One thing is for sure ,the JSF purchase has stirred up debate.
I saw a Sydney Morning Herald poll on the JSF .
*Should the Abbott governments spend 12 billion on fighter jets given the budget situation.
14170 people were polled and 80% thought JSF was a bad buy.
Liberal MP Dennis Jensen attacks Joint Strike Fighter order as a 'dud' decision
Being in the minority has never felt so good
Australia may also win more contracts to build parts for the JSF now we have placed an order.
Australian F-35 orders will help drive down price -Lockheed | Reuters
again, why would the DefMin bother to listen to a disgruntled party member who's shown his colours long ago - and who has seen less of the capability and had none of the briefing exposure that DefMin has - and that goes for the other chattering muppets who are detached from reality and have been shown to make things up to further their (broken) arguments and pretend scenarios
Last edited: