Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
What makes you think we aren't constantly looking at costings?
A big difference between us and Canada is that we have actually ordered 72 F35, with two of them already flying. Canada simply announced an intention not to order the F35 - we would have to cancel an order already made. How much money would we lose by cancelling F35 that wouldn't be recouped by ordering a different aircraft? I dare say it would be far more than the expected increase in price from a lack of Canadian orders.
Cost increase per unit at current prices is reputed to be approx $1M
Markedly less than the year on year fall in the price of a new build F-35 exen during LRIP. And with the possibility that Canada would lose industry offsets which may come instead to Australia. You can bet that every customer in the same situation will be expecting it.
Really, the loss of 65 *maybe* aircraft from a program which *should* be building about 2,000 - not going to upset LockMart all that much, except that it will (and is) being used to bash the program.
oldsig
Have we already signed contracts? Does Canada's stated intention to buy or not to buy have the slightest impact on our already signed contracts?
Spot on, it could almost be said that rather than a price increase of one million per aircraft there may now no longer be an additional saving of one million per aircraft. The flip side is should other customers increase the size of their orders, the UK is an obvious possibly here, or other nations select the type, Singapore etc. Then the price will drop futher.
exactly
and not to put too fine a point on it - that change even if it does occur hardly dents contingency funds allocated for JSF in the first place.
seriously, the fact that there is a discussion about continuing or reviewing JSF just because of the canadians borders on ridiculous
and its got phuque all to do with "all the way LBJ"
No disrespect to hairyman who I;m sure didn't intend it that way, but phrases like that come all too quickly any time we purchase arms from the USA rather than something more exotic from elsewhere.
Sadly it's a knee jerk reaction from people of my age who remember Vietnam all too well, and has bugger all to do with the frequent reality that by doing so we are getting the correct kit at the right price with a lot more reliable support than we've had from elsewhere over the years
oldsig
the other thing that a lot of people aren't aware of is that the platform/capability assessment is not just about the platform/artifact - it includes integration issues, impact on interoperability, like minded friends issues, etc etc......
most people would be oblivious to how much support partners like the US give us in some very big ticket capabilities and where there is no contract even in place.
we truly get mates rate support across a very wide sector - and there is no way in hades that we could get that from some of the current gun runners and box floggers currently queueing up to sell us their gear
and thats what makes me somewhat nervous when i see idiot journos crapping on about JSF or Subs as they clearly are oblivious of the broader issues that have to be considered
but as usual, they get a trip to some old capital city 12,000km away, get treated like royalty, get flash presentations and then come back experts
Last edited:
I wouldn't be at all surprised if those slots for Canada were scooped up by another customer like Israel perhaps, who seemed keener to get F35 sooner (for all the reasons anyone else would want a 5G aircraft)
Summary, nothing to see here.
As for why Australia would want to buy US metal,well, Uncle Sam does make very sharp swords. And lots of them. Buying the same kit as the big dog in the yard, with the commensurate industrial base doesn't have to be a dumb idea.
Summary, nothing to see here.
As for why Australia would want to buy US metal,well, Uncle Sam does make very sharp swords. And lots of them. Buying the same kit as the big dog in the yard, with the commensurate industrial base doesn't have to be a dumb idea.
Last edited:
yep, I think thats why there is no sweaty tension coming out of the US, if Canada drops out then Sth Korea, Japan, Singapore, Israel are sitting in the wings - and everyone of those countries except Israeli will be presenting significant substitute industry capability to take off the canadians - and they will be gunning for canadas workshare, make no bones about it
it will be incredibly difficult for LM to defend any residual canadian workshare if they have no skin in the game and these countries argue to bring their slots forward
If Australian industry is able to pickup some of Canada's work share we could conceivably end up better off overall.
in theory you might not see a direct platform cost break - but it could result in greater industry work share (esp global spread) which means industry gets a kick out of it
that starts the follow on of peripheral benefit to other industry.
from a govt perspective, the latter is far more attractive than seeing a platform price reduction as the latter has growth opportunity whereas the other is really minimal over the life of the platform in absolute terms
(which is why there has been some resentment over the amount of work the canadians scored ahead of actually committing to any platforms. hence why I can see all of the foreign partners plus those 4 sitting in the wings elevating noise to Lockmart to release work as the canadians have certainly breached the spirit of workshare to acquisition if not the intent)
What often happened in automotive when an overseas competitor won a contract is they would be bought out by the loser and the contract moved. Basically any innovative firms concerned at losing their Canadian work could do well looking for Australian acquisitions or partners to keep a finger in the pie.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
With junior now PM, Cdn firms might be better off moving to Oz.
The USAF flew C141s from Christchurch to McMurdo and I think they may have had the odd C5 do the Christchurch McMurdo run as well. Why couldn't the RAAF do the Hobart - Wilkins run with Hercs? Just curious.
There was some interest in getting an LC-130 with skis but it never went ahead when Wilkins closed and I'm guessing its because the economics of buying a special or fitting out the "exants" as a solution lost out to "run what you brung" when the economics of the C-17 were factored in
the LC lost out against number 5 of the C-17 interim buys
LC submission option here for interests sake:
http://20yearplan.antarctica.gov.au...8/136808/Group-Captain-Glenn-Nattrass-Ret.pdf
govt blurb here from AAD
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/history/transportation/aviation/hercules-aircraft
historical snap shot
https://www.airforce.gov.au/raafmuseum/research/units/antarctic.htm
C-17 is pretty well suited to these types of missions. Greater range/payload, They can drop 20t off and return without refueling. Having to refuel in Antarctica is mindbogglingly expensive operation.
Wonder if we will be using the C-17 to perform winter resupply missions like those the US was trialling..
Successful Flights Mean More Access to Antarctica's McMurdo Station in Winter
Wonder if we will be using the C-17 to perform winter resupply missions like those the US was trialling..
Successful Flights Mean More Access to Antarctica's McMurdo Station in Winter
t68
Well-Known Member
If they needed to take heavier loads and need to refuel would they just use KC-30A?