I agree with Mr McClelland about the purrchase of the F-35 strike fighter. I have some expertise in this field but once you are over 60, no-one listens. The F-22 or F/A 22 Raptor is proven technology and needed now. There is no guarantee that the F-35 will cost less; include all the technology used by the USAF and wanted by the RAF (no guarantees given on that) and the way R&D into unmanned aircraft is progressing, the F-35 is a gamble.

I well remember the F-111 debates and while it is/was a fine aircraft, they have a limited life span, no matter how many re-fits or retrofits are included. We were lucky that we didn't face an immediate threat when awating that aircraft: it would have been prudent to have purchased a few F-4s to cover the gap.

Once again, our defence mandarins and some in the services are chasing a chimera. Australia needs F-22s now, not in 2016.

I don't believe the case has been made that the RAAF needs supersonic aircraft at all. To wit the F-111s were to deter the Indonesians and we went to war over E. Timor and they weren't used. Plenty of aircrew died in accidents however. Allies of the US seem to think we need these kinds of planes in the 'war on terror'. Others think that will require more police work and less bombardment. I was mightily impressed with Sky Crane helicopters at the time of the Canberra bushfires; I wonder how many could be bought for the cost of just one whizzbang fighter. Within a decade we will need hundreds of millions of public capital for aged care facilities, clean energy and clean water systems. Air support will be needed for peacekeeping and disaster relief. This could be short changed for the sake of a squadron of irrelevant high priced toys.

perikles

I too recall how the F4 Phantoms were used as an interim bomber until the F111s were finally ready. I predict the JSF will be hopelessly late and overbudget, requiring the US to lease Super Hornets to Australia (in say 2011) to prevent political egg on our PM's face.

What many commentators miss is that the Defence acquisitions people draft arguments supporting particular jets, submarines and helicopters. Arguments so technical that most (Cabinet included) place the bureaucrats expertise on trust and tick the recommendations as they go up the line. To duck leadership responsibility they can easily say it was “Defence’s fault”.

It is in Defence acquisitions’ bureaucratic interests to choose weapons with the most potential difficulties, risks and the longest lead times. This ensures long careers for senior Defence acquisition people, supported by large budgets and continuing staff numbers. If they had simply chosen the Super Hornet or F/A-22 many Defence civilians would GET IT RIGHT TOO EARLY and be out of a job.

The problem is not exclusively with Defence acquisitions. Numerous defence contractors in marginal electorates, and the politicians that associate with them, also rely on the extended, problem prone approach. (McClelland's boss) Beazley's bizarre defence of the Collins Class submarine project (built in that well known submarine state of South Australia) is testament to good or ill-intentioned porkbarrelling.

And so we have the JSF. Doesn't know whether it wants to be a bomber or a Harrier jumpjet replacement. Probably do both, badly.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

Australia does not need the F-35

There are far better and more affordable aircraft suited to Australia's needs.

Indulge me. As a new poster I trust this is not too much.

The need for an Air Superiority Fighter is still part of current military doctrine, hence the latest F-22, Typhoon II and Su series aircraft.

Note that the F-35 is NOT included in this category or regarded as such an aircraft by any nation, except Australia, who is considering purchase.

The Royal Air Force (RAF) has purchased a large number of Typhoon II fast jets. Its proposed F-35 purchases are additional to and not in replacement of Typhoon II fast jets.

Stealth requirements of new aircraft are promoted as being important to aircraft survival and capability. To some extent this is true providing –

• There is no air deployed look down radar (AEW)
• No over the horizon radar (JORN)
• Your primary concern is minimising risk from ground based (large fixed) air defence systems.

Either of the radar capabilities greatly reduces the effectiveness of a stealth aircraft. Australia with its Jindalee Operational Radar System (JORN over the horizon radar) has the additional advantage of being able to detect stealth aircraft at considerable distance from our coastline. Australia has no large fixed air defence (AA) systems.

The F 22 and F 35 are a “First Day of War” aircraft. In this scenario, the F -22 is used to remove threats to the F -35, which is then used to attack ground targets in a denial of use, war-fighting strategy.

Australia’s need for stealth aircraft when we are in possession of a means of locating and tracking them is questionable.

This stealth need becomes even more questionable with the current strategy of using beyond visual range and stand off (beyond detection range) weapons, combined with the rapid development of new supersonic and hypersonic missile systems. Aircraft stealth technology will also cause the rapid development of improved radar systems negating stealth technology.

The F -35 is unnecessary and far to costly. There are better more affordable alternative.

From what I understand (and i might be wrong), the YF-22 is not even an option, since the United States Government has not yet signed an agreement with Lockheed to allow the sale of the Raptor to Countries other than the United States.

Whilst I personally believe the Raptor is a better option than the Lighting II, the simple fact that we cannot obtain them is going to be an issue :P

Another issue surrounding the purchase of other, non-American made aircraft, such as Sukhois, MiGs, Eurofighters, etc is the United States might not look kindly upon one of its main allies using non-American equipment.

I remember one of my friends telling me about how the United States threatened economic sanctions, or to stop selling parts for existing aircraft, to nations who purchased the SAAB Aerospace JAS-39 Gripen as their front line Air-superiority fighter, instead of the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. They have certainly done this to nations in the past for disagreements (not necessarily relating to equipment sales / purchases mind you), and this is the main reason why Indonesia’s fleet of Fighting Falcons remain un-usable.

With the retirement of the Aardvarks in 2010, we do certainly need a replacement strike fighter, but the current fleet of FA-18’s is capable of filling the roll of strike fighter (for which it was primarily designed) until we receive our order of JSF’s.

It’s our Air to Air capability that lacks, and has been lacking for quite some time. Whilst the JSF is a mighty strike fighter, and more than capable of true air to air combat, it pales in comparison to the Raptor.

Perhaps a purchase of “refurbished” F-15’s might be the way to go? :P

The only problem with the JSF is how will they gouge a few more billion for those flying white elephants without embarrassing Howard. His impressive list of military procurement cockups is starting to make even the business papers cranky, and the 'well networked' (read packed with corpulent expoliticians and defence beaurocrats) mil.aerospace corp's are still burning money with little to show for it. Where will the obscene cartel of arms manufacturers, prostituted opinion makers and corporatised political parties get its next chunk of taxpayers dollars? Must be time for another war (apart from the 2 1/2 we're currently losing).