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).

OK PaulJP

Consider yourself "indulge[d]" :D

Please reveal the "...far better and more affordable aircraft suited to Australia's needs."

Pete

There are a number of fast jet options. My position is this –

The F-35 is and will continue to be an overpriced just 5th generation fast jet with limited stealth capabilities.

The F-22 is or would be a far better choice, providing we were in receipt of exactly what the USAF gets now and in the future, but it is NOT for export.

Getting what the USAF has is a major issue. The British Government has recently had a decent political stoush with the US Government over this very issue (full sharing of technology) in relation to the F -35. The F/A 18 came with less than we required to keep it up to date (perhaps this explains why it is still not as up to date as the US versions).

There is some concern about the Su series fighter being deployed in the Region. If we ignore India, China, and Pakistan (we cannot compete with them in numbers purchased or dollars to spend), about 40 are being deployed nearby.

A direct competitor to latest generation Su series aircraft is the Typhoon II as used by the RAF.

The alternative is to have more of slightly less capable aircraft. The Swedish Gripen would be an excellent choice in this case. Australia could afford to purchase and operate at least 150 of these fast jets. Their STOL and design for quick forward deployment makes them attractive.

Another is the Dassault Rafale . Australia has owned and flown Dassault Military Aircraft.

Note -F/A 18’s have a published combat range of 740 kilometres. An F-35 1000 kilometres. Modern fast jets have limited combat range. Deploying 10 fast jets to 2000 kilometres from continental, Australia requires more than the 5 in flight refuelling tankers Australia intends to purchase. (Australia – Fiji 2,800 kilometres)

There is a need for fast jet maritime border protection and security. Fast jet ground support for our troops deployed more than 1000 kilometres from Australia is difficult without the F -111.

Like the F-4 I think the the US Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is being ignored by many who are looking for shorter range interceptor solutions designed for the European theatre.

With a range of 1095km it entered service in 1999.

Despite the same general layout and systems, there are enough differences from the original F/A-18 Hornet that many judge the Super Hornet to be an essentially new aircraft. Its not a "turn and burn" specialist like some but I think radar and missile for beyond visual range is more crucial for the fighter mission.

Range and payload capacity is greater than others for the bomber mission.

Interoperability with our main ally (the US) is crucial. The US would often have maintenance facilities overseas already in place in areas of action.

If we can't acquire an adequate F/A-22 version then the Super Hornet is probably the next best thing.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

This is an interesting topic.
Australian defence startegy should be built around potential, possible risks which, given its remotenes, appears to be either long range missiles or naval invasion (excluding sabotage and terrorism threats as internal risks).

An ideal aircraft should be a long range / high altitude fighter equipped with sophisticated anti-missile technology (similar to the F15 in my days).
Naval should be focussed on midrange, fast, manoeuvrable submarines and mid-size frigates with helicopter carrying capacity.

It was puzzling to see Australian defence force acquiring M1 Tanks. For what purpose?

G'day

A link providing an indication of the cost of current military fast jets.

It is a PDF file

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/FighterCostFinalJuly06.pdf

PaulJP

Thanks - a very interesting link.

This supports the argument that the F/A-18E Super Hornet is one of the least expensive fighter-bombers.

Costings for the F-35, though apparently moderate, are very speculative because that aircraft has a long development path in front of it - something that will alter costings greatly.

The Super Hornet by contrast has relatively firm unit and program costings because it has been in (US Navy) service for 7 years.

On the downside the Super Hornet is proven technology. Defense procurement people don't like to hear "proven" and they don't like to hear that established supply chains/vendors are already efficiently providing the F/A-18. They want a 15 year lead time of setbacks and career enhancing challenges. The F-35 gives them that.

Australia's premature decision to back the F-35 was primarily political - so US procurement people could tell Congress "our most loyal little allies are depending on this plane, so we just gotta build it".

Sure the F-35's imponderables put Australian airstike capacity at risk and bleed the taxpayer - but look at future jobs:

- for Defence bureaucrats and

- for semi-local companies who'll do all the vast "unexpected" modifications to fix these cutting edge wonders.

If only our Defence Minister could influence his Depatment's firm manipulation of this matter?

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

Excuse my ignorance but if cost is such a limitation and the technology so expensive is there any way to design and manufacture suitable aircraft "in house"?

RAAF technicians know every square cm of the existing technologies and should be able to contribute something and even if we needed to recruit overseas talent for some parts of the process wouldn't it help alleviate some of the current dilemmas.

Sounds like our Defence Minister has been listening to good advice (or reading this thread :)

The Australian, December 15, 2006, states:

"Australia may buy a squadron of 24 F-18F Super Hornet fighter jets as back-up amid growing concerns over delays in the delivery of the JSF.

Fairfax newspapers reported that Defence Minister Brendan Nelson had confirmed that the Government was in discussions with the US government for the purchase of the Super Hornets.
The aircraft are likely to cost about $90 million each.

The move is an apparent about-face for the government, which has repeatedly said there would be no need for a stop-gap to fill the hole between the phase-out of the RAAF's fleet of aging F/A-18 Hornets and F-111s and the introduction of the JSF"

see http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20932315-1702,00.html

Probably a complete delusion but comments on OLO may be listened to now and then.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

We all of course live in hope re the minister actually reading public domain information. In correspondence from a Ministers (Defence) Aid, public domain information is regard as unreliable and therefore ignored (further indication of the attitude of the Government and the ADF to "not in the loop" Australians.) A very poor state of affairs.

In further review of available fast jets I would actually prefer an Australian modified version of the F-15, similar to the Korean F -15K. Much greater range and weapons lift than the Super Hornet.

I would be quite happy though if we purchased about 150 Super Hornets with additional in flight refueling tankers (at least 20). No F -35 program.

It does not make sense that we spend millions repairing upgrading an already past use by date F/A 18 and then purchase 24 "newer models". The RAAF may have an ulterior motive, converting the Super Hornets to electronic warfare aircraft, similar to the AMPHIB project being thinly disguised fixed wing VTOL carriers (perhaps for VTOL F-35 versions)after the arrival of the F-35.

Sadly every time I take a good look at most current major defence projects and combine a little basic research the question of why? is always raised.

The Abrahams tank purchase (why?)and the continued additional costs of this tank purchase, reinforces my belief that the ADF at an executive level is out of control, combined with a Government that seems to be in panic mode in relation to Australia's defence and security.

PaulJP

Your first statement

"In further review of available fast jets I would actually prefer an Australian modified version of the F-15, similar to the Korean F -15K. Much greater range and weapons lift than the Super Hornet."

An "Australian modified version" almost always means means 5 year minimum lead-time BEFORE production for what is mean't to be an Interim fighter. It would get here too late.

Your next statement "I would be quite happy though if we purchased about 150 Super Hornets with additional in flight refueling tankers (at least 20)."

That would effectively double the size of our airforce (without justifying threat projections) and further strain our stretched pilot pool. Its also better not to effectively centre all our fighter/strike/bomber expectations around one aircraft (ie the Super Hornet) on the off chance it falls short of performance.

See the story in today's Australian further confirming Nelson's Super Hornet decision. Note the statement "The Super Hornet offers some commonalities with the Australian air force's existing Hornet fleet and a relatively easy conversion for air crew, air force sources say."

Sounds like advice written elsewhere on this string...

Have a good Christmas.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

JSF has shown itself to be in a 5th generation league of its own - I don't know if, in fact, any other program will join it! I predict JSF will be everything the Raptor is proving not to be. [the Raptor is having major maintenace issues!]. JSF benefits from all the issues the Raptor has encountered during its develop and initial operations - in effect, JSF nations are getting what the Raptor was meant to be at ALOT LESS dollars. The suggestion we look to acquire existing European alternates is factually incorrent, as these aircraft are simply not in the JSF technology or program management league.

Further, the recent suggestion by the Commonwealth of acquiring F/A 18F aircraft would appear a reasonable decision, not only in its intended role of F111 replacement, but of meeting the one concern I have about JSF - not about the aircraft itself - but, of having a "1 plane" [combat elements] air force - 2 planes gives tactical variance -something which itself adds to the distress of your enemy, something 1 plane type, no matter how good, cannot do. The F/A 18F "Super Hornet" is an awesome machine!

Suggesting a nation like Australia does not require a real air combat capability, is like saying the doors to the mint should be left unlocked. Australia has considerable national, regional and international obligations which require a capability of sufficient breadth and depth. For example, Australia could not have sent 1 solider to East Timor, unless we knew we had certain "real capabilities" if the deployment "went hot". Sadly, one day, such a deployment will go "hot" it is only a question of when. We have been very lucky up to now - full credit to the boots on the ground for it.

Issues of water supply and fighting bush fires belong in another Forum discussion, as they have no real relevance to this discussion. In a nation which crowns itself regularly in "Anzac" glory of days past, the people of Australia should always remember - your only as good as your next war!

Politicians and defence managers assure that Australia has sufficient air defence capabilities with its combination of F/A 18 and F -111 aircraft. Upgraded F/A18 will serve as suitable replacements for the F -111.
Recent announcements re the purchase of 24 Super Hornets brings these assurances at least under a cloud with a good probability of them lacking any veracity.
A look at published capabilities of Australia’s F/A18 reveal a combat range of 730 kilometres and a interdiction range of 1000 kilometres ( RAAF web site).
Current 2 x Boeing 707 aircraft used as in flight refuelling air craft are insufficient to provide for the in flight refuelling needs of any, but a very small number of deployed F/A18.
New in flight refuelling tankers will not become available until at least 2009 (first one operational) and will still be inadequate when all five are available.
An F/A18 cannot be deployed to the edge of Australia’s economic exclusion zone (EEZ), a distance of between 500 and 700 kilometres, loiter for any time or conduct a single interception, without in flight refuelling support.
If the combat need for this aircraft occurs further than 300/500 kilometres from any supporting base this aircraft operations, a group of Australian’s throwing stones would be all Australia’s defence could offer.
A Super Hornet is not a one on one F-111 replacement. The purchase of Super Hornets does not address the issue of this aircrafts (F/A18 - Super Hornet, any model) lack of range. Even the US Navy has created a fast tanker version of this aircraft in an attempt to address this problem.
Australia has inadequate air defence capabilities. The F-35 will not address the issue of lack of fast jet range (a 1,000 klm combat range is suggested for this aircraft).
Five in flight refuelling tankers will not adequately support up to 100 fast jets (proposed F-35 purchase numbers), plus C-17's and AEW&C aircraft, all capable of and when in operation may require, in flight refuelling services.
Tokens are being used in the defence and security of Australia. Reality and need is not being addressed.

There are a number of considerations here:
Australia requires a long range, twin engine aircraft. The F35 is certainly inferior to the F-22 Raptor in every respect. Price difference will be negligible.
This purchase has been made for the narrow interests of a few beaurocrats and US defence contractors.
The FA-E/18 is not competitive with late model SU aircraft being purchased all around the region. A better so called interim aircraft would have been current model F15's, if required at all.
The manner in which the "Super Hornet" was chosen is absolutely scandalous. Brendan Nelson should be sacked for this decision.
Upgrading the F111 makes a lot of sense in technical terms, as well as in terms of enhancing the capabilities of our own aircraft industry. (see below) If the Swedes can build the Gripon why is Australia trading away our indigenous technical capability in this respect?
http://www.ausairpower.net/pig.html
Frankly, a combination of re engined F111's with state of the art avionics and F22's would give Australia air superiority in the region for quite some time to come.

Stoka

I certainly agree that the F-35 is inferior, Australia should drop its ambiguous commitment to it. By choosing the Super Hornet Australia may be expensively signalling that its prepared to stay along the F-18 development path and NOT become fully committed to the F-35.

By not going for the F-35 Australia will be delaying a major purchase from the US. This makes a partial - interim payment in terms of the Super Hornet necessary - a way for Australia to keep its scheduled payments/premiums on the ANZUS alliance.

Sad truth is we need to be interoperable (commonly equipped) with our (ANZUS nuclear) American allie. Our large land mass means US aircraft (including the F111) consistently fall into the range/speed/payload bracket that we need. Furthermore the low observability skill is not an option for our own aircraft industry (after the US perhaps only the Russians and French would come close).

Nelson (hopefully) chose the Super Hornet as part of a wise strategy to bide time (and keep America sweet) until the US begins to release the F-22 to its allies. The same US strategy of delayed release (for US political alliance gain) occurred with the F-15 and to a lesser extent the F-16 with other countries in times past.

So Australia can expect Super Hornets to start arriving 2011. If we play our cards right hopefully a mature fighter/attack version of the F-22 will come on stream to Australia in 2015. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor

To further lever the US towards making F-22s (or F/A-22) available Australia can revisit the concept of upgrading the F-111 as, hopefully, we'll have a new (Labor) Government (which has already talked of a Hornet, upgraded F-lll, towards F-22 mix) after November this year .

A useful mix might actually be (talking 2016) -

- the 24 Super Hornets - a multirole fighter/bomber (2010 - 2030)

- F-lll upgraded 2009 long range (be Australian standards) bomber - for phaseout in 2020s

- incraseing number's of multirole F/A-22 (2015- 10 per year over 6 years (to 60 total) (2015 - 2045)

What do you think?

Pete

Plantagenet,

I'm in agreement with most of your points, however I think a better interim aircraft would have been the F15E with the most current avionics. Whether we needed to make this purchase for $6 billion to keep the US onside till they agree to sell us the F22 is apocryphal. In any event, after sending a bunch of detailed correspondence to Air marshal Houston, Brendan Nelson et al and getting no response, I doubt if the people who are really pulling the strings give a damn. The only person who responded to me was Joel Fitzgibbon, shadow minister for defence. I would have been happier to see money spent developing an upgraded prototype of the F111 with new engines and avionics, thereby enhancing our defence industry skills and giving us more technical independence. Eventually the US will need to sell us the F22, for strategic reasons as well as to allow them to purchase more for themselves.

I’m also of the opinion that the public domain and media are not necessarily getting the full picture of what is going on behind the scenes on this. What seems very clear is that the FA-E/18 is at a serious disadvantage to a well armed SU-30 Flanker in almost every performance criteria. (*See link below.)
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-060807-1.html

I would be happy to see some money spent buying more F-111 airframes from the US and developing an upgraded prototype of the F-111 with new engines and avionics, thereby enhancing our defence industry skills and giving us more technical independence. The F-111 is an aircraft uniquely suitable for Australia in terms of its speed, range and stike capability, and the comprehensively researched arguments presented by Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon in the ausairpower website make a compelling case.

I also believe developing advanced technical skills in the area of military aviation is pretty crucial to Australia’s future defence needs, and that constantly spending vast sums of money with overseas military contractors does not necessarily enhance such development.

http://www.ausairpower.net/pig.html

Where do people get this rubbish!

Facts:

F35 - most advanced multi-role fighter plane now in development. BETTER than F22 Raptor in many respects.

1. USA will not sell foreign nations F22 Raptor, and it's an air superiority fighter - ie, 2. Does not fulfill RAAF requirements.

SHOCK/HORROR - it's NOT as capable as the Lightening II

*Can people than please STOP introducing the word F22 Raptor even into the discussion! (You canNOT buy the thing!)

SuperHornet: 4.5 Generation Aircraft, with new generation weapons will sustain and enhance RAAF long-range strike capabilities. F111, great plane, will miss it, but it just can't keep going forever and management of the program is just requiring more and more, for less and less "return".

Think of the JSF this way:
You spend all that BIG $$$$ to develop the Raptor (I know, I used that word myself) you find what works, what doesn't, how to get similar results for less - you take all that knowledge, all those hours of blood, sweat and tears and package it up in the more capable, more advanced, more modern plane - JSF!

Can't see any Russian plane ever hanging around to take on the SuperHornet and JSF. Both planes simply take things to a new level.

JSF INFERIOR AND PART OF US's TWO BITES SALES STRATEGY

Robo

I agree with you about the Super Hornet's value to Australia but suspect you writeoff the F-22 too quickly. You haven’t put up arguments in what ways the JSF may be superior.

Compared to the F-22 the JSF is already inferior to the F-22 in terms of speed, range and carrying capacity. The attack/bombing capabilities of the F-22 are steadily being developed. The JSF’s single engine has already caused problems as there is unusually little scope in this aircraft to increase weight in order to increase capacity.

Comparative radar signatures are probably unassessable but probably similar.

What really seems to be enticing Australia interest in the JSF is that Lockheed (which significantly also builds the F-22) is offering significant industry offsets if Australia buys the JSF. Politicians traditionally see political benefits for defence industries in marginal seats. But if (as I suspect) the JSF doesn’t achieve the expected sales (in the US or overseas) – Australia will be stuck with lower volume offset factories and locked into the JSF with a price close to and perhaps higher than the F-22.

The JSF’s versatility (3 configurations) may be a virtue or a “can do a bit of everything but poorly” disadvantage. In any case Australia is only seriously looking at the CTOL version with carrier versions too far in the future and even then small in number.

MORE TO FOLLOW

PART TWO

I think we need to consider why the US has chosen not to CURRENTLY export the F-22? Remembering that other US aircraft have had temporary export bans in the past that have then been lifted.

It seems logical that non export of the F-22 is because it CURRENTLY has such an technological edge and contains such sensitive technologies that the US does not yet want to share it.

The current ban also provides the US with political advantages by being able to extract concessions in many areas (political, economic etc) from would-be recipient countries. Israel and to a lesser extent Japan (and our ALP) have expressed an interest in acquiring the F-22. Israel tends to eventually get what it wants from the Americans.

Sooner or later the F-22 will be seen as being less ahead of the pack and the US for political and economic reasons will start to sell it to preferred countries (eg Australia). If those countries have already ordered the JSF then Hey, Lockheed (which sells the F-22 AND the JSF) gets two bites of the cherry. This will provide a greater overall benefit to the US government and industry but will prove a burden on those countries suckered into buying the inferior JSF first and then buying the F-22 (because the US will have shrewdly timed its release).

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/