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