If the Americans are trying to sell us a lemon why don't we buy some of those Russian Su 27+ Flankers instead?

This always happens when new and expensive acquisitions are made.

Peter I don't feel that your investigation into the JSF's capabilities was a thorough as it could have been. What it seems you have done much work on, is identifying the links between big business and politics in the US defence. The people who should be making the decision on which jets we need are our Airforce command. Yes politically they need to be guided on what missions they will need to undertake and what capabilities we will therefore need, but after that the decision should be made by military experts, without undue political pressure.

The JSF's VSTOL capability will make it a highly useful aircraft for us, considering our limited airfields and new helicopter landing ships, if we decide we are going to buy some of the F35B variant. And the JSF's stealth technology is a newer generation and is built, as you point out, by the same people who built the F22. The JSF will have much more capable digital avionics.

It does seem that the F22 is going to be a superior aircraft in air to air combat. In the strike role it remains to be seen.

It should be irrelevant to us whether the US officials pushing the aircraft are ex lockheed execs. Our decision should be which aircraft best suit our needs, then let the politicians work out how to get the best deal.If the F22, in the quantities we can afford, is the best aircraft for us then we should work to get the US to release it to us.

The soviet aircraft are an obvious no brainer. We can't buy military hardware from a country which is not a long term ally. For starters we need something so we can be interoperable with the rest of our allies. secondly we cannot rely upon Russia to furnish us with the spares, weapons etc in any scenario. It would give the Russians defacto control over the effectiveness of our Airforce. Obviously a very poor idea.

Paul. L

The reason I wrote this article was to spell out that there are many considerations beyond the purview of RAAF officers that go into big ticket purchases.

RAAF officers, like anyone have mixed motives. New weapons systems are career enhancing for both pilots and engineers.

It is not unknown for RAAF officers to become consultants or managers for Lockheed after they leave the RAAF.

When Australia pays up to A$25 billion for the F-35s this is a huge political investment in the US alliance.

It also represents an enormous opportunity cost. For example the money might be better spent on health, education, highways, nuclear weapons or saved.

My main point is clearly about timing. We don’t need to buy the F-35 NOW or next year.

It seems our timing is dependent on the residency (until January 2009) of Texans in the White House and Pentagon.

Purchase of under-developed short/vertical takeoff F-35s is not on the table for Australia at present – and should not be an argument that favours long term investment in Lockheed.

The F-22 is already replacing F-15s and F117s in the fighter bomber role in the US – and this is 6 years before the F-35 may or may not do so. This means the US assess thee F-22 as a worthy fighter-bomber something that can't be said for the F-35. The electricals and electronics of the F-35 have not even been tested with weapons.

I agree with you on not buying Russian.
-
-
Mac

You said “why don't we buy some of those Russian Su 27+ Flankers instead?”

This is a fairly tired issue which ignores the real link between big ticket equipment purchases and alliance politics.

Unlike (say) China Australia has not considered buying Flankers because the US wouldn’t let us go near the Russians as it flies in the face of ANZUS and other agreements. Russian advisers would need to crawl all over our bases and Defence Department to assess what we want - an intelligence coup for Russia.

Space precludes me adding the many more reasons.


Regards

Peter Coates
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

Pete,

The F-111 is being prematurely retired despite having desirable low level, long range, high speed characteristics for effective operations in the emerging regional military scenario. 24 Super Hornets are being needlessly acquired costing at least $6 billion and a huge unspecified sum is being wasted on short-term life extension of 71 virtually clapped out F/A-18A. Extension of the F-111 to 2020 and leasing of 24 x F-16 would have provided adequate capability until the F-35/F-22 acquistion crystallized without wasting maybe $10 billion.

2 x Navantia LHD ships with STOVL ramps are really very vulnerable aircraft carriers whereas building multiple smaller Galicia/Rotterdam class (or comparable US design) amphibious support vessels over, say, a couple of decades would enhance ADF helicopter and landing craft capabilities throughout the neighbouring archipelago which will likely be Australia's primary area of military activity. Building aircraft carrier hulls in Spain and fitting out in Australia heralds another fiasco like the Collins submarine with unimagineable cost escalation.

The so-called helicopter rationalization project is also an inexcusable waste of taxpayer funds. The Chinook, Iroquois, Kiowa are all performing primary combat roles in Iraq and Afghanistan with cost-effective upgrade programs in train. European Tiger (another virtually failed project) and MRH-90 helicopters have been accepted for ADF service apparently without adequate tropical proving. An Iroquois upgraded to Huey II at about $2 million has superior tropical altitude performance to both Tiger and MRH-90 with the rubbery absurd unit costs of these aircraft reputedly betweeen $44 million and $78 million. It is simply not justifiable to procure helicopters at such ridiculous cost when they are mostly required to perform very basic roles.

Seemingly, the expression 'cost-effectiveness' has disappeared from the defence lexicon and vast sums of money are being imprudently thrown at arms manufacturers without any cost-benefit analysis. Hitherto, nobody is being held accountable for squandering of taxpayer funds which might be much better spent on health and aged care

In the article and my last comment I may have given RAAF judgement on the F-22 or F-35 too little attention.

Its our pilots and aircrew who are asked to fight and die in these aircraft. Fast jets are also inherently dangerous to fly in peacetime.

This makes it all the more important that the RAAF has the best fighter bomber available. For political and perhaps business reasons the F-22 is not being made available to the RAAF. This is a disservice to Australian pilots.

F-35s are one engined, less capable derivatives of the F/A-22.
-
-
In an excellent new article http://www.f-16.net/news_article2894.html Eric Palmer has demolished the argument that an export version of the F-22 would involve significant price jumps or delays. Eric has information indicating that in the late 1990’s the US was seriously considering exporting the F-22 to Australia

Eric writes:

[Chief of Staff of the Air Force] General Ryan approved industry members to come up with a [F-22] “B configuration” plan for NATO, and a full-up USAF-spec [F-22] “A configuration” for Australia. His guidelines for the A configuration were:

1.Same engine, no downgrade.
2.Same signature
3.Jet will not be used against us
4.Tech transfer concerns were downed aircraft and inadvertent disclosure scenarios; the same as USAF.
5.Full knowledge of all capabilities; information to remain in the embedded training system resident in the jet.
6.Withhold some hardware until needed, but full knowledge and training capabilities remain in the aircraft.

This configuration was briefed to Ryan and the Secretary of the Air Force and they both approved. Two briefings were built for the RAAF.

They included one for F-22 performance specifications and another showing the value of stealth. In 2001, both USAF and RAAF leadership changed with the new head of the USAF General Jumper and new Secretary of the USAF Mr. Roche showing approval for the F-22 FMS progress thus far.”

Read the rest here http://www.f-16.net/news_article2894.html

Why did the US then decide that the F-22 could not be released to Australia?

Peter Coates

Hi Bushranger 71

Unfortunately the Government appears to have already decided on government paid “expert” advice to terminate the F-111. The Super Hornet has already been bought, partly as a replacement for some F/A-18A's - no turning back.

I’m concentrating on the F-22/F-35 issue because it is still up for decision – unless Lockheed has already cajoled the National Security Committee of Cabinet into making a hasty and incorrect decision.

Regarding naval issues. This is a complex matter of whether the RAN’s long term aspiration of again having baby flat-top carriers can again be met. The Galicia/Rotterdam class etc won’t serve as a short take off carrier but may be adequate in the island dominating role.

For the Canbrerra Class carriers(?) being purchased any F-35s being flown off them will probably be very short ranged, an inadequate strike aircraft and an inadequate fleet defence aircraft. The opponent aircraft may well be late model Flankers firing Brahmos standard hypersonic anti-shipping missiles.

I agree costings of only $2 billion per Canberra will escalate dramatically and may work out to be $5 billion per Canberra when one includes aircraft complement.

I don't know enough about the army chopper debate to comment intelligently.

The “cost effectiveness” you mention seems to be as much about paying for US alliance protection as it is about getting value for money. There is usually an Australian industry develpment (jobs) aspect as well - which is sometimes valid.

Buying “off the shelf” (with no niggling DMO/Australia only changes) is almost always best to get straight value for money.

Regards

Peter Coates
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/