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/

I often wondered what we would do when an enemy got here.
A future world with China and Russia in charge might just see an easy entry from the north...and little if anything re: a citizens home guard defence force.
Did we spent all of the money on big stuff to prevent an enemy from getting here and forget to fill the gun cupboard to cope with that enemy after he actually got here?
Back in 1963 Mao blurted out that any day he wanted to he could put 200 million soldiers into the field. One wonders how much more tech and weapons they have built since Maos 1963 blurting.
An army friend says we havent even got enough ammo to properly defend Australia.
A thin line of top of the range modern warplanes dont seem much to me if theres no post landing back-up.

PS. Maos 200 million also lines up with Revelation 9:16 and 16:12's 200 million "kings of the east" asian confederacy army.
Looks like one day 200 million may be loose in asia with who knows... maybe a southern movement into Sth East Asia etc.

Pete,

I take your point regarding the timing. It does seem it would be a wise move to wait and see if the new Administration will sell us the F22.

I have not had a chance to read much material on the F22 in the strike role. If you have some I would be interested.

I’m also surprised that the F111 is being retired, leaving a significant, and unnecessary capability gap.

Would you agree that the purchase of a squadron of F35B for the navy would be a good investment, once they areoperational? Based upon the British experience in the Falklands with the Harrier, it would seem that there is a role in the fleet for relatively short range STOVL jets.

Our investment, whether it is in F22’s or F35’s is going to be fairly large.

Regarding the Flanker etc. I think it’s more appropriate to say that the US doesn’t want its allies buying aircraft from potential enemies. And with Putin around, that’s what Russia is every chance of becoming. As you say, the US, rightly, won’t interact with us on a top secret or high security level, if we have Russians all over our airfields.

But surely the most important reason is that we cannot rely upon Russia to supply weapons and parts in the event of a number of possible scenarios. Eg the intervention in Kosovo is a minor example.

My understanding regarding the early purchase of technology like the F35, is that you are rewarded with much cheaper unit costs. For example if we waited until we could buy them off the shelf, they would be way more expensive, is that not so?

The fact that the F35 are one engined shouldn’t be as much of an issue. Since the single engined f16 has been highly successful.

I have read a little about the new AESA radar for the F15’s in Alaska. Is there nay chance that the F35’s could be fitted with such a radar, because that would make the aircraft almost invulnerable to flankers.

Usually, it takes 15 to 20 years from design of jet fighter to form combat ability in the airforce.

Australia, as a medium power, is there any other choice? Australian can democratically elect their government, but Australian can not make decision by themselves at a lot of time.

It's better to change the subject to "Australian pray American for F-22 or F-35".

When Australian able to negotiate with American?
After Australia has at least 100 million people, spent hundreds of billions and built systematic aeronautic and space industry, lost hundreds of pilots on test and training...

Hi Centra

Even if you have favoured a pro mainland China position recently I agree with your aircraft comments mate.

Th F-35 has been in development from at least 1995 and may not be mature and widely in service with the USAF until 2015. So yes "20 years" to develop a fighter to air force operation may well be right.

"Australia, as a medium power, is there any other choice?"

No there's no choice unless we are as advanced (and cynical) as the small power, democratic, Swedes (Saab Gripens, Viggens etc). We cannot develop an avaiation industry out of nowhere.

I might add that even China's aircraft industry is highly Russian dependent down to Russian engines for the best Chinese built fast jets.

You say "It's better to change the subject to "Australian pray American for F-22 or F-35""

Unfortunately you are right and let us narrow your brutal but fair anti capitalist jibe to Australia praying for the LOCKHEED F-22 or the LOCKHEED F-35.

You said "When Australian able to negotiate with American?"

Not since we bought the French Mirage III in the 1950s.

You scoffed "After Australia has at least 100 million people, spent hundreds of billions and built systematic aeronautic and space industry, lost hundreds of pilots on test and training..."

Personally I prefer nuclear weapons to stick it to oncoming enemies, but I think Mr Rudd is better equipped to strip ANSTO and talk to China instead.

Basically we are talking the same real politik language - maybe from different sides.

Regards

Pete

--

Hi Paul. L.

I'll get back to you on your good, but curly, questions soon.

I'm presently consulting my Lockheed (Texan) moles.

Regards

Pete

Paul.L.

“... F22 in the strike role..”

The following may be handy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22#Armament and http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20080520.aspx (F-22 replaces F-117 stealth bomber)

No one, not even the Pentagon/Lockheed, can sell the idea definitively that Australia will need the STOVL F-35B. Each Canberra Class “carrier” may only be able to embark 6. The Canberra’s need to make room for large helicoptors – their main function.

In and around the hotspots (from East Timor to the Solomons) Canberra’s may well be in range of land based jets and hypersonic missiles. This may nullify any fleet defence value that F-35B’s may, or may not, possess. As strike aircraft F-35Bs are already assessed as having a marginal payload and short range.

Not buying the Flanker because of alliance/ANZUS commitments, security and possibility we would use them against Russian interests are pretty much the same thing. I agree with you.

Also the Russians are capable of either bugging the Flankers, inserting tracking “beacons” or even hidden destruct sequence source-codes to eliminate any Flankers that one day may threat Russian interests.

Watchout China and India. Your Flankers may have been doctored :)

Re buying early is cheaper:

That is Lockheed's self serving claim. But early investment means the early buyers are locked into purchases at a time when Lockheed wishes to pay for the F-35's extremely high development costs. Consumers who pay early deposits are stuck and can be pressured to pay higher prices. This is the same high risk for anyone who buys "off the plan".

Lockheed's main pitch is Australian industry involvement. However Australia enjoyed many industry involvement benefits with earlier aircraft (Mirage, F-18A etc) without buying early and without sharing a monopoly seller's (LOCKHEED's) risk.

“The fact that the F35 are one engined” has always been an issue.

One major reason for Australia buying the F-18A in the 1970s rather than the single engined F-16 was that two engines are safer for the pilot and allow greater range and payload.

Re AESA radars:

I recommend that you research emerging Russian countermeasures to AESA radars and reply on that one.

Regards

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

I'm not in the industry and only follow whats going on from news and ausairpower.net etc but the impression i certainly get is that political and economic aspiration of groups in America seem to be overiding a common sense approach to meeting australian defense needs.

The only reason i can see that we are persisting with the over budget and underperforming F-35 is that apart from the F-22 we don't really have many options. Nothing I know of from Europe would meet our requirements (and i wonder how much the F-35 does).

America is holding back on releasing the F-22 simply because they have invested so much into the F-35 and it would be dropped like a hot potato by their international partners if they could get their hands on the proven F-22.

The only thing in the F-35's favour is undisclosed capability which had better be damn good to make up for it's short range and low speed (compared to F-22, F-111) should regional Su 27s crack the 'stealth'.

I have a lot of respect for DSTO and saw this from outgoing DSTO chief Roger Lough, but i'm still not convinced.

"He has no doubt that the RAAF's preference for the F-35 joint strike fighter is the right choice for Australia when compared with the more expensive F-22 Raptor.

"The F-22 is a very nice fighter aircraft, but it is not what we want and we have the studies to prove that. DSTO has done the major part of the operational studies for the new air combat capability and that includes an assessment of the F-22.

"Many, if not most, of the avionics in the JSF are F-22 derived. So you have learned the lessons of the F-22 and applied them to the JSF. So they are cheaper, more robust, they are more maintainable and they are arguably increasing performance.

Aeronautic and space system is a highly complicated and integrated system. Airforce combat ability is partly, or maybe largely, dependent on aircraft performance.

But, most countries in the world, including Australia, even they have their own integrated space and ground supporting system, after 24 hours large scale air combat with enemies at the same level, their airforce combat ability is largely dependent on their aircraft system supplier if their airforce still exists.

Centra

"Aeronautic and space system is a highly complicated and integrated system."

I'm not sure who/what you are or who orginated these words. Some "information" parts of the Chinese Ministry of Defence spring to mind as an originator... :)

You or someone said "But, most countries in the world, including Australia, even they have their own integrated space and ground supporting system, after 24 hours large scale air combat with enemies at the same level, their airforce combat ability is largely dependent on their aircraft system supplier if their airforce still exists."

This may/may not apply. It may be the rhetorical question of an expert - but I see the statement as fishing for a useful response.

One with real access to a nation's air force supply network disposition could respond but this would be sensitive stuff and they would be breaking the law - if they officially knew - which I don't - and won't :)

Regards

Pete

Pete

"I'm not sure who/what you are or who orginated these words. Some "information" parts of the Chinese Ministry of Defence spring to mind as an originator... :)"

I am not a worrywart. My technical experience tells me that intelligence agency in most countries can pinpoint the internet users and get their detailed personnel information within minutes if they want. Even the technical team of this form can know a little about the commentators.

"It may be the rhetorical question of an expert - but I see the statement as fishing for a useful response."

At age of 9, I was still impressed by Falkland/Malvinas Islands War. Later, I knew that Argentine jet fighter combat time is numbered by minutes. If brave Argentine could get continuous, or even limited supply of spares, missile etc, Briton would pay much higher cost.

Although I got a little experience in the industry, all the conclusion I got is based on some basic open information, plus simple logic. (At this point, there are much more open discussion in the Chinese, Indian and Pakistani forum.)

Do not underestimate Australia, China and other countries. If any country treasures these basic information, then its opponent should be rhathymia.

After all, all my comment is relevant(that means I follow the forum rule). My conclusion is that Australia has no choice. A few years ago, South Kora set a example. South Korean airforce wanted to replace their jet fighter by international bid. There were competitive bid, but American did not agree, Did Korean dare to change? Same apply to Australia.

Fair enough Centra.

I believe you are a real person.

I agree with your last paragraph. Australia's choice of its next jet fighter is governed by what America is willing to provide. Our ability to shop around is limited by our desire to pay a tribute-premium to the US for the ANZUS "insurance policy".

HABIB

But going slightly off topic we are occasionally kicked in the teeth by the US despite our loyalty.

If DG ASIO O'Sullivan's explanation of Habib's rendition to Egypt is to be believed the Australian Government did not object strongly enough to prevent an Australian citizen being flown in a US jet to Egypt for the express purpose of being tortured by an American ally.

I'm just wondering why Commissioner Keelty is not doing the talking now as it happened on his watch. The explanation Keelty gave for some years to normal MPs, Senators and the Australian people seemed - well - a little economical with the truth - even if one can lie for national security reasons.

But then again another federal policeman in another land, J. Edgar Hoover, could define and propagandise a certain style of law – which put people in fear - and got away with it for years...

Habib is probably no saint but Australia owes him serious compensation.

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

Centra,

My understanding of the Argentine airforces problems was that the pilots were often flying too low for their bombs to arm before they hit the ships. Secondly, if the british harriers had more range they could have pushed the argentine exocet carrying Super Etenards further out of range. It was the exocet which could have made the difference for the argentines

The Argentine experience does demonstrate why you shouldn’t buy your major weapons systems from anyone who isn’t a lifelong ally. Indeed a capable local military industry should be a strategic requirement for any country concerned about its security. We cannot buy French or other European arms for exactly this reason

South Korea is different to Australia in that they receive significant amounts of military funding from the US. In that sense it would be hard to blame the yanks for demanding that they use the money to buy US goods. Indeed South Korea's newfound wealth can be directly traced to America subsidising the defence of that country for 60 odd years.

Of course you can spend more money on infrastructure if someone else is picking up a large part of your defence tab.

Our AF wants to be able to operate successfully with the Americans as a matter of national strategy. The F35, if its stealth package lives up to its promise, will be the best aircraft in the region. Besides the F22 what else could we buy?

Peter,

Regarding Habib, I think we need to trust the gov’t. If he was actually in Afghanistan learning to become a terrorist then there is no need to apologise. I’m not saying I support rendition and torture, but I’m not interested in apologizing to a terrorist either. The incoming labour gov’t would have been briefed on what Habib has been up to, and if they aren’t interested in compensating him, then I’m OK with that.

Not much point to a new plane if the old F111's get mothballed and the new planes cant do a Jakarta run as a deterent?
Ive been wondering for a few years what would happen if the USA got into big conflict and Indonesia decided to make a move south to claim the land north of Townsville as their much treasured SOUTH IRIAN. I reckon the way things are there would be a lot of good people out on the roads south back into southern states.
Defence makes me ill its that poor in respect to the great asian armies.

Hi Pete,

World dynamics pose some interesting questions. Will China’s increasing political and economic influence in Australia become a form of ‘defacto’ security and not a military threat considering that China will ensure its investments and access to resources are protected? How might this impact the ANZUS alliance and what force structures will be appropriate for a non-nuclear military minnow like Australia?

Australia has very porous borders, is physically indefensible and the logistics of invasion are too formidable, as determined by Japanese military planners during WW2. However, there could be interference with our maritime trade routes, air corridors and littoral resources installations to exert political pressure so suitable capabilities for surveillance and deterring such interference should be paramount.

The envisaged primary functions of say F-111, Super Hornet, F-35, F-22 in the evolving strategic scenario would conceivably be maritime strike, electronic warfare and longish range air defence with upgraded F-111 and F-22 potentially having the superior capabilities for these roles. Intended premature F-111 retirement and Super Hornet acquisition were thus major planning blunders.

Acquisition of both Mirage IIIO and F/A-18A Hornet for the RAAF were poor choices with the latter being chosen over the F-16 principally because of the radar then fitted; but the F-16 had significant design growth potential as evidenced by its upgrading/redesign which is ongoing around the world. Not so the F/A-18A which has a pretty short remaining life span despite unwise very costly centre barrel replacement for 71 RAAF aircraft.

If born now, the F-35 might have a radar system superior to the F-22 which is in operational service and forming the vanguard of the USAF Global Strike Force; but F-22 radar software is already being upgraded and more advanced combat capabilities will undoubtedly be retro-fitted as they evolve, a la the F-15 and F-16. Needlessly rushing judgement between the F-35 and F-22 could just propagate Australia’s flawed decisions.

Optimization of existing military assets growth potential and thorough cost-benefit analysis seem deficient in defence capabilities planning in Australia.

Bushranger 71

You’ve raised a wide range of good questions on strategic issues and aircraft uses.

I’m writing another article for OLO on Australia’s long term strategic choices. In that article I’ll inter alia air the issues you’ve raised in your first two paras – and will attempt some answers.

In the meantime I think submarine launched cruise missiles should cause a rethinking of assumptions about Australia defence. Our main cities – all of which are coastal, are vulnerable. Unlike SLBM’s cruise missiles need not be part of an unlikely “total war” scenario. They can be conventionally armed and be used to coerce Australia – if Australia no longer enjoys American protection.

The Indian and Chinese already field subs that are cruise missile capable. Meanwhile Indonesia’s Flankers may be modified to carry the BrahMos supersonic (in future hypersonic) cruise missile – see http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2008/05/brahmos-hypersonic-cruise-missile-for.html A sub launched version is also possible.

Hopefully the Government will reverse its decision to send the F-111 to the scrapheap. Acquiring the Super Hornet is contractually and politically locked in – and it may still be a useful replacement for our F/A-18A’s – until hopefully the F-22 comes on stream (or at least a mature F-35 arrives).

Re - Optimization of existing military assets growth potential and thorough cost-benefit analysis seem deficient in defence capabilities planning in Australia

Manipulations of the variables (ie bomb size that could be carried) used to assess systems (by DMO etc) seems to be the name of the game. By this process the F-22 was locked out early from consideration.

Regards

Peter Coates

Paul. L

I agree with your Falklands comments and add that the upgraded sidewinder AA missiles that the US released to Britain for use in the Falklands also proved a majoy factor in victory.

It shows the value of having a reliable ally. However we cannot assume an ally will always be reliable. Alliance alignments always change.

Re Mr Habib and Torture

See new comment about it below George William’s article on Torture at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7430

Gibo

Other than Flankers and perhaps future BrahMos missiles (see my comment to Bushranger71 above) I don’t think Indonesia will have the offensive capability to threaten Australia much in the foreseeable future. Indonesia building 4 nuclear reactors in Java from 2010 may be cause for worry though.

India and China would be more potent threats. Seizing our mines, oil and gas rigs (then threats to destroy our cities) might be the name of the games rather than broad-front continental invasion.

Peter Coates

Hi again Pete,

Network Centric Warfare (NCW) originated conceptually within the US Pentagon and embraces extensive transfer of data from multiple sensors via IT communication networks to create presumed advantages in military tactical information applications. This doctrine is termed Network Enabled Operations (NEO) in the ADF Force 2020 document which also envisages a ‘seamless’ (unified?) networked ADF of dubious workability.

Military minnow Australia relies on satellite sensors/communications provided by other nations with these resources being essential for conduct of NCW/NEO in its broadest sense. Continuous access to such capabilities in a rapidly changing regional strategic scenario is a very problematic aspect of this concept of operations which is naively based on a presumption that all aspects of data networking will remain secure. The data transmission mediums necessary for NCW/NEO are already being targeted by countermeasures development so the longer term merits of the concept are somewhat questionable.

Assuming limited future access to satellite resources, some degree of NCW/NEO would be achievable by networking of Global Hawk, Air Warfare Destroyer, AP-3C Orion, upgraded F-111 and F-22 capabilities; but long range data distribution might be constrained.

The manned Wedgetail AEW&C aircraft is apparently a key component in the ADF NEO doctrine but seems unlikely to meet its design specifications. AEW&C aircraft, aerial tankers and high flying intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft are also now quite vulnerable to advanced long range weaponry.

Universal aircrew flight time guidelines are about 100 hours per month or 1,000 hours per year; so maintaining 24/7/30 surveillance coverage by one Wedgetail aircraft would require about 7 crews (each of 10 aircrew). Apparently, only 9 or 10 crews total are intended for 6 aircraft but it seems doubtful that the RAAF will be able to man the Wedgetail squadron to that level.

Global Hawk - contemplated for Australia vide Project JP2062 - has comprehensive ISR and NCW/NEO capabilities with minimal aircrew involvement necessary for sustained operations. Introducing the technically deficient and arguably more vulnerable manned Wedgetail when it cannot provide the continuous ISR capability of the unmanned Global Hawk would be yet another monumental defence blunder

I dont think Indonesia, Plantagenet is a real threat at the moment but given a really sudden change in the world military climate they could very quickly be on our door.
The whole of the north of Australia is open. There is no backup to existing forces, the private guns have almost gone...whats left but concede land to them. My fervent belief is you cannot defend Australia unless there is a citizens army...far scattered from possible target cities, well equiped and with something written before hand to encourage preparation.
Why not use the gun clubbers?
Most are responsible men and women...why not do it now while China builds for her outward march (Revelation 9:16 and 16:12/ the kings of the east).

Bushranger71

NCW has naturally arisen from the concurrent availability of high quality sensors and high speed communications. Given the abhorrence of the western world to innocent victims in war, and the accompanying theory of proportional response, the accurate targeting of the enemy is a vital feature of modern warfare.

NCW has the potential to be a significant combat multiplier. Whilst it is true that we rely upon our allies for satellite communications, we also rely on them for a great deal of other material. Where would we get replacement FA18's? A great deal of our defense assets are supplied by our allies and we rely upon them heavily.

You say >>” naively based on a presumption that all aspects of data networking will remain secure”

Interception of communications is not a new phenomenon, however the new advances in digital technology are leading to better cryptography and security of communication. As you rightly point out the networking of AWD, AP-3C, AEWAC and MRTT will provide a fall back net, were we to lose satellite capability.

You say >>”AEW&C aircraft, aerial tankers and high flying ... aircraft are also now quite vulnerable...”

Yet surely you recognize that the measure/countermeasure is an age-old and ongoing process. Further, it is in assymetric warfare where the greatest benefit of high quality ISTAR can be found. NCW is a vital component in that capability. In asymmetric warfare long range ground fired anti-AEWAC type missiles are unlikely to be employed.

I take your point regarding the wedgetail crews and further note the problems the sub force are facing.

In a small defence force, combat multipliers are the only option open to provide a capable fighting force. NCW is one of those multipliers which give our forces an edge over our rivals in the region, and will assist us in asymmetric-warfare.

I would be interested to see the evidence to suggest the superiority of the global hawk over the wedgetail in terms of AEWAC and ISTAR capability. The Gobal Hawk obviously has the edge in terms of ‘time over target’ but its avionics suites aren’t comparable, are they?

Bushranger 71 and Paul. L.

Looks as though you both know more about Network Centric Warfare and ISR than I do. So I can’t add much to what you both have said.

I assume you are aware of, or talking, to Dr Carlo Kopp who may be Australia’s No.1 expert in both of these areas. His relevant articles are at http://www.ausairpower.net/isr-ncw.html

Judging by severe man hour limitations/realities it may have been a mistake to buy 6 Wedgetails (or 6 Collins subs for that matter). If 6 rather than 4 were intentional perhaps the 2 surplus Collins and Wedgetails were factored in for use in wartime and to makeup any losses.

Four Global Hawks might be right though pilots may see such UAVs as career limiting developments. If pilots are remotely “flying” UAVs they cannot be credited with flight hours that would be valued/recognized by future airline employers. The ability of non pilot technicians to fly UAV’s is galling as well.

This is becoming particularly evident in Iraq and Afghanistan where USAF pilots ordered to spend most of their time “flying” Predator UAVs are increasingly spitting chips.

Boeing X-45

The Boeing X-45 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-45 may set the standard as a UAV strike aircraft alongside the F-22. The X-45 appears to be very much a naval initiative. Perhaps the necessarily higher pilot emphasis of the USAF explains the USAF’s lack of interest in this UAV. In 15 years the X-45 may have matured into a frontline aircraft. As the X-45 is Boeing Mr England, formerly of Lockheed, probably isn’t a fan.

................................

Hi GIBO

Spose you’ve heard of of NORFORCE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norforce and http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/A-very-special-kind-of-force-minds-the-north/2005/03/04/1109700672482.html

Seems to me that very fit gun clubbers and others with bush skills should push for more units within NORFORCE and join at least on a part-time basis.

Its far better to work within an established military framework – that way you are in a network to be able to call down devastating military infrastructure to destroy an enemy. Talking laser designators here, as well as traditional assault or sniper's rifles.

Regards

Peter Coate

Hi Paul L;

Some clarification of defence jargon for forum visitors. ‘Network centric warfare’ is just aggregation of data from multiple sensors via IT links to improve situational awareness. The misnomer ‘combat multiplier’ simply means increasing the effectiveness of a military system and ‘asymmetric warfare’ relates to smaller forces countering the capabilities of bigger guys.

Regarding military assistance from allies. Over-committed American forces have a much lessened capacity to supply replacement aircraft or whatever from existing resources; for example, the US Navy F-18 fleet has been flogged beyond economic refurbishment and sustainment of Super Hornet production perhaps influenced the recent Australian procurement decision. Many of Australia’s military assets are also unique hybrid versions not readily replaceable.

Only about half of 6 Wedgetail, 5 MRTT, 4 C-17 might be continuously available operationally due to their technical complexity and outsourced maintenance. Adequate Air Force aircrew manning of Wedgetail and MRTT also seems problematic. Any losses of aircraft may not be promptly restored and training of replacement aircrews would require at least 2 years lead time.

The Russians have developed very sophisticated powerful long-range radars and counter-measures capabilities, also air-launched 200 nautical mile range ‘AWACS Killer’ missiles which are all being marketed regionally – see http://www.ausairpower.net/index.html. Such capabilities could potentially hamper manned aircraft operations, but using unmanned aircraft like Global Hawk for surveillance would diminish aircrew loss risk.

Global Hawk can be equipped with preferred capabilities to cover all aspects of intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, reconnaissance (ISTAR) - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-4_Global_Hawk. Mission control can be exercised trans-globally via satellite or regionally via microwave data links to remote mobile control facilities. Global Hawk is designed to operate up to 65,000 feet with a 36 hour endurance enabling a very substantial and economical surveillance footprint whereas Wedgetail is design limited to operations below 41,000 feet with about 10 hours endurance. ADF AEW&C capability origination was very belated and seemingly did not adequately consider the emerging Global Hawk.

Minister Fitzgibbon recently opined that ‘off the shelf’ equipment acquisition or leasing of military hardware would be more cost-effective, perhaps with the Wedgetail project in mind

Hello Gibo,

I am privileged to be associated with Dr. Carlo Kopp and others comprising a group of retired military bods with comprehensive operational and combat experience endeavouring to better inform the Government and Defence entities concerning air combat capabilities in particular. My own military background was flying transport, fighter, helicopter aircraft embracing involvement in Confrontation and 3 stints in Vietnam with a later decade employed in airline flight training roles on modern airliners.

RAAF pilot manning is pretty acute with one of the fighter squadrons principally staffed by experienced reservist pilots and the Air Force is fearful they will lose more pilots due to worldwide shortages in the airline industry. Aircrew who manned the B707 tanker/transport fleet, which was recently prematurely deactivated leaving a capability gap, will by now have been absorbed in other roles preceding introduction of the MRTT sometime downstream; so more aircrew (and technical) resources will have to be found from somewhere to man both MRTT and Wedgetail. Major defence projects are sanctioned by successive Federal Governments despite military manning limitations that will inevitably result in under-utilization of costly taxpayer-funded resources. Smoke and mirrors stuff!

Some RAAF pilots (now retired) operated unmanned aircraft like Jindivik and Meteors at Woomera a few decades back but that role was not career limiting and enjoyed by many. The ground based teams operating USAF Global Hawk and Predator unmanned aircraft involve minimal pilots to manage flight profiles and weapons delivery, but teams predominantly comprise other specialists to interpret and manage the data gathered by the sensors.

There is a huge reserve of retired former military warrior pilots around the world who could be recruited as reservists to operate UAVs, if there was no upper age limit for military service. Many of them are in their 70s/80s but still quite capable of instructing in airline or other flight simulators and none need any more flying hours in logbooks. Their wives would be delighted to get them out of their hair and have them earn some more money!

Thanks Pantagenet for the reference to Norforce.
Im really into a citizens home guard, larger than forces what we have available.
In truth... Im off in a really unusual branch of Christianity with visions and prophecies.
Since 1989 Ive collected about 14 mentions of an asian invader on Australian soil (appears to be Chinese) given to mostly really on-fire for Jesus christian believers...not so much to the big churches, but to smaller pastors and believers. Some actually ended up in book form like Pastor Jack Burrells "What will become of Australia" 1975 which speaks about half of the land conceded to the invaders. These were revelations from The Lord speaking mainly about the consequences of "national sin" and what God one day might just allow if christian revival tarries; and the people continue as they are. At times Ive deviated from this theme of an invader because of sin because I feel for the people in the northern part of Australia and I really believe if we are going to have a fight... let it be a fair fight. Lets be armed and equiped and not relying on a USA that may not come to Australias assistance.
For a truly fair fight we've simply got to have more manpower.
Thanks Bushranger 71 for your imput too.
This is an interesting article for sure.

Bushranger71,

As you point out interception of military communications is a real threat, albeit not a new one. For an unmanned Global Hawk, surely all that is required to completely defeat this aircraft is an appropriate jammer that will prevent the aircraft from being flown remotely.

It seems to me that in Iraq and Afghanistan, manned AWAC aircraft are very useful. There is little real threat to them and they provide an invaluable asset. Even the AC130 spectre gunships are relatively safe in this type of warfare against non state actors.

In a high threat environment, doesn't an AWAC operate inside a CAP umbrella of safety anyway?

As for manning of these aicraft, is there not scope for these aircraft to be piloted by ex-service personnel like reserves, if all were needed? I don't really understand the RAAF buying aircraft that it doesn't believe it will be able to fly. Again, as you say, with maintenance requirements, only four out of a fleet of six would be available at any one time anyway.

Hello Paul L,

We are perhaps debating differing concepts for employment of Wedgetail and Global Hawk.

On 3 June, you contended that advances in technology and cryptography will assure security of communication. Manufacturers of unmanned aerial vehicles will doubtless have endeavoured to counter possibility of data link disruption for UAV flight control and sensor output transfer although counter-measures technology will inevitably emerge. Global Hawk and Predator are presently being successfully operated in Iraq and Afghanistan via trans-global data link mediums although in a somewhat benign air defence environment due to coalition air dominance.

Australia’s littoral surveillance will largely be conducted in a benign air defence environment unless somebody chooses to interfere with sea lanes, air corridors and resources assets to exert political pressure. In such circumstances, ‘AWACS Killer’ missiles would be a threat consideration for any type of intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR) vehicle operated beyond our territorial limits. Why then conduct costly Wedgetail operations for this need when Global Hawk can do a far more cost-effective job without risk of aircrew loss? AWACS aircraft in service around the world do perform very useful functions but it is really horses for courses.

Some envisage that we can conduct operations in similar fashion to the US but our military resources are comparatively piddling. The RAAF will have but 5 MRTT and 6 Wedgetail with maybe 3 tanker/transports and 3 Wedgetail on-line continuously, both aircraft requiring adequate crewing for sustained operations. The Service Chiefs inevitably lobby to reshape their forces in various ways but military capabilities and manpower requirements are managed principally by senior public servants in Departments of Defence, Defence Science & Manpower. Ambitious new equipment planning seemingly fails to address adequate manning of new capabilities. Reservists are already used extensively to prop up Air Force aircrew manpower and there would be lead time involved in aircraft type conversion and operational training for any others who might be willing.

The reality is Wedgetail will not be able to provide a sustained cost-effective ISR capability within Australia’s area of military interest achievable with Global Hawk.

Bushranger71,

I would have thought that the MESA radar in the wedgetails would not be able to be fitted to the global hawk, and that therefore the hawk would be highly limited in the Air defence/Airborne control role. Thus far the Hawk has only really been used as a surveillance and targeting platform (as far as I know), and in that sense would seem to be a competitor with the new P-8A Poseidons.I would imagine that the 6+ mission controllers on board also make a significant difference. Even if you could fit the MESA radar to the global Hawk I wonder whether it is really possible to do that work remotely as effectively as they can onboard a Wedgetail?

We are buying Hawks or predator MQ9 anyway, aren't we?

Hello again Paul L,

Hitherto, no Global Hawk, Predator or whatever other UAVs being contemplated have been ordered to my knowledge although the Defence Material Organization recently announced 2 unscheduled decisions to purchase or lease some different training helicopters for both Navy and Army without any prior public airing of those intentions.

As I have emphasized, military manning is seriously deficient (especially aircrew) and I do not see meaningful improvement in that area for multiple reasons. Front line units have to be continuously manned to operational levels if we wish to present military credibility, even if that means curtailing some functions.

Nobody is being held accountable for deficient defence capabilities planning and costly contractual shortcomings in projects like the Collins submarine, Seasprite, Tiger, Wedgetail (which might never meet design specifications). Throwing huge amounts of funds at arms suppliers for dubious merit capabilities is contemptuous of taxpayers and public discussion regarding Defence White Paper 2008 formulation over coming months might hopefully bring a lot of this stuff to the fore.

Much of the rash spending on defence by the Howard Government and since ordained by Rudd & Co. will not be affordable in the foreseeable economic slowdown that looms for Australia. Operating costs for defence have been virtually ignored for years but have now soared exponentially so there will have to be strong emphasis on cost-effective conduct of military related activities. This of course means conducting military operations more efficiently and applying stringent cost-benefit analysis to all defence planning which could have avoided inappropriate procurement decisions. Global Hawk could be operated infinitely more efficiently than Wedgetail.

I have enjoyed the discourse but we are perhaps boring readers with our ongoing discussion so this my last response.

Bushranger 71, Paul L. and Gibo

Judging from our discussion there is much in Australia's defence debate to be thrashed out in OLO in the future. Many more articles.

Returning to the F-35/F-22 issue there seems to be some complacency that the Super Hornet is the only F/A Australia needs buy but that the F-35 (whatever its deficiencies) is some sought of alliance constant. Not so. This only the reality. That Lockheed its US government supporters and the (senior) RAAF have tried to create.

The F-22 needs to be part of the debate because it will emerge that the F-22 will only be about 15% more expensive than the F-35. The F-22 has been overpriced as part of Lockheed corporate strategy while the F-35 has been systematically under-priced for years for marketing.

Basically the difference is the cost of two engines instead of one. In that direction customers will steadily require more capability for the F-35 (approaching already known F-22 levels). This dynamic will push F-35 prices up.

As a purchasing plan for the next 6 years my views are:

- The F-22 is ideally suited to Australia's needs because it is being developed into a high end fighter bomber (F/A) with longer range, greater speed and higher payload than the F-35 on account of the F/A-22s two engines. Stealth and its whole electronic suite makes the F/A-22 far superior to the Super Hornet.

more to follow

- The current problem is the "US won't let us have them". This will probably change.

Much backing of the F-35 and blocking of the F-22 rests on the current incumbents in the Pentagon and White House. After January 2009 the goalposts may begin to shift.

As Australia has purchased 24 Super Hornets Australia we have breathing space.

- The Super Hornet is the current fighter-bomber to buy, agree with the current purchase of 24 (entering service 2010/11) and think another wing of 24 should be ordered in 2010 to come in 2012/13. These will largely take over from the older Hornets being phased out.

- Late model F/A-22 fighter bombers will basically be a new generation.

I'd hope for a purchase of 24 F/A-22s in 2014 to come in 2017.

F/A-22s will serve as first day of war, strike fighters and in the air superiority role - basically downing the increasingly numerous Flankers in our region as well as destroying more able SAM defences.

The F/A-22 would blaze the way and act as top cover, allowing the Super Hornets to get through and hit targets.

In pure air defence terms they would compliment each other.

Naturally corporate and other bought interests might disagree.

To the National Security Committee of Cabinet who are accountable, the basic message is:

Don't buy according to pressure from the only country selling.

Buy after long and careful consideration in Australia's interests.

Its tax payers AND voters money.

Don't buy the F-35 merely because the Coalition got pushed into it, making it the easy, throw-away choice.

Pete

Hello Paul L,

Apologies if my response on 7 June seemed terse (not intended) and I failed to directly address your query re Global Hawk capabilities.

Military technology advances rapidly these days and getting locked into long gestation projects risks capabilities soon becoming bettered. Global Hawk hardware such as radars will undoubtedly be upgraded to optimize use of the vehicle and this very capable UAV has markedly superior performance to Wedgetail, enabling continuous surveillance for around 24 hours with a 220 nautical mile diameter moving ground footprint for sensors when operating at 65,000 feet (see www.emporia.edu/.../student/graves1/GHWK2.jpg).

Command and control can be exercised from anywhere via Global Hawk resources and whatever emerges downstream re AP-3C Orion or P-8A Poseidon will be complementary manned networking capabilities, also the air warfare destroyers.

My judgement is that our future defence emphasis should be upgraded surveillance and a credible (air defence and maritime strike) deterrent capability to discourage interference with sea lanes, air corridors and resources installations. But Australia cannot afford to indulge in a proliferation of inadequately manned minimal capabilities so there just has to be some rationalization to assure more credible military capacity - see my following response to Plantaganet and Peter Coates.

Hi Plantagenet, Peter,

No argument from me regarding F-22 credentials over the F-35, but debate about air combat capability needs to be viewed as a broader package of requirements including ISTAR, aerial tankers, electronic counter measures and air warfare destroyers. Paul L and myself had dialogue these aspects but need for a strong electronic warfare capability was not emphasized.

The US Navy/US Marine Corps EA-6B Prowler (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EA-6B_Prowler) has provided the primary US capability in this regard since retirement of the USAF EF-111 and the Prowler will be replaced by the E/A-18 Growler, a Super Hornet derivative (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EA-18_Growler). USAF future electronic warfare options have moved toward external pods for communications and network jamming and Australia will need such a capability to counter emerging Russian origin long range radars and missile capabilities. Perhaps prudent to await USAF developments which might involve an EF-22, FB-22 or (remotely) stored F-111s.

Both Howard and Rudd Governments have made unrealistic commitments to expand defence expenditure which will clearly have to be backtracked considering the mammoth economic challenges that will face Australia over the next decade. Presently, we do not have any national strategic policy guidance for the rapidly changing regional scenario and Defence White Paper 2008 will conceivably be written around some long range military hardware projects in train which are arguably inappropriate. Invaluable military assets have been unjustifiably shed (such as F-111, Iroquois, Kiowa) without their upgrade potential being optimized, so what other costly capabilities can now be afforded and adequately manned? Politicians, senior bureaucrats and military chiefs must all be held accountable regarding questionable defence planning and expenditure in train.

Put simply, a big reality check is essential so hopefully, debate on defence issues during 2008 will focus on the bigger picture and recognition that Australia cannot afford some of the material projects initiated nor adequately man those capabilities. Stringent cost-benefit analysis should be applied at all levels of defence planning and substantial rationalization of armed forces composition may be necessary to achieve cost-effectiveness.

Hi Pete,

I wonder if you caught the defence liftout on the weekend. There was an intereseting piece from the director of the national strategic policy institute who had a number of interesting things to say.

In particular he argued that Australia only needs a first day of the war aircraft like the f-22 for two reasons
1) if we intend to go it alone against a regional superpower, in which case our fleet will be way too small
2) if the air-air capability of our local competitors becomes too great to be handled by the JSF and superhornets, he felt this unlikely given our likely advantages in tankers, AEW&Cs, electronic warfare etc

The author further pointed out that under current setup the F-22 is only designed to hit stationary targets, not moving targets as you get in real ground support and maritime attack roles which will be bread and butter for the F-35.

Another article in the lift out pointed out the offer to the Norwegian Airforce for 48 F-35s for 58 million each to be ordered between 2012 and 2017. This article points out that were we to join a consortium we could perhaps do even better as 350 odd aircraft are already on order to foreign members of this consortium.

$50 million dollars compares very well with the $150 million for an f-22.

However, I fully agree with the assessment that we should bide our time and not be rushed into a decision. With the arrivals of the new super hornet we have an aircraft which can dominate the regions airpower competitors in the coming decade,

Hi Bushranger71

Please call me Planta or Peter. I’m the same person 

I agree that support aircraft and (surface) AWDs are essential for jamming, coordination, detection and many other tasks. A relatively new and powerful jamming capability is the suter computer program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suter_%28computer_program%29 . This or a similar system was used by Israeli F-16s to black out or spoof Syrian radars in September 6, 2007 for the raid on the suspected nuclear reactor.

Presumably the E/A-18 Growler will be (or is) even more suter capable than the F-16CJ. If Mr England does not mortally wound the F-22 in his remaining 7 months then an “EF-22” might become a reality.

I agree governments try to buy too much hardware which goes undermanned. Meanwhile DMO people have sound budgetary and careerist reasons to junk F-111s, Iroquois, Kiowas and then move on to exciting expensive problem prone replacement projects.

More than by the way – after doing a bit of research I’m in awe of your achievements outside this forum including your extended service in Vietnam.

Regards

Peter Coates
'
'
Hi Paul L.

Way past my bedtime. I'll reply tomorrow.

Regards

Pete

Hi Paul. L.

Best to cite your sources on Liftout? and Norway?

As the F-35's basic development may continue through 2012 Lockheed's claims on pricing and technical prowess are somewhat ambit. So, yes, its best for Australia to wait or it may be stuck with a defective aircraft.

In the arms trade its never been proven that an early buyer gets a good price. Early buyers are locked in and pay the seller's preferred startup price not any subsequent "off the shelf" markdown price.

A report made in November 2007 by the Pentagon's Defense Contract Management Agency cited here http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-tue-lockheed-pentagon-reviewjun03,0,7964808.story states that Lockheed has very little ability to control costs on the F-35 JSF program.

The report indicated Lockheed's system for tracking costs and schedules has generated "useless" or "suspect" data on the F-35 since the program started in 2001.

"The report cites the management at Lockheed's Ft. Worth plant for making "inappropriate adjustments to data" in some cases, shifting money from management reserves and those projects meeting their budgets to those with overruns. These changes sometimes "misrepresented" program performance."

"At Lockheed's Ft. Worth plant there has been "a serious deterioration of system discipline" that "will ultimately jeopardize the long-term stability" of Lockheed's programs, the report said. "Early identification of overruns will not be possible" and "unexpected cost 'surprises' will be the norm.""

Lockheed’s claims still didn’t wash even with the US Governments most authoritative auditors in March 2008.

The US Government Accounting Office (GAO) in its March report indicated little confidence in the ability of the F-35 program to estimate costs. http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-08-569T “While DOD reports that total acquisition costs have increased by $55 billion since a major restructuring in 2004, GAO and others in DOD believe that the cost estimates are not reliable and that total costs will be much higher than currently advertised.”

Looks like this topic may be worth another article some time :)

Regards

Pete

Plantagenet,

Yeah sorry about the references, the Australian doesn't seem to have posted the articles electronically.

The article, "Australia Unlikely to Pursue any F-22 Role" was by Andrew Davies, Director of Operations and capability at Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

His points were that Australia only needs a first day of the war aircraft for two reasons.

1) To go it alone against a regional superpower - in which case our fleet is way too small
2) If Regional Air forces develop a capability which cannot be matched by Super Hornets or JSF - considered unlikely because of our advantages in AEWACS, Tankers and electronic warfare and the fifth generation capabilities of the JSF and to a lesser extent the super hornet

He also preferred the F-35 in the strike role because it has better purpose built ground attack avionics.

The Norwegian airforce article was by Gregor Ferguson.

His point was that the Norwegian Airforce has been offered a binding contract to supply 48 f-35a's at $58.7 million each with deliveries beginning in 2016. With an initial batch of spares, training and support worth an extra $668.2 million the total package will come in at $3.48 billion.

At that price one would imagine that 100 aircraft are easily within budget with money left over for perhaps another squadron.

Thanks for the information Paul. L.

There certainly seems to be enough debate about these aircraft acquisition issues for another OLO article in the next month or two.

Sooo I'll take your well argued points (some valid, some partially, some not :) on notice for a future article.

Meanwhile I've got other projects on the boil.

Final Regards on this thread.

Pete