The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Don't buy in haste > Comments

Don't buy in haste : Comments

By Peter Coates, published 23/5/2008

There are plenty of Pentagon heavies with a Lockheed background who would like Australia to buy the F-35 in a hurry.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
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.
Posted by Gibo, Saturday, 24 May 2008 9:08:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Gibo, Saturday, 24 May 2008 9:14:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Paul.L, Sunday, 25 May 2008 11:19:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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...
Posted by Centra, Sunday, 25 May 2008 9:05:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by plantagenet, Sunday, 25 May 2008 10:19:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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/
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 26 May 2008 9:57:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy