RAAF v JSF!

[Could be the last?]

Joint Strike Fighter Programme: Australia Ready To Pull Out Over Cost And Time Overruns | World News | Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Joint-Strike-Fighter-Programme-Australia-Ready-To-Pull-Out-Over-Cost-And-Time-Overruns/Article/201107416038510?lpos=World_News_First_Buisness_Article_Tease r_Region_3&lid=ARTICLE_16038510_Joint_Strike_Fighter_Programme%3A_Austr alia_Ready_To_Pull_Out_Over_Cost_And_Time_Overruns)

Is there any chance that we could do the same? Especially with the Anglo-French carrier deal and their use of a marinized Rafael:confused:

[LowObservable]

It's more negative than I have heard the Australians sound before.

Full transcript here: Lateline - 27/07/2011: Smith discusses Defence equipment (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3279611.htm)

I suspect that the concern is that Australia will have to buy another batch of Super Hornets to avoid a capability gap. Since the original plan was 100 JSFs, it now starts looking like 60-some JSFs and 40-some Supers.

In terms of schedule, there'll be an exhaustive review done before the end of this year, so I think by the first quarter of next year, we'll be in a much better position to know whether we need to start really seriously planning for a gap in capability, and cost will also be impacted upon by future decisions in terms generally of United States Defence budget cuts.

It's quite clear that there will be further cuts and these may have an impact on the number of Joint Strike Fighters that the United States itself orders. So that will have an impact on cost, but, again, we won't know that variable for a bit more time yet.

In terms of the actual number of Joint Strike Fighters, we've made it clear that our initial order is 14. We're part of the program. But any future numbers will be subject to further consideration. 14 effectively gives us one squadron. You would want to have more than one squadron of Joint Strike Fighters, but we'll take that step by step.

The Defence capability plan talks in terms of around 100, but that is very indicative. It's not a firm number and not something that either Defence or the Government is attached to or will necessarily adhere to.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Can't be bothered...

[500N]

At least our dollar is going the right way - at the moment anyway.

It could get very expensive if the Aust dollar drops back to .70
and the price per unit increases.

.
.

[jindabyne]

To all in the RAAF, DoD and the Oz media between 97-01, and Ray

I kept on telling you, but you wouldn't believe me! But I had fun doing it!!

[jamesdevice]

it must be true. Its on Sky so Mudroch must have tapped the phones again

[BBadanov]

Jindabyne: "kept on telling you, but you wouldn't believe me! But I had fun doing it!! "

Jindy, if it had been up to you, we would have ended up with Eurofighter !! :{

[jindabyne]

BBad

Typhoon. PRECISELY!! And if you acquire it in all its Tranche3 form, with conformals, that would meet all of your needs. Nobody, even the nice Mr Kopp and your wise old self, has convinced me otherwise over the past 10 years ---------

Taking a wager for the Blitz?

[BBadanov]

Jindy.

Won't be blitzing this year, but will try next year. I hope CS will be there with you, but he seems so focussed at the moment with his work - Mr T must be very demanding! :*

Typhoon never. JSF, I am not a convertee.
But Super Hornet - way to go for us, the two-seaters we have are going well and we may get more - perhaps even single-seaters - did I say that (wash my mouth out foldie!). :eek:

[ozbiggles]

This has got more to do with the current labor government looking to save more money from defence s it racks up more debt by throwing more money away.
They will cut the number of JSF but they won't increase the Super Hornet fleet.

[jindabyne]

BBad

Why? You must have a lousy excuse. :*

[jwcook]

Typhoon never.

As I understand it Eurofighter GmbH wouldn't give the time of day to Australia after the Air 6000 "competition" - Well not unless they came knocking on the door with check book in hand.
The biggest gripe is one of the major reasons given to Eurofighter GmbH was the required capability wasn't available in the timeframe required! - fortunatley for the JSF they built in an eight year buffer, plus another few billion $$$ as wriggle room, to ensure it met all Australias stringent conditions.:hmm:

And apparently were not commited to buy the JSF?? were buying 14 of them and thats a big commitment, and no doubt will be used as a reason why alternatives cannot be considered.

I see the Superhornet as the only short term option, I often thought that Eurofighter should sell a squadron or two tranch 1's to Indonesia dirt cheap as payback :eek:

Cheers

[L J R]

JSF = Future, F-18F = now (briefly)

Typhoon = could have been (as a 'now' jet) if we had committed to them in 2001 but the future has moved on - even RAF (Typhoon centric) is getting the JSF as its future..

...all three are a brilliant feat of technology....


...so let the ADF stick to the JSF

[500N]

Considering how much we have invested with the US (and all the associated benefits, interoperability, spares), I sometime wonder why we buy anything from Euro - unless it really is so far ahead of anything the US has got.

Just my HO.

.

[L J R]

That is so true 500N, typically the world works in 1s and Zeros, but BAE normally does 1.01 and 0.01 - because it its better, more stable, 'the future' or other excuses.....net result is either non-connectivity, or a modified solution requirement (at extra cost).

[500N]

I like your thinking.

I look at it this way. we have a lot more leverage with the US than Europe
- Pine Gap - and others,
- Pre Positioned US gear,
- Multiple Annual Exercises here (such as going on in the Top End at the moment) and in the US (and a few other places as well),
- Multiple ship visits including carriers as we are seen as a friendly and safe port,
- we have heaps of US hardware already,
- spares are easy from the US or US Supply chains,
- US Gov't paperwork for export of military hardware is a breeze and probably most importantly of all,
- US hardware is used the the US military (who we always seem to operate with) and in most cases more than handles any requirements we have (that is before we throw up extra and superfluous things we want it to do) and has most of the bugs sorted out before we get it.

That's all I can think of in the few minutes I had. I am sure others will think of more.

What do we seriously do with the Europeans that can compete with that ?

.
.

[rh200]

And the yanks are less likely to cut off supply's if they don't like whatever adventure we a embarking on. Though in all likely hood it it will be the same as their's or have already got the okay from the current uncle Sam.;)

[500N]

rh200

That is a very good and important point which I think in some ways surpasses all of the others I wrote down - or at least it should be at the top of the list as the most important (even though my list wasn't prioritised).

With the Euro's, we are not really dealing with one country, one PM or President, we will end up dealing with a EU Parliament which will be a nightmare.

Unless it is gold plated in all facets but priced at the price of steel, IMHO we should buy US gear for nearly everything.

One more point - the world emphasis is moving towards SE Asia, in the US sphere of influence, not Europe's. So we will be even more important as a stable base for the US in the future.

[jindabyne]

200 & 500

Peruasive comments on the face of it. But I came across many senior DoD officials (uniformed and otherwise) during my time in the Capital that had a very different perspective. All eggs in one basket is not necessarily a wise long-term strategy.

As I understand it Eurofighter GmbH wouldn't give the time of day to Australia after the Air 6000 "competition"

Not quite that severe jw, but along with the French and the Russians, everyone was somewhat disenchanted with the then Government's behaviour (note, not DoD officials, who were mostly out of the loop). And if you think that Oz wouldn't countenance a deal with Sukhoi, a previous OZ CAF (unsurprisingly, not Angus) once told me that he'd do a deal with the devil if it was in the best interests of the RAAF.

fortunatley for the JSF they built in an eight year buffer

Already looking so very wrong!

plus another few billion $$$ as wriggle room

Again, wrong by zillions!

Whatever, I sincerely hope that the RAAF eventually ends up in far better shape than the RAF now finds itself:(

[BBadanov]

Jindy: "BBad, Why? You must have a lousy excuse."

Dog ate my homework.