RAAF F-35 delayed purchase?

[Buster Hyman]

Military funding takes a direct hit (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/military-funding-takes-a-direct-hit-20120503-1y0e9.html)

Money's dried up from the endless (open) pit has it? Where does that leave us considering the F111's are gone? Will the Super Hornets do?

[500N]

Buster

You beat me to it.

It will be interesting to read in more detail in
The Australian on the weekend and the analysis.

.

[Jethro Gibbs]

Also hearing that the Marand Aerostructures faculty that was to be built at Lara near Geelong with a lot of government $$$$$$$$ may have been canned as well they were going to build a lot of parts.

[Buster Hyman]

Do I win a prize 500N? :p

Just potential jobs in Victoria lost, not actual Jethro. I'm sure some polly will mention it. :rolleyes:

[Zulk]

An article by Jim Molan: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=jim%20molan%20our%20national%20defence%20put%20at%20risk%2 0by%20savage%20budget%20cut&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fnational-affairs%2Fopinion%2Four-national-defence-put-at-risk-by-savage-budget-cut%2Fstory-e6frgd0x-1226344104088&ei=9CWiT4-JL-S5iQeIn5HxCA&usg=AFQjCNFUdvZ_OOpbloJW6JDqlv_OI-AT4Q

[Captain Sand Dune]

However....
The Federal Government will pay families up to $300 a week to temporarily house asylum seekers in their homes to help deal with the increasing flood of arrivals.
With the Immigration Department now facing a potential shortage of community housing to accommodate detainees who are being released into the community, the Government has turned to householders for help.
Under a plan slated to start next month, the Government will seek to access the 5000 homes registered under the privately run Australian Homestay Network (AHN) to host asylum seekers released from detention on bridging visas.
AHN was originally established to provide short-term private home accommodation and board for international students.
The organisation, which first approached the Federal Government with the plan last year, began writing to its national client base three weeks ago seeking applications from home owners to house asylum seekers.
The Immigration Department confirmed it would pay for security vetting and training for families which want to take up the offer.
It will also pay a weekly stipend of between $220 and $300 to families to cover food and board for detainees.
Almost 1000 detainees have been released into the community over the past two months, since the Government's change of policy last year to ease pressure on detention centres.
The high cost of the Community Placement Network plan is expected to be allocated from the existing detention centre funding, which will be revealed in next week's Budget.
The AHN, which was set up to accommodate international students for short periods in family homes, claimed the initial period of housing for asylum seekers would be for six weeks, but could be extended.
"The Community Placement Network is an initiative designed to provide short-term accommodation (for) eligible asylum seekers while they independently source longer term sustainable accommodation in the community," AHN executive chairman David Bycroft said.
"The CPN is for people interested in assisting asylum seekers to live in the community on a bridging visa while awaiting the resolution of their immigration status. It is not for people interested in international student hosting."
The Refugee Council of Australia has backed the plan, claiming it would allow more people to be released from detention and live in the community while their applications were processed.
"Mandatory detention makes people mentally ill and is expensive," the council's CEO Paul Power said.
Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison slammed the plan, claiming it confirmed the Government had reached the point of desperation: "Labor's decision to house adult male asylum seekers released on bridging visas in the spare rooms of Australian families is a desperate, reckless policy from a government that has lost control.
"When Australians expressed concern about rising costs of living, this was not an invitation for Julia Gillard to supplement household incomes by offering to pay the rent on your spare room or granny flat for asylum seekers.
"The fact Australian families are now being asked to house asylum seekers who have arrived illegally by boat, including those whose claims have been rejected, shows just how desperate Labor have become over their failed border protection policies which have seen almost 17,000 people now arrive on 301 boats."
A spokesman for Immigration Minister Chris Bowen, said: "This is yet another cheap shot from the Coalition, who like to demonise asylum seeker issues."
Priorities, eh?

[500N]

Captain Sand Dune.
You weren't the only one to notice that in the same newspaper.

And yesterday I read about the opposition wouldn't cut work
for the dole scheme money - if you can call it work for the dole !!!

[Gnadenburg]

And give funding priority to the Navy? What a joke, there's the service that has failed to deliver anything near bang for buck.

[500N]

Are you referring to the $100 million allocated to the design of the new sub
or something along those lines ?

I did raise my eyebrows about that and that we seem to be going down
the same route we did all those years ago with the sub corp.

[Gnadenburg]

Yes, the Government appears to be slashing the Defense budget, yet at the same time, talking up these mythical, giant conventional submarines. It is smoke and mirrors.

I think the RAAF has gambled and lost on JSF. It won't get its 100 aircraft fleet. If it had opted for a hi-lo mix, I think those numbers were achievable.

[L J R]

I also noted in Julia's speech today, that she said Australia would be 'ONE' of the most capable defence forces in our region......Well Julia, you actually need to be 'THE' most capable to be credible at first contact with the enemy!

[Buster Hyman]

I'm no capability expert, but I was trying to explain the valu of artillery to someone today. In the end, I just used Long Tan as an analogy. Without artillery, and bloody good artillerymen, that could have been a very different outcome.

[flyinkiwi]

Australia to push back F-35 decision by two years (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/australia-to-push-back-f-35-decision-by-two-years-371402/)

Looks like the Govt are hedging again to see which way the axe will fall. Plenty of spin coming from Canberra.

[500N]

Plenty of spin and no CDF at the announcement - I saw it said that the pollies had by passed the heads of defence.

Agree re why Navy when they haven't delivered.

Buster
A very good analogy.

[jindabyne]

I saw it said that the pollies had by passed the heads of defence.


Again? This happened when I was in Canberra doing Typhoon things some years ago. Crazy. But then it's the same elsewhere.

[500N]

I see the Australian has a few articles already.

One on the subs, they have made the decision on 12 and they will be built in Adelaide but haven't decided on which design.

So jobs in SA over saving money on just buying them already made somewhere else at a cheaper price !

Let's pray that the next 12 are better than the last 12.

[Andu]

Without artillery, and bloody good artillerymen, that [Long Tan] could have been a very different outcome.They're cancelling/deferring the long awaited self-propelled arty, which in this day and age, is suicide for the poor bastards manning the towed variety (and therefore [see the quote above, which is 100% accurate], those they're supporting) if they're ever sent into action against a halfway decently equipped enemy, for, today, with radar tracking of arty rounds, the gun needs to move PDQ after firing a very few rounds before its site is pounded to oblivion by counter battery fire.

As for the submarines escaping the cuts... it's all about politics, jobs and pork barrelling in South Australia. But $240 million just for investigations into the new type? Wowsers! That's some serious investigating.

On the ABC (Sydney) this morning, an indignant and outraged SMS from a listener: "Who needs submarines? Child care payments for single parents continuing after the youngest child turns six are far more important." Says it all really, especially about your average ABC listener.

[tartare]

Lease 12 Virginia class.
Set up a nuclear industry in SA.
They're building `em quicker than ever these days:
9th Virginia Class Nuclear Sub Delivered to the US Navy One Year Ahead of Schedule | Defense Update (http://defense-update.com/20120503_mississippi_delivered.html)
Fast - quiet - proven.
End of story.
But then of course - that'd be against Govt policy - wouldn't it...

[500N]

Well, yes, it is against policy because the 3rd aspect (after 12 subs and built in SA) was Non Nuclear.

Either way, it is all political based decision making as was shown in one article as one major aspect they are looking at is interoperability with the US who they know they will be working closely with - most of us would say just use what they are using (assuming they will sell them current class to allies - not sure on that one).

[tartare]

My point exactly.
Government policy is asinine.
There's no way they can build a non-nuclear boat of that size and range.
But that's thread drift....

[Gnadenburg]

We could buy nuclear subs and base them in Guam. We'll be closer to the action then. Labor keeps telling us we are going to fight the Chinese. :zzz:

[500N]

Why not on the Islands the US are going to use in the Pacific ?

Since the US are going to be there anyway !


We have plenty of places on the West / North coast that could
easily be used for Nuclear Subs, it just needs the will to do it.

[Flyingblind]

Adopting a hold stance on the F35 program and await program maturity is a sound decision IMO.

The polies should convert the wired-for-but-not-with to G's and buy another batch of Super Hornets to preserve the fatigue life of the Classic fleet and provide improved front-line capability and 4+ Gen training outcomes that will better prepare the RAAF for the eventual buy of a 5th Gen system.

Ditch the Spartan/C295 buy and procure a few more C130J's and CH-47F's.

Take the option to buy the offered Airbus A330 (KC30) test frame.

Submarines - all our neighbours to the north are either expanding their submarine fleet of are in the process of procuring them.

The Navy must be given clear guidance that MOTS is the way to proceed when procuring these boats. C17, Super Hornet and CH-47D's were all successful procurement programs as the items were MOTS.

Nuclear does not seem to be an option as the pollies do not have a taste for establishing a Nuclear Industry in Australia to support a fleet of SSN's.

That leaves the only politically favourable option of a MOTS boat being an SSK, if we're talking SSK's then there's only two manufacturers, the French or Germans, both of their offered boats could be assembled in SA.

My bet would be on a German boat as a good solution for Australia - providing we can get enough Submariners, but then again (in pollie land) what do the Germans know about Das Boat?

[ozbiggles]

I wouldn't worry about subs (or any other major defence program) with this Labor Government.
The only reason they are talking tough about having 12 subs and building them in SA is that this bunch of vandals don't have to fund them in the forward estimates. Hence the typical delaying tactic of another white paper and report into what sub we should have (no doubt given to fair work Australia to do so its take 5 times longer than it should). Thus making sure Labor can further cook the books. They have NO intent of putting billion aside for this, a pultry 235mil of taxpayers money will buy them the time they need.
I heard the Labor lack of defence minister today scoffing at the likelihood of any invasion of the mainland. As unlikely as it is it is the very thing this government should be preparing defence for, not as a source of funding for dole bludgers.
And to keep the aviation theme, so much for the Bou replacement program...again

[Heathrow Harry]

tsk tsk

you don't believe Julia??????/

[ol-mate]

Personally I think it's a wise decision to delay, it would be better if we cut it away all together. There are several gen 4.5+ aircraft that I think would be a better fit for the RAAF, the F-15SE Silent Eagle and the Super Hornet with the International Roadmap improvements to name two. Both are proven designs that provide 80% of the F-35's capability at half the price.

Does Australia actually need the capability that the F-35 promises?

[Buster Hyman]

I read somewhere, possibly a thread on here, that the F22 is designed for a generation of Soviet fighter that never eventuated. Along a similar vein, is the F35 a bit of "overkill" in this region? As ol-mate says, wouldn't the F-15SE suffice?

:confused:

[Andu]

After last night's budget, the ADF will have to make do with whatever is already on the flight line - so long as the pilots are willing to sit in an unpowered cockpit making aeroplane noises with their lips. Even that won't work for some, as I'm led to believe the new budget will see off early quite a bit of the equipment already on the books. Continuation training? What's that? We need those dollars to hand out to people with kids in high school.

[500N]

"We need those dollars to hand out to people with kids in high school."

or foreign aid.


The ADF got right royally done over in the budget.

Don't expect Labour to be in Gov't after the next election.

[Romulus]

The base readiness upgrade (construction) program for JSF appears not to have received any funding in the coming year either.

And I can't find any mention of the HATS (Helicopter Aircrew Training System) project either. Tenders for that closed mid last month but it appears there's no funding shown in any budget documents, or at least none that I can see.

[Flyingblind]

Buster wrote;
'I read somewhere, possibly a thread on here, that the F22 is designed for a generation of Soviet fighter that never eventuated. Along a similar vein, is the F35 a bit of "overkill" in this region? As ol-mate says, wouldn't the F-15SE suffice?'

An updated version of the F-15E seems to fit the bill for the South Koreans and Singaporean Air Forces. Both of those Air Forces are no slouch either.

If the forth coming Russian-Indian and Chinese 5th Gen aircraft capability projections are to be believed then an eventual successor to any F15/F35/Super Hornet fleet will be required.

It's going to be a while yet for the 5th Gens to be taken as posing any sort of threat to Australia's National Security IMO that requires Australia to sign on to the JSF program at such an early stage.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Clearly Labour aren't worried about p!ssing off the relatively few uniformed people in the ADF. But add in Defence civilians and those employed by contractors with Defence contracts and you would come up with a significant number of p!ssed off people. Election now!!!!:mad:

[500N]

And in the other side of any relationship those mentioned in the post above and you double the number of p@s%ed off people.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

The polies should convert the wired-for-but-not-with to G's...

Agreed...apart from the EW and SA aspects, Growler also has a gap-filling quality all of its own.

...and buy another batch of Super Hornets to preserve the fatigue life of the Classic fleet and provide improved front-line capability and 4+ Gen training outcomes that will better prepare the RAAF for the eventual buy of a 5th Gen system. Too late - even if we ordered more Rhinos tomorrow, they wouldn't be here until 2015 at best, and operational for another year after that. By then our first ~8 F-35s will be flying and we'll be a couple of years away from IOC. I wouldn't want to be flying Rhinos post 2030, unless I had F-35s to accompany me.

Ditch the Spartan/C295 buy and procure a few more C130J's and CH-47F's. Too late. C-27Js are coming, C-130Hs are gone! RAAF dosn't want any more C-130Js...it's hard enough running the current ones!

Take the option to buy the offered Airbus A330 (KC30) test frame. We need to get our current KC-30s working first - latest word from inside the program is things are not well...to the point 33SQN was just a few days away from grounding the jets a few weeks ago.

The Navy must be given clear guidance that MOTS is the way to proceed when procuring these boats. Nuclear does not seem to be an option as the pollies do not have a taste for establishing a Nuclear Industry in Australia to support a fleet of SSN's. The Navy will have little say in this decision - it's all politics and foreign policy! And even if we wanted to go nuke, there's no way a) the US or UK would sell them to us after seeing the shambles our naval engineering is in, b) even if they did, we couldn't set up a nuke support industry in that time, and c) we wouldn't relinquish sovereignty by sending nuke boats back to the US or UK for overhaul/refuel.

That leaves the only politically favourable option of a MOTS boat being an SSK, if we're talking SSK's then there's only two manufacturers, the French or Germans, both of their offered boats could be assembled in SA. Trouble is, the only MOTS conventional sub with the range and warload we need is Japanese, and they're not for sale. The Euro boats are not designed for open ocean long range patrols or to sit off the coast of Hainan for days or weeks at a time...they have neither the manning nor the range. Further, if we buy a Euro boat, the US is unlikely to integrate a compatible combat system onto it - the Lockheed system offered with the S80 is a devolved system now, and will likely need replacing before the boat's LOT. An evolved Collins building on lessons learned seems the only way to go now.

As ol-mate says, wouldn't the F-15SE suffice?
The F-15SE is still a paper airplane, no one has ordered it yet, and the first customer will be liable for the likely vast development NREs. Elements of the F-15SE catalogue - which is all it really is - are likely to find there way onto other models, i.e AESA, CWBs, new cockpit etc, but I doubt we'll ever see an operational full up F-15SE round.

Most pilots I know wouldn't want to be flying F-15s in 2030 either

And re the F-22, it's a great jet...when it works! Anecdotal reports suggest availability is very low (<50%), and the small USAF fleet needs a ~$10bn upgrade to improve capability and availability which is unlikely to be forthcoming in the near future.

[500N]

FA18
Could you please expand on this

"c) we wouldn't relinquish sovereignty by sending nuke boats back to the US or UK for overhaul/refuel."

1. Why would we be relinquishing sovereignty ?
2. What would be the problem sending a boat back to the US for refurb / maintenance if that's where it came from ?
Especially if / since we have such a good relationship with the US
and able to jump on the back of their nuke sub facilities.

[Gnadenburg]

Most pilots I know wouldn't want to be flying F-15s in 2030 either

This is the mistake the RAAF has made. It has gambled looking forward too far with the assumption tat the JSF will be available and forgotten the time period in between.

And since then, the Americans are increasing their presence in Australia, which eliminates any realistic Fortress Australia threats which was part of the argument for a 100 aircraft JSF fleet.

Looks to me as though there will be emerging arguments within the next few years for an actual reduction in RAAF fighter squadrons.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Gnadenberg

And since then, the Americans are increasing their presence in Australia, which eliminates any realistic Fortress Australia threats which was part of the argument for a 100 aircraft JSF fleet.

Looks to me as though there will be emerging arguments within the next few years for an actual reduction in RAAF fighter squadrons.

On the contrary...the US aren't "increasing their presence in Australia", just using our bases and ranges for 4-6 months a year for training as they get squeezed out of Japan. I believe with the US's pivot towards the Pacific, the onus is on us even more to step up and offer our fair share.

[Gnadenburg]

Semantics.

The presence is significant and public debate will lend toward cashing in on it.

Future problems with the JSF will see more critical and rationale debate on how many of these types of fighters we need. I don't think there is a good argument for 100 anymore. The leadership of the RAAF will need to become more creative and they have ballsed it up thus far.

[Gnadenburg]

So it starts. We need 100 x JSF and 12 x Growlers. Nice!

'Second best ... gets you killed': Airforce Chief wants more JSFs (http://www.theage.com.au/national/second-best--gets-you-killed-airforce-chief-wants-more-jsfs-20120510-1yehw.html)

Growler could prove a winner: RAAF chief (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8465391)

[Heathrow Harry]

I'm a little unsure as to where these fighters are going to fight...........

In China?

Indonesia (which is a bloody big place...)??

Surely medium -long range anti-ship strike is the only LIKELY mission the RAAF will ever need

[Romulus]

Might be a bit old for some

The Lemjet (http://http://www.smh.com.au/world/why-the-joint-strike-fighter-is-a-calamity-in-progress-20120509-1ycjt.html)

[Andu]

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/military-spending-slumps-to-1930s-level/story-e6frg74x-1226352458112)

AUSTRALIA'S defence budget has been cut to pre-World War II levels, with spending for 2012-13 falling to below 1.6 per cent of gross domestic product, a level unmatched since the 1930s.

"It's reduced to levels not seen since the time of the Munich peace marches," said defence spending expert Mark Thomson from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, invoking an iconic moment from the 1930s.

[Slezy9]

I'm a little unsure as to where these fighters are going to fight...........

In China?

Indonesia (which is a bloody big place...)??

Surely medium -long range anti-ship strike is the only LIKELY mission the RAAF will ever need

That's what we have P3s for.

[ozbiggles]

Somewhat of a staggering comment
"Surely medium long range anti ship strike is the only LIKELY mission the RAAF will ever need"
So we are going to go around shooting other peoples ships but we won't need a modern fighter force in that case? Realllllllyyyyy...
I think it would be more LIKELY if we do need to end up shooting other peoples ships we are going to want the best possible ADF (including fighters!) and we will need every element of it.

[Heathrow Harry]

if the ships you re shooting at are a couple of thousand km from the fighter bases why do you need fighter cover?

I just can't see a reasonable scenario where the RAAF will be fighting front line PLA (AF) fighters anywhere near Australia

If you believe that the Chinese are going to invade (say ) Brunei that is 2600 kms from Darwin - same as the RAF wanting to fight over Murmansk from Northolt = does not compute

Unless you SERIOUSLY believe that the TNI-AU will be a serious threat in the next 30 years the only reason to have state of the art fighter is to keep up with the USAF

[Captain Sand Dune]

Unless you SERIOUSLY believe that the TNI-AU will be a serious threat in the next 30 years the only reason to have state of the art fighter is to keep up with the USAF Well perhaps we do. Would you rather we wait unit they are walking down the main street of Darwin?

[ozbiggles]

Harry, I see your point but I'm afraid I disagree.
Who knows what will happen in the next 30 years, and that is why you hope for the best but plan for the worst.
Lets have a look at whats happening right now.
The USA has a Trillion dollar debt and cutting defence like never before. JP Morgan says it has just lost 2 billion on the same deals it lost money on last time.
Some of the EU countries have decided that having 50% of your debt written off still isn't good enough, others think we want that deal. The only 2 countries who have any money now disagree about the agreed plan. The money markets begin to shake...
North Korea is anyones guess, their people starve but they still launch missiles.
Iran has nukes, Israel knows this. The oil price teeters.
Meanwhile the British PM sends out texts ending in LOL...
That is happening now...think I'll take the best fighter on offer thanks. Unfortunately we have a government who has just cut our defence to a level of GDP not seen since 1938...the last time people thought like that ended in WWII.

[herkman]

Whilst I have said this before, the facts do not change our situation, we are left in a most delicate situation.

No Labour government has ever taken defence seriously, and they would rather be trying to gain brownee points with the public with hand outs rather than presenting solid support for our security.

We need to start some real long term planing, raising the professional standard of our armed forces, particularly with the RAN, who consume much of the defence budget but fail to act in a professional manner.

This government will surely be kicked out at the next election, the majority of the public is sick if their lies, the constant spin and their lack of a real long term plan of how to grow this country.

Our defence people need the best of government support, the best in equipment and to give pathway to success. To do any less is to send them out to fight with one hand tied behind their back.

The government needs to totally support the armed forces with dedicated people who will do their very best for our service people, not some staff who understand nothing about how to make it happen.

There needs to be mutual respect by both parties and I sure do not see that today. No wonder our service staff are leaving they can see no future with what Labour present.

Regards

Col

[flighthappens]

Heathrow Harry - it may not happen over the skies of Darwin but it is quite plausible that the RAAF Air Combat Group could be forward deployed to Guam, Japan, Butterworth, UAE etc to fight Iran, Syria, China, North Korea - the list goes on.

When was the last time that an RAF fighter (not strike) launched from the UK on a combat mission?

[Gnadenburg]

Unless you SERIOUSLY believe that the TNI-AU will be a serious threat in the next 30 years the only reason to have state of the art fighter is to keep up with the USAF

Well the Indonesians have publicly stated their ambition for a 10 squadron fighter fleet- 180-200 Sukhois. Whether this is obtainable or not is debatable.

The ability of the RAAF to maintain a technological and training edge over a modernized TNI-AU, makes sense, as it fits a number of other possible regional scenarios.

[Turkeyslapper]

particularly with the RAN, who consume much of the defence budget but fail to act in a professional manner


Care to ellaborate on that statement...in what way are the RAN unprofessional? Yes, they do consume a lot of the defence budget and they have had their fair share of less than perfect projects however to suggest that the personnel doing the job are unprofessional is also an inaccurate statement.

Maybe I have taken your statement out of context.

Cheers

[Heathrow Harry]

last time I was in Darwin there were almost as many Indonesians as Oztralians - most people in OZ would never want to live there

but, seriously - why would you "deploy forward " to Guam etc?

Haven't you learnt what happens when you get into American led fights in places that you have no real interests???

The TNI-AU are much closer to the Chinese and even have some Chinese claims over their offshore areas - hence the need (maybe) for modern weaponry