Super Hornets For RAAF
I think there is a crisis in confidence in the RAAF fighter leadership at a political level.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only reason Labour are talking about the F22 is because they have to be 'seen' to be doing the right thing....that, and it is an awesome platform.
Let's get some if we can.....but we CANNOT AT THE MOMENT!!
As for Pete Criss, they should send him to the bone-yard with the rest of the piggies...
Let's get some if we can.....but we CANNOT AT THE MOMENT!!
As for Pete Criss, they should send him to the bone-yard with the rest of the piggies...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But how realistic is it for Australia to crew ( in reasonable ratios ) a 100 fleet of fighters?
Add to that the fact you will need a 4 ship of JSF to drop the same payload
To have a 'current capability' involving F111 you need to have serviceability, operability and penetration - it struggles with all three!
100 a/c dos not mean 100 combat ready knucks
so why is the next CAF a fighter guy who has leap-frogged at least 3 other contenders, and the strong rumour for DCAF is another fighter guy (both excellent operators by the way)
But I would suggest there has been a loss of faith at broad RAAF leadership on the issue of the new combat aircraft. How else could the radical actions of recent governments be explained? With the Super Hornet decision. Or even the political approach to the US on the F22; despite the aircraft being declared unsuitable by contemporary RAAF leaders.
JSF was a huge gamble taken almost 5 years ago. I am not suggesting the aircraft decision or procurement process was based on a sales brochure; but it was certainly unconventional and obviously risky.
Has anyone been held accountable for the JSF gamble?
Why did the RAAF dismiss the need for an interim fighter?
Interesting times. Not at least for the desired RAAF JSF structure being in tatters. But the elevated "politicalness" of the eventual air combat capability. For example, an F22 knock-back will have high profile questions being asked of the US alliance and consequential ramifications .
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 26th Mar 2008 at 06:35.
For example, an F22 knock-back will have high profile questions being asked of the US alliance and consequential ramifications .
Fighter Production to Rise over the Next Decade
News Category: [Defence-Air]
(Newtown, Conn., March 24, 2008) -- In a new analysis, Forecast International projects that fighter aircraft manufacturers will deliver 3,345 new fighters over the next 10 years. According to the study, "The Market for Fighter Aircraft 2008-2017," it is estimated that the total value of production for the fighter market during this timeframe will be worth $164.5 billion.
The study notes that many nations are in the middle of a major, long-term re-equipment cycle. While annual fighter production is set to average around 300 aircraft per year through 2013, it will increase to 400 aircraft per year in 2014 as production of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II/Joint Strike Fighter ramps up later in the decade.
During the forecast period, the total value of annual production will fluctuate from $16.1 billion in 2008 to a 10-year low of $14.8 billion in 2013. It will then begin to grow in line with rising production levels, reaching $18.3 billion by 2017.
"Although fighter production will remain stable over the next few years, the U.S. military and allies of the United States are set to buy huge numbers of Lockheed Martin's F-35 to replace legacy fighter fleets in coming years," said Douglas Royce, Aerospace Analyst at Forecast International. "No other maker can look to such a potentially large market for its fighter aircraft."
Source : Forecast International Inc.
(Newtown, Conn., March 24, 2008) -- In a new analysis, Forecast International projects that fighter aircraft manufacturers will deliver 3,345 new fighters over the next 10 years. According to the study, "The Market for Fighter Aircraft 2008-2017," it is estimated that the total value of production for the fighter market during this timeframe will be worth $164.5 billion.
The study notes that many nations are in the middle of a major, long-term re-equipment cycle. While annual fighter production is set to average around 300 aircraft per year through 2013, it will increase to 400 aircraft per year in 2014 as production of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II/Joint Strike Fighter ramps up later in the decade.
During the forecast period, the total value of annual production will fluctuate from $16.1 billion in 2008 to a 10-year low of $14.8 billion in 2013. It will then begin to grow in line with rising production levels, reaching $18.3 billion by 2017.
"Although fighter production will remain stable over the next few years, the U.S. military and allies of the United States are set to buy huge numbers of Lockheed Martin's F-35 to replace legacy fighter fleets in coming years," said Douglas Royce, Aerospace Analyst at Forecast International. "No other maker can look to such a potentially large market for its fighter aircraft."
Source : Forecast International Inc.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gnadenburg
whats new about this, its the way its always been and probably always will be. The navy for example just want back what it has lost. When DDG's HMAS Brisbane, Perth and Hobart were paid off there was no replacement, the navy wants its air warfare destroyers back, a carrier would be nice but it won't happen in my life time and tomahawks on the Collins class, they have been talking about that for over 10 years now. Nothing new 
RAAF wants 5 squadrons of JSF, Navy wants a carrier, air warfare destroyers, amphibious assault ships and VTOL fighters; while army has tanks suited to the German plains- Defence seems rudderless, incohesive with each service pursuing a structure independent of the other.
Last edited by wessex19; 27th Mar 2008 at 04:13.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gnadenburg
...while army has tanks suited to the German plains...
What about alternatives to Abrams .... Challenger; Leclerc; T-90 - all designed with European armoured warfare in mind.
We're all getting our knickers in a knot about Super Hornet / F-22 / F-111 / JSF .... I think many of us would agree that there is a lot of ill- or uninformed tosh being bandied about. The utter ignorance being displayed regarding the Army's employment of Abrams makes the fighter discussion appear sophisticated by comparison.
Gnadenburg, my rant's not directed at you - more at the Army for not appropriately 'selling' the Abrams and its intended use to the taxpayer - sorry if you took it that way.
Last edited by Like This - Do That; 27th Mar 2008 at 00:41.
Bloomberg is a addictive. Makes one an FX and equities gambler.......
This popped up yesterday.
This popped up yesterday.
March 27 (Bloomberg) -- Australia may double its order from the U.S. for F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets and cut A$16 billion ($15 billion) from its budget for the potential purchase of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, the Australian Financial Review reported.
The U.S. Navy has been in talks with senior Royal Australian Air Force officials about the purchase of 24 additional Boeing Co. Super Hornets since late last year, the Review said, citing unnamed military sources. Former Prime Minister John Howard agreed last year to pay A$6 billion for an initial order of 24 Super Hornets.
The option to buy more of the fighter jets comes after the U.S. government accountability office suggested Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter might be two years late and over budget, the Review said.
Australian Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has also urged the U.S. to sell its most advanced fighter, the Raptor F-22, the newspaper said. The U.S. has a ban on foreign sales of the F-22.
The U.S. Navy has been in talks with senior Royal Australian Air Force officials about the purchase of 24 additional Boeing Co. Super Hornets since late last year, the Review said, citing unnamed military sources. Former Prime Minister John Howard agreed last year to pay A$6 billion for an initial order of 24 Super Hornets.
The option to buy more of the fighter jets comes after the U.S. government accountability office suggested Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter might be two years late and over budget, the Review said.
Australian Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has also urged the U.S. to sell its most advanced fighter, the Raptor F-22, the newspaper said. The U.S. has a ban on foreign sales of the F-22.
Like This-Do That-
There was one reference to Abrams. It was in the context of a force structure.
Abrams is a very heavy and capable tank that goes beyond just 'hardening the army' in capability. It goes beyond a requirement in capability in many scenarios the ADF may face.
But if we really do need a main battle tank in the ADF, we must need many other assets as well. For instance, a recon helicopter from France must seem a mistake now. If we need heavy armor, we must also have required the Longbow Apache - with overlapping and enhanced close air support from other ADF assets being procured for the future.
The original point was about a cohesive direction in policy by all three services in areas of capability and procurement to meet a projected threat.
And if Australia does need heavy tanks, amphibious assault carriers, air warfare destroyers etc etc to fight a threat in 2020 and beyond.
Then a long range, fifth generation fighter capability is a matter of priority. With an ability to project airpower from Australian or regional bases to areas where our "new" naval and army expeditionary forces may be operating.
No wonder there seems to be a murmured push a two-tier force of Super Hornets and possibly including the F22.
And bring on a White Paper, analysis or some sort of debate of the strategic picture for Asia in the future.
Gnadenburg, my rant's not directed at you - more at the Army for not appropriately 'selling' the Abrams and its intended use to the taxpayer - sorry if you took it that way.
Abrams is a very heavy and capable tank that goes beyond just 'hardening the army' in capability. It goes beyond a requirement in capability in many scenarios the ADF may face.
But if we really do need a main battle tank in the ADF, we must need many other assets as well. For instance, a recon helicopter from France must seem a mistake now. If we need heavy armor, we must also have required the Longbow Apache - with overlapping and enhanced close air support from other ADF assets being procured for the future.
The original point was about a cohesive direction in policy by all three services in areas of capability and procurement to meet a projected threat.
And if Australia does need heavy tanks, amphibious assault carriers, air warfare destroyers etc etc to fight a threat in 2020 and beyond.
Then a long range, fifth generation fighter capability is a matter of priority. With an ability to project airpower from Australian or regional bases to areas where our "new" naval and army expeditionary forces may be operating.
No wonder there seems to be a murmured push a two-tier force of Super Hornets and possibly including the F22.
And bring on a White Paper, analysis or some sort of debate of the strategic picture for Asia in the future.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 30th Mar 2008 at 00:26.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No wonder there seems to be a murmured push a two-tier force of Super Hornets and possibly including the F22.
We'll see.
PLE..
p.s. It's a shame the YF-23 lost out, my vote for the most elegant aircraft out there.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree, beautiful aircraft. Did read that the aircraft was optimized for Interceptor rather than 'Fighter' ie more comfortable in the cruise BVR environment than the $120m + a copy currant winner is.
Must admit the nose section looks a tad small to shoe horn in a ASEA radar, still what do i know they may have had a cunning plan to change the whole profile once the contract was won.
As with the YF-17, would not be surprised to see this airframe resurrected and used as the basis for other forces needs.....Advanced UCAV?
Must admit the nose section looks a tad small to shoe horn in a ASEA radar, still what do i know they may have had a cunning plan to change the whole profile once the contract was won.
As with the YF-17, would not be surprised to see this airframe resurrected and used as the basis for other forces needs.....Advanced UCAV?
US Government Report Shows Decreased Costs for F-35 Program
(Fort Worth, Texas, April 8, 2008) -- A newly released report from the U.S. Department of Defense shows that estimated acquisition costs dropped by nearly $1 billion from 2006 to 2007 for the Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35 Lightning II program.
The Selected Acquisition Reports estimate that F-35 program costs over the aircraft's three-decade production run decreased by $981 million (-0.3 percent), from $299.8 billion to $298.8 billion. The F-35 cost reduction was attributed in part to lower material costs related to agreements made by Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors, and revised estimates of support costs.
"The F-35 program is intensely focused on affordability, and these numbers demonstrate that hard work on the part of government and contractor teams is achieving the desired result," said Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager.
"The F-35 team is committed to protecting the program's affordability," said Maj. Gen. C.R. Davis, F-35 Program Executive Officer. "The team has placed the highest priority on cost management while building the world's most advanced multi-role fighter."
Selected Acquisition Reports summarize the latest estimates of cost, schedule and technical status. The reports are prepared annually in conjunction with the president's budget. The total program cost estimates provided in the SARs include research and development, procurement, military construction and acquisition-related operation and maintenance. Total program costs reflect actual costs to date as well as future anticipated costs. All estimates include anticipated inflation allowances.
Source : Lockheed Martin
The Selected Acquisition Reports estimate that F-35 program costs over the aircraft's three-decade production run decreased by $981 million (-0.3 percent), from $299.8 billion to $298.8 billion. The F-35 cost reduction was attributed in part to lower material costs related to agreements made by Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors, and revised estimates of support costs.
"The F-35 program is intensely focused on affordability, and these numbers demonstrate that hard work on the part of government and contractor teams is achieving the desired result," said Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager.
"The F-35 team is committed to protecting the program's affordability," said Maj. Gen. C.R. Davis, F-35 Program Executive Officer. "The team has placed the highest priority on cost management while building the world's most advanced multi-role fighter."
Selected Acquisition Reports summarize the latest estimates of cost, schedule and technical status. The reports are prepared annually in conjunction with the president's budget. The total program cost estimates provided in the SARs include research and development, procurement, military construction and acquisition-related operation and maintenance. Total program costs reflect actual costs to date as well as future anticipated costs. All estimates include anticipated inflation allowances.
Source : Lockheed Martin
Evertonian
Bit of a looker that YF-23!
Hypothetically, I wonder how it would go down if enough nations went directly to Northrop with an idea to reviving the concept as an alternative to the aircraft we cannot have??? I reckon I know the answer though...
Hypothetically, I wonder how it would go down if enough nations went directly to Northrop with an idea to reviving the concept as an alternative to the aircraft we cannot have??? I reckon I know the answer though...
ITT Receives $111 M for Navy Hornet Countermeasure System
(White Plains, N.Y., April 21, 2008) -- ITT Corporation (NYSE: ITT) today announced it has been awarded a $111 million fixed-price contract and authority for full rate production of the AN/ALQ-214(V)3, an integrated countermeasure system that provides self-protection capability to the U.S. Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet tactical aircraft. The contract is part of the Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures System (IDECM) from the U.S. Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, Maryland.
Under the contract, some systems will be delivered to the Royal Australian Air Force for their F/A-18 E/F platforms, representing the first international sale of the system.
"ITT is pleased and privileged to be a provider of these important self-protection systems," said ITT Electronic Systems President Chris Bernhardt. "We look forward to continuing production of these electronic countermeasures systems supporting U.S. and allied forces."
Source : ITT Corporation
Under the contract, some systems will be delivered to the Royal Australian Air Force for their F/A-18 E/F platforms, representing the first international sale of the system.
"ITT is pleased and privileged to be a provider of these important self-protection systems," said ITT Electronic Systems President Chris Bernhardt. "We look forward to continuing production of these electronic countermeasures systems supporting U.S. and allied forces."
Source : ITT Corporation
Boeing Delivers Proposal to Equip Indian AF with Super Hornet Fighters
(St. Louis, April 24, 2008) -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today delivered a detailed, 7,000-page proposal offering its advanced F/A-18E/F Super Hornet to the Indian Air Force as part of India's Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) competition.
"Our proposal team worked diligently to fully understand and meet the requirements set out by the Indian Ministry of Defense (MOD). We are offering India the best-value, most advanced and proven multirole combat fighter in production today," said Jim Albaugh, president and CEO, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems (IDS).
India issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for 126 new multirole combat fighters in August 2007. Boeing completed its proposal before the initial March 3 deadline, which the MOD rescheduled for April 28.
"Boeing's strategic goal has been to seek a long-term partnership with India to help strengthen the country's aerospace capabilities and enhance its national security," said Chris Chadwick, president of Boeing Precision Engagement & Mobility Systems. "Choosing the F/A-18E/F would give Indians a direct hand in building an advanced fighter aircraft that will robustly defend their shores and airspace, infuse new strength into the Indian Air Force, and serve as a catalyst for India's growing defense aerospace industry."
The Super Hornet variant being offered to India, the F/A-18IN, is based on the F/A-18E/F model flown by the U.S. Navy and currently being built for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). Advanced technology -- such as Raytheon's APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array radar -- and proven reliability are drawing U.S. and international customers' increasing interest in the aircraft as a cost-effective and lethal air defense.
Boeing has delivered more than 340 Super Hornets to the U.S. Navy. Australia has ordered 24 Super Hornets to bolster its fleet of F/A-18 Hornets, and Boeing is in discussions with several other international customers about their interest in procuring the Super Hornet.
"One of the concerns here in India is the cost of owning and maintaining combat fighters over their lifetime," said Vivek Lall, Boeing IDS vice president and India country head. "The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet offers a very attractive life-cycle-cost dynamic, since the fighter won't need a scheduled visit to a maintenance depot until it has clocked a minimum of 6,000 hours of flying time, and even well beyond that."
Source : Boeing
"Our proposal team worked diligently to fully understand and meet the requirements set out by the Indian Ministry of Defense (MOD). We are offering India the best-value, most advanced and proven multirole combat fighter in production today," said Jim Albaugh, president and CEO, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems (IDS).
India issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for 126 new multirole combat fighters in August 2007. Boeing completed its proposal before the initial March 3 deadline, which the MOD rescheduled for April 28.
"Boeing's strategic goal has been to seek a long-term partnership with India to help strengthen the country's aerospace capabilities and enhance its national security," said Chris Chadwick, president of Boeing Precision Engagement & Mobility Systems. "Choosing the F/A-18E/F would give Indians a direct hand in building an advanced fighter aircraft that will robustly defend their shores and airspace, infuse new strength into the Indian Air Force, and serve as a catalyst for India's growing defense aerospace industry."
The Super Hornet variant being offered to India, the F/A-18IN, is based on the F/A-18E/F model flown by the U.S. Navy and currently being built for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). Advanced technology -- such as Raytheon's APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array radar -- and proven reliability are drawing U.S. and international customers' increasing interest in the aircraft as a cost-effective and lethal air defense.
Boeing has delivered more than 340 Super Hornets to the U.S. Navy. Australia has ordered 24 Super Hornets to bolster its fleet of F/A-18 Hornets, and Boeing is in discussions with several other international customers about their interest in procuring the Super Hornet.
"One of the concerns here in India is the cost of owning and maintaining combat fighters over their lifetime," said Vivek Lall, Boeing IDS vice president and India country head. "The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet offers a very attractive life-cycle-cost dynamic, since the fighter won't need a scheduled visit to a maintenance depot until it has clocked a minimum of 6,000 hours of flying time, and even well beyond that."
Source : Boeing
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joint strike fighter RAAF's choice
Patrick Walters, National security editor | April 28, 2008
THE F-35 joint strike fighter will be confirmed as the best choice to become the RAAF's frontline combat aircraft in a classified review to be presented to Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon later this week.
The final report of the high-level review commissioned by Mr Fitzgibbon in February is also expected to rule out the much more expensive US-made F-22 Raptor fighter as an alternative buy to the F-35 JSF.
Mr Fitzgibbon ordered the review into Australia's future air combat capability as concerns have risen about the development cost and production schedules of the JSF, as well as the capability choices facing Australia as the RAAF moves to replace its long-serving F-111 bombers and the frontline F/A-18 fighters after 2010.
The F-35 is being built by Lockheed Martin and funded by the US and eight other partner countries, including Australia, and was selected by the Howard government in 2002 as the next-generation fighter for the air force.
The RAAF plans to acquire up to 100 F-35s from 2013 at a projected cost of $16billion, making the aircraft easily Australia's largest-ever defence buy.
The air combat capability review, led by senior defence bureaucrat Neil Orme, considered the case for and against acquiring the Raptor as well as trends in Asia-Pacific air power up to 2045.
Sources familiar with the review say it emphasises that Australia faces a far more challenging strategic environment over the next 30 years as regional air forces move to buy more sophisticated combat aircraft as well as ships and submarines.
While Australia can expect to retain a technology edge over its immediate neighbours in Southeast Asia, China will acquire 500 to 600 advanced fighter bombers over the next 30 years and is likely to surpass the US as the leading air power in East Asia.
Defence has judged that the F-35's all-round capability is still the best and most affordable platform for the RAAF's longer-term needs compared with the single-role F-22. But Mr Fitzgibbon has been keen to explore with the US Government the chances of acquiring the F-22, which at present is not for sale to overseas customers. Defence experts argue that even if Australia were allowed to buy the F-22, the RAAF could not buy enough to guarantee Australia's frontline air defence. While the procurement cost of the F-35 has risen by about 36per cent in real terms since 2002 to $US77 million a plane, the rising Australian dollar means that the RAAF is still confident it can afford the 100-strong fleet it regards as essential.
Mr Orme's findings will fundamentally shape the Government's defence white paper, due to be released at the end of the year, which will provide a clear road map for the future air force.
Opposition defence spokesman Nick Minchin, who was briefed on the F-35 and F-22 by Lockheed Martin in the US last week, said the F-35 was still clearly the best aircraft to meet Australia's needs.
The first part of the Orme review, completed last month, confirmed the Howard government's plans to retire the F-111 strike force from 2010.
It also confirmed the previous government's controversial $6billion purchase of 24 Super Hornets as a bridging fighter between the retirement of the F-111 and the arrival of the F-35.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...64-601,00.html
Patrick Walters, National security editor | April 28, 2008
THE F-35 joint strike fighter will be confirmed as the best choice to become the RAAF's frontline combat aircraft in a classified review to be presented to Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon later this week.
The final report of the high-level review commissioned by Mr Fitzgibbon in February is also expected to rule out the much more expensive US-made F-22 Raptor fighter as an alternative buy to the F-35 JSF.
Mr Fitzgibbon ordered the review into Australia's future air combat capability as concerns have risen about the development cost and production schedules of the JSF, as well as the capability choices facing Australia as the RAAF moves to replace its long-serving F-111 bombers and the frontline F/A-18 fighters after 2010.
The F-35 is being built by Lockheed Martin and funded by the US and eight other partner countries, including Australia, and was selected by the Howard government in 2002 as the next-generation fighter for the air force.
The RAAF plans to acquire up to 100 F-35s from 2013 at a projected cost of $16billion, making the aircraft easily Australia's largest-ever defence buy.
The air combat capability review, led by senior defence bureaucrat Neil Orme, considered the case for and against acquiring the Raptor as well as trends in Asia-Pacific air power up to 2045.
Sources familiar with the review say it emphasises that Australia faces a far more challenging strategic environment over the next 30 years as regional air forces move to buy more sophisticated combat aircraft as well as ships and submarines.
While Australia can expect to retain a technology edge over its immediate neighbours in Southeast Asia, China will acquire 500 to 600 advanced fighter bombers over the next 30 years and is likely to surpass the US as the leading air power in East Asia.
Defence has judged that the F-35's all-round capability is still the best and most affordable platform for the RAAF's longer-term needs compared with the single-role F-22. But Mr Fitzgibbon has been keen to explore with the US Government the chances of acquiring the F-22, which at present is not for sale to overseas customers. Defence experts argue that even if Australia were allowed to buy the F-22, the RAAF could not buy enough to guarantee Australia's frontline air defence. While the procurement cost of the F-35 has risen by about 36per cent in real terms since 2002 to $US77 million a plane, the rising Australian dollar means that the RAAF is still confident it can afford the 100-strong fleet it regards as essential.
Mr Orme's findings will fundamentally shape the Government's defence white paper, due to be released at the end of the year, which will provide a clear road map for the future air force.
Opposition defence spokesman Nick Minchin, who was briefed on the F-35 and F-22 by Lockheed Martin in the US last week, said the F-35 was still clearly the best aircraft to meet Australia's needs.
The first part of the Orme review, completed last month, confirmed the Howard government's plans to retire the F-111 strike force from 2010.
It also confirmed the previous government's controversial $6billion purchase of 24 Super Hornets as a bridging fighter between the retirement of the F-111 and the arrival of the F-35.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...64-601,00.html