Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

F-35: wise spending of our dollars?

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

F-35: wise spending of our dollars?

Old 21st Jul 2018, 12:33
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 266
FFS What is this Carlo Kopp rubbish?

Modern battle plan and strategic doctrine (and that of our allies) is based on information, communication and coordination.

Combined services and elements acting together to achieve your tactical and strategic goals.

F35 + P8 + Wedge-tail (and Triton) is a huge part of that equation. Can't do it with any other type that is available or interoperable with allies. That's before the political and geo-political advantages / realities are considered.

Is it still school holidays somewhere?

Last edited by Iron Bar; 21st Jul 2018 at 12:53.
Iron Bar is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2018, 12:53
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 727
Iron Bar, at whom was your spray aimed?

Also...can you expand on "strategic goals" as an element of DF capability? Given the dearth of actual strategic capability? Also, assuming the most likely of threats, can you also comment on a current fighter such as the (say) F-15 teamed with the ASW/AWACS/JSTARS platforms?


Australopithecus is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2018, 13:06
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 266
Spray?

- Steategic goals. Whatever the government of the day determines. That is, or has been support to our major ally in several theaters and regional stabilization to our North. (Effective support to major ally negates the need for strategic capability in the sense I think you are referring)

F15 doesn't have the sensor and communication capabilities of F35. As far as I know F15 no longer in production?

-




Last edited by Iron Bar; 21st Jul 2018 at 13:34.
Iron Bar is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2018, 13:06
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
"Italy, UK, Netherlands, Norway, Japan, Turkey and Israel are also F-35 operators."

To be pedantic they are the one's who've ordered it - only Israel apparently has done any combat flying with them - they could all cancel but most likely will reduce their order book

The RAAF needs range rather than stealth I'd have thought................
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2018, 13:12
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: OZ
Posts: 248
Look at the last Red Flag results. F35 knocked down almost all their adversaries, before they were seen/encountered....then ran away. That’s how it is designed.
Roller Merlin is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2018, 13:30
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 727
Originally Posted by Iron Bar View Post
Spray?

- Steategic goals. Whatever the government of the day determines. Right now support to our major ally in several theaters and regional stabilization to our North. (Effective support to major ally negates the need for strategic capability in the sense I think you are referring)

F15 doesn't have the sensor and communication capabilities of F35. As far as I know F15 no longer in production?

-





I don!t know if the F-15 line is still running, actually. On that basis I guess the question is moot. If you need a new fighter then you have we to buy fifth generation. And that really means, given realpolitik, the F-35.

Strategic: When I was a boy that meant the Westinghouse W-63. It probably still does in whatever the current version.

Anyway... I think the Chinese discovered that you don't need to invade anywhere if you have time and money.

Last edited by Australopithecus; 21st Jul 2018 at 21:03.
Australopithecus is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2018, 16:13
  #27 (permalink)  

Evertonian
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: #3117# Ppruner of the Year Nominee 2005
Posts: 9,863
Originally Posted by Iron Bar View Post
As far as I know F15 no longer in production?


Boeing still offering developments of it.



https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/201...ce-report.html
Buster Hyman is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2018, 21:18
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ESSEX
Posts: 239
Originally Posted by Australopithecus View Post
In the eighties it was Canadian Defence Force policy to buy only twin engine fighters, given the hostile terrain in the Arctic, where any forseeable country defence would be fought. Both the F-20 and F-16 were disqualified on that basis alone.

The Canadian purchase of our Hornets is like our Sea Sprite deal...good money for museum pieces.

NATO countries might have a valid argument about fifth generation fighters given the threats in any forseeable theatre. Since Trump I think the F-35 might make sense, since the Calvary might not answer the phone. But buying a platform without a robust supply of ready munitions is the definition of cynical political malfeasance.

Despite all of the foregoing, does anyone think that the world will ever again see a huge set-piece conventional battle? No one can play armour+infantry against the west, nor can they do blue-water navy fleet action. In no category,in fact, except suicidal fanatic can I imagine wholesale effective resistance to the west. (As it is currently constituted-my position may change next week after the next Twitter storm)
no one can play against the West due to American military might with some U.K. and French back up..
if that means sucking it up and buying the USA’s new toy then tough. Or of course any country could gomit alone
SARF is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2018, 22:43
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 600
Originally Posted by FOI View Post


Yes indeed. A age old bomber that had such poor dispatch reliability that when conflict finally arose, we couldn’t send it anywhere.
Great airshow crowd pleaser though.
propaganda. It could fly further and faster than anything we have now. It had an endless stream of cheap parts and it’s value was as a deterrent with a former Indonesians Defense officer admitting he had said in meetings with his President many times “We should not provoke the Australians, do you one they have a fleet of aircraft that could put a bomb through the window of this building before we even knew it was here”.
so much of the modernvweaponry and it could carry and deliver the lot... F-35 can’t even carry a bunker buster. It was a stupid and ideological decision to retire them. The so called failure in a test rig at DSTO used as an excuse was later found to have been incorrectly set up to the point that it subjected the component to 10 times normal flight stresses. That’s like loading a 747-400 with 4,000 tons then saying it has a compromised structure when it collapses.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2018, 22:51
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 600
Originally Posted by SARF View Post


no one can play against the West due to American military might with some U.K. and French back up..
if that means sucking it up and buying the USA’s new toy then tough. Or of course any country could gomit alone
yeh, except for all we know in his secret meeting President Baboon probably gave Putin a file with all of the US’ defense technology on it in exchange for the pee tape... he was certainly crawling up the dictators arse like Edmond ascending Everest during the press conference after spending a week denigrating and spreading lies about NATO and those French, et al ‘allies’. The United States Senate voted last week 98 to 0 to stop him from sending United States’ citizens to be ‘interviewed’ by Putin’s people... the very thought he considers that “... a wonderful offer” shows how historically, diplomatically, strategically, intellectually and reality deprived he is and why the United States cannot be relied on while they have a brain damaged chimp as their Head of State and Government who’s ego is more important than committing the occasional act of treason.
AerialPerspective is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2018, 01:29
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 150
no one can play against the West due to American military might with some U.K. and French back up..
Very true (although I wouldn't rely on the French), but it doesn't mean they won't try to. The Chinese have made no secret of their desire to take back Taiwan. All they need is some hint that the West will not defend it and they will be in there quicker than you can say 9 dash line.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2018, 04:38
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: AUS
Posts: 18
Must admit, I'm a bit of an F-35 skeptic. Remember reading an article a while ago where a question was put to a US military expert about an F-16 being able to out-dofight an F-35. He answered "you're missing the point", an F-35 will be able to shoot down the enemy with over-the-horizon missiles hence it's kind of irrelevent if the F-35 can dogfight or words to that effect. Kind of reminds me of American attitudes with the cannon-less F-4 phantoms going into the Vietnam war citing only missiles were needed in modern day dogfighting. Of course they had to subsequently fit F-4s with cannons after realizing inferior MiG-17s were putting up a good fight(of course there were other factors too).
Anyway for the sake our tax-dollars I really hope I'm wrong.
Eaglet is online now  
Old 22nd Jul 2018, 05:39
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,560
Does an F35 scare the 'adversary' while sitting collecting dust on static display?

Jim Molan, former military chief turned Liberal senator, issues stark warning over defence capabilities - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Rated De is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2018, 07:36
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Global Citizen
Posts: 148
Originally Posted by Lookleft View Post
The Chinese have made no secret of their desire to take back Taiwan. All they need is some hint that the West will not defend it and they will be in there quicker than you can say 9 dash line.
Or something to stoke nationalistic sentiment during an economic downturn.
stormfury is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2018, 11:30
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NQLD
Age: 33
Posts: 96
First off a comment on Carlo Kopp. I would agree that he had an incredible bias for the F-111, it was pretty clear he thought that was the one and only solution to Australia's problems. Putting all that aside, his other articles about China, Hardened Aircraft Shelters, Indonesia and others were quite interesting. It was many years ago he pointed out (I'm sure others have too) the inadequacies in RAAF logistics planning, lo and behold the last White Paper finally pointed out all the holes in the logistics chain for the ADF!

The ADF and Government have been masters at equipping our military 'for but not with'. By that I mean they might have a ANZAC Frigate but it hasn't been regularly upgraded with new sensors or anti missile defences to enable them to participate in high intensity conflict. Whoever is driving the more recent acquisitions is taking the ADF in the right direction. If there's one good thing that's come out of East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan, it's that the Government finally realised they need to properly equip the ADF!!

The F-111 was a great aircraft for Australia, I would almost say it was perfect. Even in 2008 it was a formidable adversary for the F/A-18's to chase down. I spoke to a fighter pilot in Katherine and asked him specifically about it. He said if the F-111 guys figured out they were being targeted before the F/A-18's got close, they just lit up the afterburners and outran them. But like all good things, they must come to an end. There is no direct replacement for the F-111 so we must pick from what is available.

Basically Australia only had the choice of American equipment. First off anything European has political implications given we are generally at war as partners of the USA. Plus something like the Eurofighter doesn't have a clear upgrade path. The different partners are developing their own modifications, which would mean Australia would have to do the same thing instead of being able to buy it off the shelf for US equipment. The F-15 is old, yes they still build them new, yes they are still capable, but we are talking about a 40 year old design. An aircraft that various hostile powers (China, Russia, etc) have developed weapons and tactics to defeat. In the next 20 years the weapons capable of taking down an F-15 is only going to increase and leave that aircraft vulnerable.

The F-22 is not for sale. So that leaves the F-35. Should we be buying a fighter with two engines? Yes! (The RAAF had the same requirement as Canada when they bought the F/A-18) But we can't, so lets move on from that issue. The F-35 has stealth, from the front mainly. There's the first advantage over anything except the F-22. If the other guy can't see you how can they attack you? Is it as good in a dogfight as an F-15 or Su-30? Probably not but if the F-35 gets the first shot (because of the stealth and networked information), there's more chance they'll win. The networking features are the game changer here. The Super Hornet is partway there but the F-35 has it built in from the start. Why is this important? Look at the 1982 Israeli campaign against Syria. They used the first example of networked information to achieve air superiority. Again if the F-35 receives information without having to turn on radars etc they can engage the enemy when THEY decide. In war information is always the key.

"Know the other, know yourself. And the victory will not be at risk. Know the ground, know the natural conditions. And the victory can be total." - Sun Tzu

Australia also needs a strike capability. When the F-15 was first designed it didn't have this ability, much like the F-22 today. The F-35 has this ability. We need the capability of striking maritime targets off our coast.

As for the argument of whether we should even spend the money on a defence force to begin with, I'll leave you with this thought. The German Luftwaffe went from zero to beginning WW2 in 6 years, plus some prior illegal training in the early 30's. So if it takes a focused dictatorship 6+ years to create a credible Air Force capable of waging war, how long do you think it would take a dithering democracy? 10 years? 15 years? Do you think any Australian Government is capable of seeing a credible threat that far out? I don't think so...

There's a story of an RAAF Officer that was given the mission to determine how best to defend Australia in the 1920's. In summary his answer was the threat will come from the north, most likely through Darwin and we need XX number of squadrons to defend the country. He was effectively laughed out of the room and denied any further promotions for such 'preposterous' rubbish!! I think he was in Darwin when the bombs fell in 1942... (I'm sure I've read a book about this guy, anyone know it?)

"Only the dead have seen the end of war" - Plato
aviation_enthus is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2018, 11:55
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 128
Can anyone explain to me why we require aircraft to defend the land mass of Australia? Serious question. An aircraft is just a platform to launch fancy artillery. We've got a massive launch platform already. Why not just invest in developing or procuring advanced missile defense systems? The F35 is just a US cash cow. We don't need it.
imperial shifter is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2018, 11:57
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,560
Probably a good idea to ban political donations and 'glorious foundations'

Also probably wise to have sufficient fuel in a 'strategic fuel reserve'
Rated De is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2018, 12:04
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,204
Originally Posted by imperial shifter View Post
Can anyone explain to me why we require aircraft to defend the land mass of Australia? Serious question. An aircraft is just a platform to launch fancy artillery. We've got a massive launch platform already. Why not just invest in developing or procuring advanced missile defense systems? The F35 is just a US cash cow. We don't need it.
You are Duncan Sandys and I claim my £5...

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2018, 12:11
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: down under
Posts: 391
Originally Posted by FOI View Post


“Great Deal?” - 18 airframes for 500M USD. Great deal for Canada 🇨🇦 alright!
I’d be asking that if Canada sees value in our F18’s, why did we feel the need to offload them?
Canada’s GDP per capita is similar to ours.

Dont forget, this F-35 order is on top our recent 24 F18 Super Hornet purchase (a cheeky 10B). How much “cutting edge” defence technology does one small country need?
don't forget that Canada, with its nearness to the US, can rely on the US much more than we can.
Many years ago I read in one the Jane's books on military strategy that the obvious thing for China to do in the future would be to invade Australia. We need a strong military.
cooperplace is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2018, 16:49
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NQLD
Age: 33
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by imperial shifter View Post
Can anyone explain to me why we require aircraft to defend the land mass of Australia? Serious question. An aircraft is just a platform to launch fancy artillery. We've got a massive launch platform already. Why not just invest in developing or procuring advanced missile defense systems? The F35 is just a US cash cow. We don't need it.

The British had exactly this idea back in 1957. Google ‘1957 Statement on Defence’. Long story short it didn’t work.

Yes that was over 50 years ago BUT I would argue a SAM system is no substitute for a fighter aircraft. Recent missile attacks on Saudi Arabia have been intercepted by US made Patriot missile defence systems. Plenty of news stories out there that they fail or missed a lot of incoming ballistic missiles. There’s even videos on YouTube.

And again I will refer to the experience of Israel. They completely destroyed a well set out SAM defence in Syria in 1982. At the time it contained arguably the best Russian equipment money could buy and it was set up by the Russians (so it should have worked properly).

The only other thing to add is a fighter aircraft can loiter with intent and provide a threat without actually releasing any weapons. It provides a ‘step up’ in threat level so to speak. Pure missile defence doesn’t. It’s either ON or OFF ie war or peace. I’ll think you’ll find the world can have many shades of grey!
aviation_enthus is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.