STOVL F35's for RAN???
 

Push for air back-up on navy's new ships

• Brendan Nicholson
• July 11, 2008

AN INFLUENTIAL defence group has urged the Federal Government to buy up to 12 short take-off versions of the Joint Strike Fighter that could operate from the navy's massive new amphibious landing ships.
The Navy League of Australia says those drafting the new defence white paper should exploit the capabilities of the landing ships and the new multi-role aircraft that is the likely choice to replace the RAAF's F-111 bombers and F/A-18 fighter bombers.
The Government is expected to decide early next year to buy up to 100 of the US-built Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs).
The navy is to get two Spanish Navantia landing ships, officially designated LHD (Landing Helicopter Dock), which can carry 1000 troops, six helicopters and 150 vehicles, including Abrams tanks.
They will be named HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide, with the first to be in service by about 2012.
Some defence specialists have pointed out that the landing ships would be heavily protected by the navy's other new heavyweights, the air warfare destroyers.
But the Navy League says it would be a mistake to send the ships, laden with troops and equipment, overseas without air support.
"Landing uninvited in someone's country should not be done half-heartedly," it says in the latest edition of its magazine, The Navy.
"Experience has shown that land forces deployed without organic air support are extremely vulnerable from the ground and air.
"The inclusion in the JSF purchase of 12 of the short take-off and vertical landing version at present being built for the Royal Navy and the US Marine Corps would provide the Australian Defence Force with much needed options."
The Navy League says the new ships and aircraft would be in service for at least 30 years.
"It is impossible to forecast the contingencies the ADF may face between now and 2050. It is highly desirable that the ADF is equipped to handle all possible situations."
A flight of four to six Joint Strike Fighters, flown by RAAF pilots, could be placed on each landing ship, the Navy League suggests.
The Spanish Navy's landing ships are equipped to carry Harrier jump jets and are expected to be able to carry Joint Strike Fighters.
The Navy League stresses that equipping each of the new ships with a few Joint Strike Fighters would not turn them into aircraft carriers.
But at 25,790 tonnes, the new vessels will be bigger than Australia's last aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne, which was 20,000 tonnes fully laden.

:D

The Navy League author must have felt sickened writing that, but probably thought "if we suggest these aircraft were to be flown by Fleet Air Arm pilots the ALP would have conniptions" ......

The FAA pilots were always of the opinion that the RAAF never really liked the navy having fighters, they were happy for them to jolly around in helos but leave the fast stuff for the boys in blue, I suppose the only difference now is that the number 1 boy in blue was an ex navy fighter pilot. On ya Binny:D
On another note, why are navy pilots required to complete the entire pilot course to the same standard as RAAF pilots whereby you will not fly fixed wing!!! If all the navy has is helo's, why aren't navy pilots doing the same training as the army guys. The navy have had a number of Mids scrubbed right at the end of 2FTS for elements of the programme they will never use in the FAA whereas the army cadet would not of been tested on this and hence got his wings. If navy pilots are still graduating to RAAF standards, then they could step up to the F35:ugh: Thats my two cents

You would think so. I think the RAN is going to have trouble crewing the ships and aircraft they have on order, let alone new aircraft.

I spoke to a bloke at a local flying school the other day who intends leaving the RAN to persue a civilian flying career. He appeared to be a very switched on sort of person but he was adamant he will not learn to fly through the Navy. The attrition needs to be slowed before they can ad any more capabilities. That said, it sounds like a good idea.

Navy pilots, unlike their Army counterparts, fly in single pilot operations. The Observer is trained to take over and ditch in case of emergency - that's it. That's why they require a higher standard of initial training.

You sure about that?? Sea King has 2 pilots, its replacement will have 2 pilots(s-70B is flown with an observer in the left seat) , as for the army, They have had years of single pilot operations, Kiowa, Tiger, Porter and I think the Nomad could be flown single pilot.
Originally navy pilots were trained to RAAF standard because they could fly a full range of aircaft, single pilot thing sounds strange!!

I guess it doesn't take much to shout MayDay on the radio...:uhoh:

Wessex:

NAVY pilots do the full bit (well - it was explained to me this way anyway) becasue when they enventually arrive on operational aircraft, they could/will be conducting blue water ops without divert airfields etc or the ability to just "put it down anywhere". Requires a more comprehensive set of skills that those for Army.

Probably also stems from the good old days when the Navy used to throw their Trackers and Skyhawks onto decks. Bloody shame they don't still do that kind of stuff - maybe we'll see it again now.
I'd've loved to have seen Harriers in Aussie service.

Gather the problem with Harriers now is they can carry heavy and expensive BVR missiles OK in the North Atlantic but can't do the vertical landing bit with them in hot conditions. Would be a bit limiting for us.

wessex, just for info the Trackers were single pilot with an Observer in the RHS.

When I was going through my aborted attempt at 2FTS, this issue raised its head and the SNO (Senior Naval Officer) said that flying choppers in the Navy required a much higher instrument flying proficiency than BFTS provided graduates with. Looks like it is all about being able to fly on the clocks....

As to the proposal, how effective are 6, yes a full SIX, JSFs going to be on each ship? Wouldn't imagine much effect would be achieved with crew duty, maintenance, etc. all dragging down the ability to drop bombs on targets. At least not enough of an effect to warrant the cost....

Brian Abraham, correct you are. Although I think the US navy flew them with 2 pilots

1. You can't do 24 hour CAP ops with only six aircraft.
2. You can't do CAP and strike at the same time with only six aircraft.

Therefore you need AWACS to tell you when the bad hats are coming and thus when to launch your aircraft.

So now we need wedgetail, and thus protection for that asset. Not looking too good now...

Wessex, correct you are as well re US. We did as well initially, but for some reason, now long foregotten, we went single pilot.

sketch of RAN F-35 of 805 SQN on Wikipedia!!!
Someone has way too much spare time

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...a/RAN_F-35.JPG

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fighter/f35/f35-6.jpg

http://uscockpits.com/Jet%20Fighters...mulator)-1.jpg

Gee that's one awkward looking aircraft. The Harrier was grace personified in comparison.

The air warfare destroyers would be the primary defence against air attack.

Could a stealth fighter, with long range missiles and in conjunction with Wedgetails ( if in range ), provide flexible offensive and defensive air to air capability against potential, moderately capable foes ?

There are a myriad of scenarios where a token airborne strike capability ( beyond scout helicopters ) would be useful.

Ships move. How many ground attack sorties could be generated by 6-12 aircraft in 24 hours, off Dili say, versus a Tindal based squadron?

What about off Fiji?

If these things work it makes sense that the RAAF buy them to enhance the capabilities of the expeditionary forces we are developing for regional operations.

Inter-service rivalries granted. This is a chance for the RAAF to justify its high numbers of JSF's.

If the RAN gets cruise missiles for its submarines and air warfare destroyers. Some of those JSF numbers won't be justified.

Gnadenburg,
The issue isn't how many strike sorties could be generated from a ship off Dili. It is how to counter the 40+ Indon aircraft that would have been coming your way if we had have struck targets around Dili.

6-12 aircraft on 1-2 ships makes that ship a floating target (much like tanks... but I digress). The ONLY place this would be useful is where the good guys (us and our friends) have absolute total air superiority.

I guess the X factor is how much better the good old JSF will be vs whomever we are likely to go up against. If it is as good as the F22 at stealth (and it should be) then yes it may make my points above moot and 6 - 12 aircraft could defeat any number of conventional agressors (until they run out of BVR missiles...)

Another often overlooked point is ROE also comes into it and the pollies in their infinite wisdom may make a positive visual ID necessary before being able to shoot thus negating the Stealth capability... but again I digress and wax lyrical...)

Just a few points and I do tend to agree with what you have written.

Cheers
Mr B

Mr Bomb, you make some good points if the fleet is used in isolation, but I could envisage a mixed force operation whereby land based F-35A's with tanker & Wedgetail support would fly the CAP, while ship based F-35B's would fly the attack sorties (with a much higher ROE compared to land based aircraft). The extra fuel capacity of the F-35A makes them better suited to the CAP role than the F-35B.

I always thought that the LHD acquisition was a thinly disguised plan for the RAN to re-acquire Aircraft Carrier capability. :)

It is an issue in certain realistic scenarios. And just having shipborne fighters can prove a deterrence in some operations the ADF may face.

40+ Indon fighters? To operate, maintain, train and co-ordinate in wartime, such a large force would involve serious national investment by Indonesia. They are unlikely to have those funds in the medium term.

China caused a hoo-hah recently. The managed to co-ordinate a regiment sized force of fighters for the first time with early 90's style Western command and control.

So realistic numbers please. And Dili and Fiji were just geographic examples- 1) Land based air in range 2) land based air not in range

These ships will always be targets. But they move. And with overlapping capabilities and weaponary they will give Australia a very effec tive expeditionary capability in the region.

If JSF works buy it. And buy long range land attack misslies for the fleet and submarines too.

Armor saves infantry lives.

And as you are not as proponent of VTOL naval fighters you would be relying on scout helicopters for air support of Australian troops when land based air too far away or too slow to react due distance?

Attack helicopters are proving to be the most vulnerable assets in recent conflicts. Far more so than main battle tanks.


So our air warfare destroyers will have to wait to visually ID an aggressor? Doesn't make sense to me.

If an air warfare destroyer can shoot beyond visual range, so could a JSF I gather.

That's El Presidente to you.

I agree with Gnads in that it is not always necessary to have a visual ID prior to engagement, however, the F-35 does come equipped with a very good visual enhancement suite - ie way beyond the Mk1 eyeball. Radar may detect the bogie early but the visual systems will (in good weather) assist in identification way beyond normal range.

Target ID
 

ROE and modern sensors enable BVR ID. The F35 in all its marks will have multiple ID sensors and a link system meaning it will be able to engage bandits autonomously under most ROE. Luckily for our modern fighter pilots (including F18s), Vis ID is a very restrictive part of history in most of the likely scenarios.

The "how many shipboard aircraft is right?" question relates to politics and money. How much are we prepared to pay and how important is it politically? That may be another debate in a different thread? I am new here.

The RAN currently has no long or medium range air defence capability so the fleet should not go outside the combat radius of the fighters at its nearest friendly fighter base. Or at the least it must operate with a friendly Navy who has some fighter cover, decent ship based radars and area defence missiles. NB: the RAN does not even have an Air Warfare Destroyer at present. To summarise, right now we have an inshore Navy being asked to act like a blue water fleet. We actually value our Navy personnel so little that we send them out without top cover. With the best will in the world, close in weapon systems and poorly supported (in a radar sense) FFG launched Standard missiles will not protect our people from a determined airborne attack.

Definitely, the enhancement of the RAAF F35 fleet with a sensible number of F35Bs will be beneficial overall. The ability to embark a small squadron of 6-8 fighters makes a fleet infinitely more secure/survivable, and makes it several magnitudes more threatening to our potential aggressors. The truth is, Tindal and Willy based fighters are for defence and the primary mission of the Navy has always been to take the fight forwards where the fighters will find it hard to go.

AEW and AAR are all good. They are a part of the picture to bring land based assets forward and when employed as such they will certainly enhance the battle space around the fleet.

You can actually man a 24 hour 2 over 2 airborne CAP using 6-8 ship based aircraft. Many smaller navies do it/have done it. The question needing to be answered is how many land based fighters, tankers and AEW would be needed to man a 24 hour CAP ahead of the fleet? In my experience it is something more than everything the RAAF has, and remember fleet air protection comes way down the list of priorities in the RAAF directive. Without air cover our fleet may well be targets. With air cover they are a very formidable offensive weapon.

Decisions Loom for JSF Program
 

http://www.asd-network.com/data_news/ID19130_150.jpg

(Washington, January 21, 2009) -- Decisions about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and F-22 Raptor aircraft programs are expected early in President Barack Obama's administration.

The F-35 program manager said Jan. 15 he sees strong support for the F-35 from the services, allied partners and, so far, on Capitol Hill.

Based on initial indications and inquiries from President Obama's administration, Maj. Gen. Charles R. Davis said he's confident the F-35 program begun during the Clinton administration will continue, even if budget restraints force scale-backs. General Davis made the comments here as keynote speaker at a Brookings Institution forum, "The Joint Strike Fighter and Beyond."

"Support throughout what appears to be three administrations has been relatively consistent," he said. "As of yet, we see no reason that that support is going to change. There is nobody on Capitol Hill who has said they want to cancel the Joint Strike Fighter."

That doesn't mean, he acknowledged, that the program to develop the next-generation strike aircraft weapon system for the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and allied countries might not get scaled back.

General Davis conceded he gets many questions about the F-35's cost -- expected to be $80 million to $90 million, depending on the variant -- and delivery schedule. And if fewer aircraft are built, each will cost even more.

"We lose two airplanes in our [fiscal 2009] appropriation, and every other one of the airplanes being bought in that year goes up $3 million," he said.

Another consideration, he said, is the cost of maintaining the aging legacy fleets the F-35 would replace if production is cut.

Earlier yesterday, William Lynn, President Obama's deputy defense secretary nominee, told the Senate Armed Services Committee it would be "very difficult" for the Defense Department to keep all its weapons systems development programs on track in tight budget times.

Mr. Lynn said at his confirmation hearing he'll push for a speedy Quadrennial Defense Review to set priorities through fiscal 2015, and expects the tactical aviation force modernization issue to play heavily in those considerations.

In written responses submitted to the committee, Mr. Lynn recognized the capabilities of both the F-22 and F-35 aircraft -- particularly when considered together.

"The F-22 is the most advanced tactical fighter in the world and, when combined with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, will provide the nation with the most capable mix of fifth-generation aircraft available for the foreseeable future," he said.

The F-22, to replace the legacy F-15 fleet, brings "tremendous capability" and is a critical element of the department's overall tactical aircraft force structure, Mr. Lynn said. The F-35, on the other hand, "will provide the foundation for the department's tactical air force structure."

The F-35 is the first aircraft to be developed within the Defense Department to meet the needs of three services, with three variants being developed simultaneously.

It will replace the legacy F-16 aircraft for the Air Force and the F/A-18 and AV-8 aircraft for the Navy and Marine Corps, as well as numerous legacy aircraft for the international partners participating in the F-35 program, Mr. Lynn told the Senate committee.

So the big question, he said, is determining the appropriate mix between the two aircraft. "If confirmed, I would expect this to be a key issue for the early strategy and program-budget reviews that the department will conduct over the next few months," he said.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has made no secret of his interest in reaching a decision and moving forward. During a June visit to Langley Air Force Base, Va., he told Airmen at Air Combat Command the new administration will have to determine the proper balance between the two aircraft.

"End the debate, make a decision and move on," Secretary Gates said. "'Start getting stuff built' is just so important.'"

Secretary Gates told the Airmen he had allocated enough money to keep the F-22 production lines open so the next administration could make its decision. He did not know at the time that he would be part of that decision-making process.

General Davis told the Brooking Institution audience Jan. 15, "support from all three services has never been stronger" for the F-35 program.

The Marine Corps, slated to receive the "B" variant that has a vertical-lift capability, has been "the most vocal, avid and fervent customer," General Davis said. The Marine Corps leadership expects the F-35 to become "the most effective air platform they have ever had," he said. "Looking at their history of how they have used airplanes, that is quite a bold statement."

Similarly, the Navy, to receive the aircraft's "C" variant designed for carrier launches, "has never been more supportive of the program," General Davis said. He noted that the Navy has been "fighting aggressively" to keep its aircraft carriers fully outfitted.

In addition, the Air Force recognizes the need for a complementary mix of aircraft to meet its mission requirements, he said. Its "A" variant of the F-35 will provide conventional take-off and landing capabilities.

Meanwhile, nine partner nations continue to support the program, with other countries considering signing on, too, General Davis said. The F-35 program represents the first time in military procurement history that the United States has partnered with another nation to build an aircraft from the ground up.

"We believe that the coalition that was put in place when they signed up for this program is probably stronger than ever now," General Davis said.

This partnership, he said, brings the concept of coalition integration to a whole new level. In addition to funding and developing the F-35 together, the partners plan to use a single system to sustain it -- sharing spares and repair capabilities to reduce costs.

"There is something very unique that Joint Strike Fighter offers that other programs I have seen do not," he said.

The big challenge for now, General Davis said, is to take advantage of the latest manufacturing processes to get the production line moving ahead.

"Even the manufacturing lines for some of our newest fighters, the F-22, started in the late '80s and early '90s," he said. "We have progressed almost two decades in manufacturing technology, but we have never really tried it out on a full-scale program."

Source : US Air Force

F/A22 is all you need
 

Although a fleet air arm would be great for prestige, we simply don't have a navy large enough to support a carrier. A carrier on it's own is a sitting duck, Consider our nearest potential threat has ordered Kilo class subs as well as Korean type 209s with vastly superior lethality.

In the air our fleet air arm we will be facing Sukoi and MiG 4th generation fighters that from all reports have far more energy (energy = life) than our 18's. JSF is only marginally superior and it was designed as an F-16 (3rd generation) replacement.

We need the Raptor and we need it now. You can scour the web for the 10-15 F15's vs raptor scenarios, in two words air dominance.

The US will give us raptors, it is a vastly superior platform that can cover distances the size of Australia.

Considering you need conventional JSF's, STOVL JSFs AND a fleet air arm this is beyond economics.

Raptors will keep the air firmly on Australia's side so Helo's and other tactical aircraft can operate without heavy losses.

You need to counter a 4th generation fighter threat with fifth generation dominance not a stop gap. JSF vs SU30's and MiG 25's would be marginal, considering our adversaries ability to field larger numbers we would not be able to secure air superiority which from every lesson in every war is vital.

Without the air our MBTs would be vulnerable as would our troops and our seaborne operations. We'd need vast amounts of extra resources to try and defend. If we concentrate our efforts on a carrier group imagine what the devastation would be if we lost her. There is no doubt in my mind that enemy would make that the first task on the to do list.

we need the Raptor and we need it now

Has the US agreed to the idea of supplying Raptors to ANY country? Even Australia?

Raptor
 

It is excellent to see such enthusiasm! There is merit in the argument as well! If the Raptor was available for sale, the long cry from the RAAF about their inability to retain trained fighter pilots would be solved! You'd only need a couple to man the few afforded. Also, training would be cheaper/easier because complicated formations/tactics would be a thing of the past...the Raptor up threat would probably be on his/her own!

This is always an emotive line. If carriers are such targets, how come so few have been sunk for real? The number is none since WW2? And if something moving around with loads of onboard self defence systems as well as associated systems on accompanying escorts is vulnerable, what of the completely undefended (by comparison) RAAF bases? Last time I checked they were in a fixed, well published position and had no CIWS or SAMs, and they are completely dependent on just a few Army owned Manpads! (and maybe they still have some old Rapier?)

The concept that the Navy just float around waiting to get sunk by submarines is frivolous. Ships can fight back either independently, or as a part of a fleet, and they can operate offensively. RAN also have submarines, and they also work with the fleet. Do a realistic threat reduction on how often these local hoards of Kilos and 209s get out to sea (let alone submerge) and the picture changes.

Cost is the issue and what the country can afford is the only real argument. Alongside capability and affordability, the other factor in favour of the F35 is the operational flexibility offered by the F35B.

A/C Carriers have not been used in high intensity, high threat combat since WWII. They have done a fine job serving as mobile bomber bases against third-world countries with no major air or naval threat and where air superiority is already largely established. A small fleet of shipbourne aircraft could provide a small outer layer air defence (in conjunction with AWDs) and CAIRS capability. I don't believe we need it, however.

We are only facing SU-27/30s in small numbers locally, with larger numbers further afield in Asia. We cannot possibly hope to match the air forces of China and India. Whatever the RAAF ends up with, I think they should focus on the logistical support and manning issues facing defence (perpetually). This is where it all comes crashing down. There is not much point in having 100 JSFs if there are only 70 pilots and only 50 A/C are servicable due to a shotage of maint. staff and spares.

Tojan, Australia's defence budget is about the same as India's, the only difference is we do not buy aircraft with palm oil!!!

Yes, I agree. They don't pay or feed their people as well either.
We will never match the IAFs 230 SU-30 MKI Flankers, 40 Mirage 2000s, 60 Mig-29s + the 30 odd Mig 29Ks and 14 Harriers in service with the Indian Navy.
Half of India is starving and they still buy large numbers of fighters. They also face a much larger and closer threat from china than we do.
Our govt has enough trouble trying to keep our health system afloat while maintaining the forces we have now. I just think it is probably a bit unrealistic for Australia.

I’m with back-door81

How about we address the obvious fundamental issues plaguing the ADF first, before we get all worked up over policing the region with sub-standard resources.

Unfortunately the only thing defending us at the moment is our geographical location - certainly not our obese combat ready 5000 or so personnel. Donuts be afraid!

Now might be a good time for the ADF to start a recruiting drive while there are makings of a loose workforce. Sign them up and then RETAIN them.

A very interesting debate here, with some good points on both sides. However as long as we have a Labour government in power, it's all rather academic really.
Yeah, that's a little embarrasing isn't it!:eek:
I'm not making excuses, but a this reflects what's going on in wider society. Plenty of non-military tubbies roaming (or should I say "waddling") the streets out there too.
Some of our younger recruits are sporting some serious "condition". I reckon I'm in better shape then some half my age.
However the ADF is hamstrung by all sorts of rules which essentially require it to pussy-foot around the issue, rather than call a spade a spade and make some of these people "shape up or ship out".

Not sure about the ADF or other Emergency services, but the CFA recruits need to be physically fit & are conducted through "beep" tests prior to being accepted for training.

Once you are in though, that's it, you can go to pasture all you want and believe me, they do!!!:eek:

Now, I'm no oil painting, but would it/could it be feasible to include a minimum fitness level for these types or organisations?

(Bit od a drift there...sorry)

Thread drift for clarification:
The ADF does have reasonably high fitness standards. The initial test is fairly easy but expectations (at least in the Army) increase as you progress through your training and are posted to your first unit.
There is a readyness standard (AIRN) that must be met annually and part of this is a basic fitness test appropriate to age. People who have been injured during their ADF service are usually granted a waiver from parts of this test that they are unable to complete, but the emphasis remains on rehabilitation.

Unfortunately, people who have allowed their lifestyle to ruin their health (too much KFC) have also managed to be granted waivers and seem never to recover:rolleyes:. One member of my former Sqn failed his fitness test and was not allowed to deploy to Timor on my rotation as a private, gained a waiver, was promoted and deployed to the MEAO as a corporal. The same person is now a WO2 and has not passed the fitness test in ten years!
End thread drift.

Point of clarification the STOVL F35 would probably not be suitable for the projected RAN ships. The VTOL F35 is needed. The thread does not seem to differentiate between the two.
On another matter, in the Falklands, the Argentinan aircraft carrier was a non event due to the presence of RN nuclear submarines.

Further point of clarification - there is no "VTOL" F-35, the STOVL is the Short Take Off & Vertical Landing variant which is actually capable of vertical take offs.

RAAF Raptor Now
 

Your point is what I mean, no you can't just waltz up and sink a carrier because of the destroyer screen etc, You have to tie up vast amounts of hardware just to protect the carrier.

Ask around and you'll hear about how our Collins has sunk the USA's pacific fleet carrier more than once. You may only be able to sink the carrier 5% of the time, but name a country that would carry that risk?

I remember last year F/A22 was not only a possibility it was offered to Australia. We have received much tech in advance of Japan and other nations because of how well we are trusted by the USA.

Our Collins is a case in point, we received Raytheon’s: CCS AN/BYG-1 v8 CCS (Combat Control System) from the US Navy’s SSN-744 Virginia Class submarines for our Thales sonar array.

I didn't even think about pilot retention for F/A22 but that's a fantastic observation, pilots would stay for the Raptor probably fly for free if it came to a pinch! It outclasses all others by a significant margin, that's why it is considered a fifth generation fighter where eurofighter, SU30 and MiG 29 is considered 4th gen. JSF is around 4.5, you can't argue that JSF is far better than the F22 it simply is not

Account of Red Flag exercise score 144-0 (rumoured) maybe 144-1 with unrealistic regenration parameters. I know it may be just propaganda, but there is much evidence to suggest that these kill ratios are realistic for Raptor. These figures were obtained vs F-16's and F-15's. Not F-18 superduds, real combat fighters like F-15's that have never been downed in real combat (air superiority versions), Hell 15's have landed with 1 wing shot off and scored 104-0 in real combat (half by Israel). YET they can't even scratch a Raptor in exercises.

F-22 near perfect in combat exercises - Air Force News, news from Iraq - Air Force Times

Sorry but i guess you can see I really disagree with the whole F-18 thing, not a decent stopgap vs MiG 29. A wasted opportunity when we had the coin to get better. Now we might not but F22 is still in the matrix.

Underestimating your enemy's capability is a classic mistake, i.e they have Kilos and are getting 209s but can't operate/maintain them. You could say the same about RAN or the RAAF. You could say the Collins is a dud (I don't think so, just my humble opinion) You could say we haven't got the skill base to keep our F-18 Superduds or Helos in the air, but you could also be wrong.

Oh yeah if Kilos and 209s aren't regarded as a real threat why are we acquiring more subs in response?

Subs are deadly lethal and we are very vulnerable to a blockade being an island, What deters that is our very capable fleet of sudden, hidden undetected death lurking under the surface of our sovereign coast (swelling with national pride). It's worth protecting and it's worth having sharp teeth in the sea, air and on the land. Even our current administration knows that the olive branch is held in a chain mail fist, no peace without a credible armed force.

We need a better land army (if what you guys say is true about our soldiers), we deserve and will get M1 Abrahms, there can never be enough subs and we need Raptor.