F-35: wise spending of our dollars?
Latest price-tag of our inbound F-35 fighter jets is 119.5M AUD per airframe with 72 on firm with 28 optioned; PM stated 17B budgeted with all-up purchase and running costs 24B AUD. Canada has purchased our F-18 “Classics”. We are a nation of 24M people, geographically sound with respect to genuine threat. Bearing in mind past disastrous Defence spend (Collins Class Submarine / RAN Helicopter), are we allowing our government to bury the struggling Australian tax payer even further into misery with these “nice to have” big power nation type purchases? |
Italy, UK, Netherlands, Norway, Japan, Turkey and Israel are also F-35 operators. I don't think Australia is stretching beyond it's means to join that exclusive club.
|
Originally Posted by Yournamehere
(Post 10201985)
Anecdotally, the F-111 suffered strikingly similar set backs and criticisms leading up to its entry into service and look how that panned out.
Great airshow crowd pleaser though. |
Originally Posted by junior.VH-LFA
(Post 10201978)
Italy, UK, Netherlands, Norway, Japan, Turkey and Israel are also F-35 operators. I don't think Australia is stretching beyond it's means to join that exclusive club.
I’d be interested to see where this order puts us. |
So what is the alternative to the F-35? The Yanks won't let anyone else have the F-22 and you buy a European aircraft with all the political strings attached about where you can use it. i.e. the French wouldn't provide spares for the Mirage if it was used in Vietnam. If we can offset the cost of the F-35s by sending old F-18s to Canada then thats a great deal.
|
To broaden the scope slightly. I’d suggest that given the lead in time it takes for the development of such technology, is there a risk here that the “manned fighter jet” is soon to be redundant? A serious question given this degree of “investment”. |
Originally Posted by Lookleft
(Post 10201995)
So what is the alternative to the F-35? The Yanks won't let anyone else have the F-22 and you buy a European aircraft with all the political strings attached about where you can use it. i.e. the French wouldn't provide spares for the Mirage if it was used in Vietnam. If we can offset the cost of the F-35s by sending old F-18s to Canada then thats a great deal.
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? |
Originally Posted by FOI
(Post 10202000)
“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? Given your tone, no amount of reasoned argument is going to work on someone who clearly doesn't see a need for defence spending. Suffice to say, history is perhaps the greatest teacher here and others thankfully know better. |
Why did we not just extend the F-18 Super Hornet order proportionately to our needs? Clearly a highly versatile platform (with two engines) that we already have significant IP and investment. |
The Super Hornet was only purchased to fill in for the F-111 that was retired earlier than planned. If you think that the RAAF is only going to be involved in wars that only require strike missions against poorly equipped caliphates then your argument is valid. If the potential exists for peer to peer wars against states equipped with 5th gen fighters then equipping the RAAF with more Hornets is equivalent to using the Wirraway as a frontline fighter in 1941.
|
|
Originally Posted by FOI
(Post 10202020)
Why did we not just extend the F-18 Super Hornet order proportionately to our needs? |
Originally Posted by gulliBell
(Post 10202115)
Exactly. There's going to be a bit of hand-wringing when the first F35 goes splat after its only engine goes kaboom. There will be loses due to engine failure, that wouldn't happen in a Super Hornet, for sure.
Double ejection if airborne. |
Originally Posted by ftrplt
(Post 10202118)
.. if airborne.
How owe many of our Hornets have we lost to mechanical failure? *disclaimer* I already know the answer. :8 ...and how many have landed on one engine? I dont know know that one. :) |
Originally Posted by ruprecht
(Post 10202146)
How owe many of our Hornets have we lost to mechanical failure? |
Better spent on cool jets rather than polli pay increases and consultancy fees. but seriously? Its a generational step and the classics are old, end of life. The decisions been made. At least, for a country with a tiny defence force, we have spent the money on “5th Generation” capabilities. now if we only had fuel and missiles should a conflict erupt. 🙄 |
Hasn’t engine technology improved significantly from the early ‘80s? If we can now carry the same pax on two that we used to on four I presume that similarly the reliability and efficiency of combat aircraft engines has rendered the ‘must have two engines’ argument obsolete? How many Hawks have we lost due to a failure of their one engine? How many PC9s? Not claiming anything, just wondering. |
Originally Posted by Keg
(Post 10202236)
Hasn’t engine technology improved significantly from the early ‘80s? If we can now carry the same pax on two that we used to on four I presume that similarly the reliability and efficiency of combat aircraft engines has rendered the ‘must have two engines’ argument obsolete? How many Hawks have we lost due to a failure of their one engine? How many PC9s? Not claiming anything, just wondering. Problem is while an engine failure on a training aircraft is unacceptable, however is a manageable risk. An engine failure on a combat aircraft over enemy territory....that’s another question. |
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) |
Must be why no-one operates the F16 then .oh wait there......
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 20:28. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.