Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

RAAF F-35 delayed purchase?

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

RAAF F-35 delayed purchase?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 4th May 2012, 03:23
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Eden Valley
Posts: 2,153
Received 92 Likes on 41 Posts
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.
Gnadenburg is offline  
Old 4th May 2012, 03:25
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
500N is offline  
Old 4th May 2012, 08:54
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
Flyingblind is offline  
Old 4th May 2012, 11:25
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 941
Received 26 Likes on 10 Posts
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
ozbiggles is offline  
Old 6th May 2012, 09:22
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
tsk tsk

you don't believe Julia??????/
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 9th May 2012, 03:23
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 26
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
ol-mate is offline  
Old 9th May 2012, 03:56
  #27 (permalink)  

Evertonian
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: #3117# Ppruner of the Year Nominee 2005
Posts: 12,485
Received 101 Likes on 58 Posts
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?

Buster Hyman is offline  
Old 9th May 2012, 05:06
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Andu is offline  
Old 9th May 2012, 05:10
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"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.
500N is offline  
Old 9th May 2012, 05:21
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Romulus is offline  
Old 9th May 2012, 08:51
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Flyingblind is offline  
Old 9th May 2012, 09:16
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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!!!!
Captain Sand Dune is offline  
Old 9th May 2012, 17:41
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
500N is offline  
Old 10th May 2012, 00:51
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
FoxtrotAlpha18 is offline  
Old 10th May 2012, 01:04
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
500N is offline  
Old 10th May 2012, 01:19
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Eden Valley
Posts: 2,153
Received 92 Likes on 41 Posts
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.
Gnadenburg is offline  
Old 10th May 2012, 01:52
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
FoxtrotAlpha18 is offline  
Old 10th May 2012, 05:12
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Eden Valley
Posts: 2,153
Received 92 Likes on 41 Posts
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 is offline  
Old 10th May 2012, 05:50
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Eden Valley
Posts: 2,153
Received 92 Likes on 41 Posts
So it starts. We need 100 x JSF and 12 x Growlers. Nice!

'Second best ... gets you killed': Airforce Chief wants more JSFs

Growler could prove a winner: RAAF chief
Gnadenburg is offline  
Old 10th May 2012, 08:53
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
Heathrow Harry is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.