View Poll Results: AIR6000 - what's your choice?
F15E Strike Eagle
40
18.69%
F35 JSF
57
26.64%
F22 Raptor
40
18.69%
F18 E/F Super Hornet
23
10.75%
Typhoon / Rafale / F16 / other...
54
25.23%
Voters: 214. This poll is closed
$300 million on JSF... are they MAD ?!?
Thread Starter
$300 million on JSF... are they MAD ?!?
Apart from the (expected) woefully innacurate media reports on Australia "buying" the JSF, is anyone else amazed/disturbed by the decision to participate as a "developmental partner" (read: 'impotent bystander') on the F35???
To summarise, Australia has commited a small fortune to an aircraft not flying (I'm sorry but 'flyoff' prototypes don't count) on the premise that if we do decide to purchase we may save some money down track.
(I'm reminded of Milo Minderbinder in Catch-22 with his foolproof plan of having the Germans pay him to bomb his own airfield as a cost saving measure!)
How are the AIR6000 procurement team expected to be independent arbiters now?
The only positive I can foresee is that Aus may be forced to procure an 'off the shelf' aircraft to fill the 10+ year gap prior to AIR6000's arrival. Of course, we all know that the F35 WON'T have cost blowouts or be obsolete by the time it enters service...
To summarise, Australia has commited a small fortune to an aircraft not flying (I'm sorry but 'flyoff' prototypes don't count) on the premise that if we do decide to purchase we may save some money down track.
(I'm reminded of Milo Minderbinder in Catch-22 with his foolproof plan of having the Germans pay him to bomb his own airfield as a cost saving measure!)
How are the AIR6000 procurement team expected to be independent arbiters now?
The only positive I can foresee is that Aus may be forced to procure an 'off the shelf' aircraft to fill the 10+ year gap prior to AIR6000's arrival. Of course, we all know that the F35 WON'T have cost blowouts or be obsolete by the time it enters service...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: here and there
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why doesn't Australia consider a Russian type and upgrade it with western avionics?
Gotta be cheaper overall whilst still capable...
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/home.htm
http://www.migavia.ru/mig31.htm
Gotta be cheaper overall whilst still capable...
http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/home.htm
http://www.migavia.ru/mig31.htm
Last edited by The Crimson Fruitbat; 29th Jun 2002 at 07:24.
TCF,
not as feasible as you might imagine. Probably achievable in the 80's/90's when the technology was all in engines, airframes and weapons.
The next generation is all about software and systems integration. Its hard enough and costly enough upgrading current F18 and F111 (and somewhat unsuccessfully in the case of the latter) with new western avionics/software, let alone soviet airframes with western systems.
We cannot afford to go it alone with a unique system, we must have commonality with the US.
not as feasible as you might imagine. Probably achievable in the 80's/90's when the technology was all in engines, airframes and weapons.
The next generation is all about software and systems integration. Its hard enough and costly enough upgrading current F18 and F111 (and somewhat unsuccessfully in the case of the latter) with new western avionics/software, let alone soviet airframes with western systems.
We cannot afford to go it alone with a unique system, we must have commonality with the US.
Thread Starter
$300 mil
Ftrplt,
I know that $300 mil is a drop in the ocean compared to the potential budget of $12 BILLION for AIR6000, but it's still a lot of money nonetheless. What exactly are we getting for our money? It sounds a lot like a bag of magic beans to me.
$300 mil now would equate to 3 airframes of any of the world's latest 4th generation fighters that are proven and flying. Australia's track record of capital acquisitions is pretty woeful - our penchant for buying 'A-models' (or worse still: 'paper aeroplanes') has resulted in some spectacular IOC date & cost blowouts. Why haven't we learned our lesson?
Here's a crazy thought: How much money have we got & what do current airframes cost?
I know that $300 mil is a drop in the ocean compared to the potential budget of $12 BILLION for AIR6000, but it's still a lot of money nonetheless. What exactly are we getting for our money? It sounds a lot like a bag of magic beans to me.
$300 mil now would equate to 3 airframes of any of the world's latest 4th generation fighters that are proven and flying. Australia's track record of capital acquisitions is pretty woeful - our penchant for buying 'A-models' (or worse still: 'paper aeroplanes') has resulted in some spectacular IOC date & cost blowouts. Why haven't we learned our lesson?
Here's a crazy thought: How much money have we got & what do current airframes cost?
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weeell... post-NZ A4 debacle, another Commonwealth member is decommissioning aircraft which might do - second hand but with decent radar and multi-targetting, combat proven in an early incarnation and still newer than F-111.
Just like NZ they still seem to need the aircraft but are still bent on dumping it...
Sea Harrier FA2 thread [Mil Aircrew]
Just like NZ they still seem to need the aircraft but are still bent on dumping it...
Sea Harrier FA2 thread [Mil Aircrew]
Booger,
despite the detailed technical arguements, the decision is one of being in a partnership of protection in a globalised world. We have to choose which gang we will ally with, be supported by, trade with, leverage off and gain influence from.
The $300M is 'partner' money. Our masters have decided that furture protection and participation in conflict will require this partnership, since we are - economically- too small to afford to stand alone. Also, we are unlikely to apply this weapon system alone. By plugging into the deal at this stage it is showing that we will be founding partners with the project, that we will support the yanks in their protectionist principles, and they will (in principle) support us in many regional issues. Hence we can justify the weapon because it brings the yanks into our protectionist policies. The kiwi government on the other hand has dropped the ball by getting rid of its combat airforce, and in doing so signalled a resignation of it's influence - it cannot leverage economically with with an offer of combat air support. Economically, they have pulled out the plug to save their pennies, but in world terms they are powerless to kick butt, even in their backyard.
On the technical side, he who has the superior air toys, logistics, intel and economic horsepower now wins the airwar, despite huge armies. There is no doubt the JSF will be a good machine, and the logistic support base of the US industry will swing behind it, making contenders harder to support. If we cannot patch seamlessly with the yank battlespace operation, feed off their logistics and support their intents and goals in the future, they will not be genuinely interested (like the Kiwis now). And they clearly have the industry and the toys. All the signals and support from our govt re sept 11 / Afganistan / Howards trade speech to US leaders...etc -display this policy now.
It's all about power. We will be a bit like a potential USAF det-A.
despite the detailed technical arguements, the decision is one of being in a partnership of protection in a globalised world. We have to choose which gang we will ally with, be supported by, trade with, leverage off and gain influence from.
The $300M is 'partner' money. Our masters have decided that furture protection and participation in conflict will require this partnership, since we are - economically- too small to afford to stand alone. Also, we are unlikely to apply this weapon system alone. By plugging into the deal at this stage it is showing that we will be founding partners with the project, that we will support the yanks in their protectionist principles, and they will (in principle) support us in many regional issues. Hence we can justify the weapon because it brings the yanks into our protectionist policies. The kiwi government on the other hand has dropped the ball by getting rid of its combat airforce, and in doing so signalled a resignation of it's influence - it cannot leverage economically with with an offer of combat air support. Economically, they have pulled out the plug to save their pennies, but in world terms they are powerless to kick butt, even in their backyard.
On the technical side, he who has the superior air toys, logistics, intel and economic horsepower now wins the airwar, despite huge armies. There is no doubt the JSF will be a good machine, and the logistic support base of the US industry will swing behind it, making contenders harder to support. If we cannot patch seamlessly with the yank battlespace operation, feed off their logistics and support their intents and goals in the future, they will not be genuinely interested (like the Kiwis now). And they clearly have the industry and the toys. All the signals and support from our govt re sept 11 / Afganistan / Howards trade speech to US leaders...etc -display this policy now.
It's all about power. We will be a bit like a potential USAF det-A.
Last edited by Roller Merlin; 29th Jun 2002 at 01:51.
It's defintely one of the DUMBEST things I've seen the gevernment do .... um, ever.
The SU-37 Super Flanker is the beast we need. Nearly the speed of the F-111, more range, far more manouverable
The SU-37 Super Flanker is the beast we need. Nearly the speed of the F-111, more range, far more manouverable
Roller Merlin ,
If the rationale for the JFS decision is 'teaming' with our allies then why did the Air87 decision go to the French (Eurocopter Tiger)? There were TWO credible US contenders and plenty of crew room discussion that alignment with the US logistics (and politics) system would prevail.
Perhaps the Air 6000 team are doing some detailed technical research too?
BTW, a look back in time reveals some similar criticism of the F111 acquisition; maybe the JSF will be as successful?
Good username!
Gibbo
If the rationale for the JFS decision is 'teaming' with our allies then why did the Air87 decision go to the French (Eurocopter Tiger)? There were TWO credible US contenders and plenty of crew room discussion that alignment with the US logistics (and politics) system would prevail.
Perhaps the Air 6000 team are doing some detailed technical research too?
BTW, a look back in time reveals some similar criticism of the F111 acquisition; maybe the JSF will be as successful?
Good username!
Gibbo
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vietnam
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet to be built?
Then what the hell is that thing flying around on TV???
I thought the F-15 was on the cards at the last airshow. The US pulled out all stops to "show it off" and try to sell some.
I guess it didn't work.
Then what the hell is that thing flying around on TV???
I thought the F-15 was on the cards at the last airshow. The US pulled out all stops to "show it off" and try to sell some.
I guess it didn't work.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct - it is 'yet to be built'
Sorry "Hmmm...", but Booger is right:
but what you see 'flying around' on TV is not the JSF. It is merely one of the Lockheed-Martin JSF prototypes that won the fly-off for the JSF program against the Boeing submission. It has a looong way to go before being a commercially viable production aircraft.
Some other aircraft 'flying around' that have yet to obtain Initial Operational Capability (IOC):
F22 Raptor IOC ~ 2005 (YF-22 first flew around 1996?)
Eurofighter [version 1] IOC ~ 2006 (prototype flew ~ 1998?)
Rafale IOC ~2003 (prototype flew ~ 1995?)
There's a big difference between an airframe that flies and an airframe that fights (or performs it's intended role in the case of non-fighter types).
but what you see 'flying around' on TV is not the JSF. It is merely one of the Lockheed-Martin JSF prototypes that won the fly-off for the JSF program against the Boeing submission. It has a looong way to go before being a commercially viable production aircraft.
Some other aircraft 'flying around' that have yet to obtain Initial Operational Capability (IOC):
F22 Raptor IOC ~ 2005 (YF-22 first flew around 1996?)
Eurofighter [version 1] IOC ~ 2006 (prototype flew ~ 1998?)
Rafale IOC ~2003 (prototype flew ~ 1995?)
There's a big difference between an airframe that flies and an airframe that fights (or performs it's intended role in the case of non-fighter types).
Thread Starter
USAF Det-A
Roller Merlin,
I agree entirely, you are preaching to the converted re: the RAAF's (and Australia's) best option being to "hitch it's wagon" to the US Defence juggernaut.
My bone of contention is our insistence on completing more & more complex "capability requirement studies". We are becoming too smart for our own good. I realise that bureacracy is an inevitible part of our capital acquisition processes, but do we really need to incorporate studies that ask: "an aircraft could do this job but would we be better served by purchasing some sort of gerbil powered UCAV utilising antigrav thruster technology integrated with particle beam stand-off weaponary?"
Jokes aside, the point is modern defence capital acquisitions are probably the second most expensive item in our nations budget (behind welfare I'm guessing). Our recent history has us ordering platforms that were not mature in their development or employment e.g. Collins, J-models, Anzacs, SeaSprites, the list goes on & on... Obtaining a "state of the art" military platform is impossible to achieve; the law of computer development coupled with the time required to iron out any platform deficiencies means that when equipment is fielded it is already obsolete. The benefit of choosing unproven or immature platforms is far outweighed by the risks of delayed IOC, cost over-runs and associated stop-gap replacement costs to maintain combat effectiveness whilst we await the arrival of the 'magic bullet'.
The RAAF (& ADF) would be better served by purchasing/leasing current, proven, viable and available airframes that exist today.
The beauty of this is we can still be "USAF Det-A" and when/if JSF matures (at least 10 years from now) we could still avail ourselves of it...
I agree entirely, you are preaching to the converted re: the RAAF's (and Australia's) best option being to "hitch it's wagon" to the US Defence juggernaut.
My bone of contention is our insistence on completing more & more complex "capability requirement studies". We are becoming too smart for our own good. I realise that bureacracy is an inevitible part of our capital acquisition processes, but do we really need to incorporate studies that ask: "an aircraft could do this job but would we be better served by purchasing some sort of gerbil powered UCAV utilising antigrav thruster technology integrated with particle beam stand-off weaponary?"
Jokes aside, the point is modern defence capital acquisitions are probably the second most expensive item in our nations budget (behind welfare I'm guessing). Our recent history has us ordering platforms that were not mature in their development or employment e.g. Collins, J-models, Anzacs, SeaSprites, the list goes on & on... Obtaining a "state of the art" military platform is impossible to achieve; the law of computer development coupled with the time required to iron out any platform deficiencies means that when equipment is fielded it is already obsolete. The benefit of choosing unproven or immature platforms is far outweighed by the risks of delayed IOC, cost over-runs and associated stop-gap replacement costs to maintain combat effectiveness whilst we await the arrival of the 'magic bullet'.
The RAAF (& ADF) would be better served by purchasing/leasing current, proven, viable and available airframes that exist today.
The beauty of this is we can still be "USAF Det-A" and when/if JSF matures (at least 10 years from now) we could still avail ourselves of it...
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see the problem as that if you want to have "State of the art" equipment you need to get on at an early Stage. The J-model acquistion had it's teething problems (don't all new aircraft, have a look at the F111 acquisition). However it has come good. Also lets not forget , if you buy off the plans , just like houses, you get a good discount. Have a look at the current price for purchasing J models.
Scrap the $300 million and buy 6 A400's
Scrap the $300 million and buy 6 A400's
’Why did the Air87 decision go to the French (Eurocopter Tiger)? ‘
Good question Gibbo! Perhaps someone better qualified than I could provide the facts regarding the Tiger buy, however my guestimate is: just a few aircraft required + just a few dollars available + need relatively soon = buy the cheapest one that can do the job. Besides, the ARA commanders will tell you that a helo is just another means of getting the men onto the ground! Conversely, the ADF wants 100 JSF airframes, and that is one hell of a huge buy. But it looks better being 10 years away (Just like my mortgage....hell what a lot of money...costs a lot to set up too, but it looks better over 20 years!).
’The RAAF (& ADF) would be better served by purchasing/leasing current, proven, viable and available airframes that exist today. ‘
Booger,
the ADF already owns the aircraft it wants for the next 7-10 years, and the Hornet upgrade (now in progress) will see it through this time. All defence costings now are done on a whole-of-life system management basis, so if you get rid of the asset early and lease something else you blow the depreciation a and usage budget in a big way with all associated projects (AAMRAM, HUG,...etc) becoming worthless! Even a leased combat machine needs an enormous ADF infrastructure to maintain the system. Besides, the swish airframes built today will be like Beta video recorders and aching for major systems upgrades by the time the open-system JSF comes on line. And if a UCAV can do the job instead of JSF then the yanks would not be committing to 2500 or so airframes. (But wait, perhaps the JSF system will be such that it could be used as a UCAV...just hold that thought!!!)
My well picked friend, you are obviously familiar with the rampant bureaucracy in the 'grey sponge' that justifies so many defense jobs with pithy studies and reviews that most worthy Ppruners could manage in a heatbeat. If these studies finally bubble to the surface in the form of an endorsed project, they often get hammered and modified by the political whims of the goverment - and the ADF doesn't get what it desired anyway. One of the best things about this JSF bit is, as you pointed out, it is likely to be an off-the-shelf buy to fit the US battlesystem (avoiding political footballs such as vote-buying industry support, locally-sourced systems....etc) and the public has 10 years to get used to the idea of spending the cash. With JSF the banker and bully on the block has laid down his cash already, the project will happen, and it's a matter of get on the train now or miss out. Also, in 5-8 years the political pundits will be afraid to pull out the plug because so much will have been invested by then.
RM
Good question Gibbo! Perhaps someone better qualified than I could provide the facts regarding the Tiger buy, however my guestimate is: just a few aircraft required + just a few dollars available + need relatively soon = buy the cheapest one that can do the job. Besides, the ARA commanders will tell you that a helo is just another means of getting the men onto the ground! Conversely, the ADF wants 100 JSF airframes, and that is one hell of a huge buy. But it looks better being 10 years away (Just like my mortgage....hell what a lot of money...costs a lot to set up too, but it looks better over 20 years!).
’The RAAF (& ADF) would be better served by purchasing/leasing current, proven, viable and available airframes that exist today. ‘
Booger,
the ADF already owns the aircraft it wants for the next 7-10 years, and the Hornet upgrade (now in progress) will see it through this time. All defence costings now are done on a whole-of-life system management basis, so if you get rid of the asset early and lease something else you blow the depreciation a and usage budget in a big way with all associated projects (AAMRAM, HUG,...etc) becoming worthless! Even a leased combat machine needs an enormous ADF infrastructure to maintain the system. Besides, the swish airframes built today will be like Beta video recorders and aching for major systems upgrades by the time the open-system JSF comes on line. And if a UCAV can do the job instead of JSF then the yanks would not be committing to 2500 or so airframes. (But wait, perhaps the JSF system will be such that it could be used as a UCAV...just hold that thought!!!)
My well picked friend, you are obviously familiar with the rampant bureaucracy in the 'grey sponge' that justifies so many defense jobs with pithy studies and reviews that most worthy Ppruners could manage in a heatbeat. If these studies finally bubble to the surface in the form of an endorsed project, they often get hammered and modified by the political whims of the goverment - and the ADF doesn't get what it desired anyway. One of the best things about this JSF bit is, as you pointed out, it is likely to be an off-the-shelf buy to fit the US battlesystem (avoiding political footballs such as vote-buying industry support, locally-sourced systems....etc) and the public has 10 years to get used to the idea of spending the cash. With JSF the banker and bully on the block has laid down his cash already, the project will happen, and it's a matter of get on the train now or miss out. Also, in 5-8 years the political pundits will be afraid to pull out the plug because so much will have been invested by then.
RM
Last edited by Roller Merlin; 29th Jun 2002 at 11:25.
You are right Roller Merlin,
the scale is different, but the concept isn't really.
The Tiger is the newest of the Air87 contenders (assuming that you don't count the Whiskey Cobra from Bell as new, but an extension of the line). The Apache is well established, even old. I don't see the speed of acquisition as being relevant.
As for troop delivery; it would be a terribly slow assault ferrying the guys on at a time in the tandem seat of an Armed Recce Helicopter.
The Air 87 programme is listed in the order of 1.2 billion and I believe was aimed at acquiring between 24 and 30 airframes (although my info may be out of date on the numbers)
It will be very interesting to see where we end up in terms of fighter (and bomber/recce) capability. I have to say though that IMHO the ADF does OK at acquisition; it is a very complex game and we (Aust) are pretty well equipped. It could always be better, but what couldn't?
Gibbo
the scale is different, but the concept isn't really.
The Tiger is the newest of the Air87 contenders (assuming that you don't count the Whiskey Cobra from Bell as new, but an extension of the line). The Apache is well established, even old. I don't see the speed of acquisition as being relevant.
As for troop delivery; it would be a terribly slow assault ferrying the guys on at a time in the tandem seat of an Armed Recce Helicopter.
The Air 87 programme is listed in the order of 1.2 billion and I believe was aimed at acquiring between 24 and 30 airframes (although my info may be out of date on the numbers)
It will be very interesting to see where we end up in terms of fighter (and bomber/recce) capability. I have to say though that IMHO the ADF does OK at acquisition; it is a very complex game and we (Aust) are pretty well equipped. It could always be better, but what couldn't?
Gibbo
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Papua New Guinea
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im just wondering what will happen when the next election comes around. This is a big ticket item and Labor's still smarting over the submarine contract dramas, so why wouldnt they use this as an election issue out of sheer spite and promise a royal commision and a 'review' should they be voted in just to raise their profile in the defense debate? They could use NZ as a precedent to say the huge expense isnt necessary. How about cancelling the deal and cut our losses and buy UCAV's? I can hear the arguements now.
Besides being available for pictures in the RAAF news, and providing some training for P3s, why does Australia have a fighter force? They haven't the range to get to any bad guys, and the bad guys don't have the range to get to anything important (if I remember correctly there is a big sea gap around Oz!).
Surely a nice cruise missle (Sub launched of course!) to go out and touch people, and a nice kick arse gunship helo would be a better investment.
Best the RAAF keeps to what it does well, Airline training
Surely a nice cruise missle (Sub launched of course!) to go out and touch people, and a nice kick arse gunship helo would be a better investment.
Best the RAAF keeps to what it does well, Airline training
A contact of mine who is associated with a company that has been selected to support the JSF if it does enter service with the ADF said that this aircraft is going to be the best value for money platform available at the right time to replace the F111/F18. It is being built using the best components that provide significant operational capability at the best price over the life of the aircraft type ie the aircraft is being built to a price so there shouldn't be any nasty surprises for the government after contracts have been signed.