PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   RAAF F-35 delayed purchase? (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/484355-raaf-f-35-delayed-purchase.html)

Buster Hyman 3rd May 2012 05:17

RAAF F-35 delayed purchase?
 
Military funding takes a direct hit

Money's dried up from the endless (open) pit has it? Where does that leave us considering the F111's are gone? Will the Super Hornets do?

500N 3rd May 2012 05:30

Buster

You beat me to it.

It will be interesting to read in more detail in
The Australian on the weekend and the analysis.

.

Jethro Gibbs 3rd May 2012 06:07

Also hearing that the Marand Aerostructures faculty that was to be built at Lara near Geelong with a lot of government $$$$$$$$ may have been canned as well they were going to build a lot of parts.

Buster Hyman 3rd May 2012 06:09

Do I win a prize 500N? :p

Just potential jobs in Victoria lost, not actual Jethro. I'm sure some polly will mention it. :rolleyes:

Zulk 3rd May 2012 06:17

An article by Jim Molan: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...6JDqlv_OI-AT4Q

Captain Sand Dune 3rd May 2012 07:00

However....

The Federal Government will pay families up to $300 a week to temporarily house asylum seekers in their homes to help deal with the increasing flood of arrivals.
With the Immigration Department now facing a potential shortage of community housing to accommodate detainees who are being released into the community, the Government has turned to householders for help.
Under a plan slated to start next month, the Government will seek to access the 5000 homes registered under the privately run Australian Homestay Network (AHN) to host asylum seekers released from detention on bridging visas.
AHN was originally established to provide short-term private home accommodation and board for international students.
The organisation, which first approached the Federal Government with the plan last year, began writing to its national client base three weeks ago seeking applications from home owners to house asylum seekers.
The Immigration Department confirmed it would pay for security vetting and training for families which want to take up the offer.
It will also pay a weekly stipend of between $220 and $300 to families to cover food and board for detainees.
Almost 1000 detainees have been released into the community over the past two months, since the Government's change of policy last year to ease pressure on detention centres.
The high cost of the Community Placement Network plan is expected to be allocated from the existing detention centre funding, which will be revealed in next week's Budget.
The AHN, which was set up to accommodate international students for short periods in family homes, claimed the initial period of housing for asylum seekers would be for six weeks, but could be extended.
"The Community Placement Network is an initiative designed to provide short-term accommodation (for) eligible asylum seekers while they independently source longer term sustainable accommodation in the community," AHN executive chairman David Bycroft said.
"The CPN is for people interested in assisting asylum seekers to live in the community on a bridging visa while awaiting the resolution of their immigration status. It is not for people interested in international student hosting."
The Refugee Council of Australia has backed the plan, claiming it would allow more people to be released from detention and live in the community while their applications were processed.
"Mandatory detention makes people mentally ill and is expensive," the council's CEO Paul Power said.
Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison slammed the plan, claiming it confirmed the Government had reached the point of desperation: "Labor's decision to house adult male asylum seekers released on bridging visas in the spare rooms of Australian families is a desperate, reckless policy from a government that has lost control.
"When Australians expressed concern about rising costs of living, this was not an invitation for Julia Gillard to supplement household incomes by offering to pay the rent on your spare room or granny flat for asylum seekers.
"The fact Australian families are now being asked to house asylum seekers who have arrived illegally by boat, including those whose claims have been rejected, shows just how desperate Labor have become over their failed border protection policies which have seen almost 17,000 people now arrive on 301 boats."
A spokesman for Immigration Minister Chris Bowen, said: "This is yet another cheap shot from the Coalition, who like to demonise asylum seeker issues."
Priorities, eh?

500N 3rd May 2012 07:03

Captain Sand Dune.
You weren't the only one to notice that in the same newspaper.

And yesterday I read about the opposition wouldn't cut work
for the dole scheme money - if you can call it work for the dole !!!

Gnadenburg 3rd May 2012 09:20

And give funding priority to the Navy? What a joke, there's the service that has failed to deliver anything near bang for buck.

500N 3rd May 2012 10:02

Are you referring to the $100 million allocated to the design of the new sub
or something along those lines ?

I did raise my eyebrows about that and that we seem to be going down
the same route we did all those years ago with the sub corp.

Gnadenburg 3rd May 2012 11:09

Yes, the Government appears to be slashing the Defense budget, yet at the same time, talking up these mythical, giant conventional submarines. It is smoke and mirrors.

I think the RAAF has gambled and lost on JSF. It won't get its 100 aircraft fleet. If it had opted for a hi-lo mix, I think those numbers were achievable.

L J R 3rd May 2012 11:37

I also noted in Julia's speech today, that she said Australia would be 'ONE' of the most capable defence forces in our region......Well Julia, you actually need to be 'THE' most capable to be credible at first contact with the enemy!

Buster Hyman 3rd May 2012 12:53

I'm no capability expert, but I was trying to explain the valu of artillery to someone today. In the end, I just used Long Tan as an analogy. Without artillery, and bloody good artillerymen, that could have been a very different outcome.

flyinkiwi 3rd May 2012 21:19

Australia to push back F-35 decision by two years

Looks like the Govt are hedging again to see which way the axe will fall. Plenty of spin coming from Canberra.

500N 3rd May 2012 21:27

Plenty of spin and no CDF at the announcement - I saw it said that the pollies had by passed the heads of defence.

Agree re why Navy when they haven't delivered.

Buster
A very good analogy.

jindabyne 3rd May 2012 21:36


I saw it said that the pollies had by passed the heads of defence.
Again? This happened when I was in Canberra doing Typhoon things some years ago. Crazy. But then it's the same elsewhere.

500N 3rd May 2012 21:49

I see the Australian has a few articles already.

One on the subs, they have made the decision on 12 and they will be built in Adelaide but haven't decided on which design.

So jobs in SA over saving money on just buying them already made somewhere else at a cheaper price !

Let's pray that the next 12 are better than the last 12.

Andu 4th May 2012 00:21


Without artillery, and bloody good artillerymen, that [Long Tan] could have been a very different outcome.
They're cancelling/deferring the long awaited self-propelled arty, which in this day and age, is suicide for the poor bastards manning the towed variety (and therefore [see the quote above, which is 100% accurate], those they're supporting) if they're ever sent into action against a halfway decently equipped enemy, for, today, with radar tracking of arty rounds, the gun needs to move PDQ after firing a very few rounds before its site is pounded to oblivion by counter battery fire.

As for the submarines escaping the cuts... it's all about politics, jobs and pork barrelling in South Australia. But $240 million just for investigations into the new type? Wowsers! That's some serious investigating.

On the ABC (Sydney) this morning, an indignant and outraged SMS from a listener: "Who needs submarines? Child care payments for single parents continuing after the youngest child turns six are far more important." Says it all really, especially about your average ABC listener.

tartare 4th May 2012 02:26

Lease 12 Virginia class.
Set up a nuclear industry in SA.
They're building `em quicker than ever these days:
9th Virginia Class Nuclear Sub Delivered to the US Navy One Year Ahead of Schedule | Defense Update
Fast - quiet - proven.
End of story.
But then of course - that'd be against Govt policy - wouldn't it...

500N 4th May 2012 02:30

Well, yes, it is against policy because the 3rd aspect (after 12 subs and built in SA) was Non Nuclear.

Either way, it is all political based decision making as was shown in one article as one major aspect they are looking at is interoperability with the US who they know they will be working closely with - most of us would say just use what they are using (assuming they will sell them current class to allies - not sure on that one).

tartare 4th May 2012 02:52

My point exactly.
Government policy is asinine.
There's no way they can build a non-nuclear boat of that size and range.
But that's thread drift....

Gnadenburg 4th May 2012 03:23

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. :zzz:

500N 4th May 2012 03:25

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.

Flyingblind 4th May 2012 08:54

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?

ozbiggles 4th May 2012 11:25

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

Heathrow Harry 6th May 2012 09:22

tsk tsk

you don't believe Julia??????/

ol-mate 9th May 2012 03:23

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?

Buster Hyman 9th May 2012 03:56

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?

:confused:

Andu 9th May 2012 05:06

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.

500N 9th May 2012 05:10

"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.

Romulus 9th May 2012 05:21

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.

Flyingblind 9th May 2012 08:51

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.

Captain Sand Dune 9th May 2012 09:16

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!!!!:mad:

500N 9th May 2012 17:41

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.

FoxtrotAlpha18 10th May 2012 00:51


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.

500N 10th May 2012 01:04

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.

Gnadenburg 10th May 2012 01:19


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.

FoxtrotAlpha18 10th May 2012 01:52

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.

Gnadenburg 10th May 2012 05:12

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 10th May 2012 05:50

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

Heathrow Harry 10th May 2012 08:53

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:51.


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