super hornets to be axed!!!!
Thread Starter
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
From: Sydney
super hornets to be axed!!!!
"Sydney morning herald"
THE $6.6 billion purchase of 24 Super Hornets as a stop-gap fighter jet could be jettisoned by the Federal Government as it reviews all aspects of the program to give Australia a critical edge in regional air combat capability.
The Herald understands that Department of Defence planners have been asked to present an analysis on all the fighter jet options to the Federal Government and how they stack up against likely adversaries, the first time such a study has been done for at least five years.
All projects in the $30 billion program will be scrutinised "with fresh eyes". That includes what aircraft are to be bought, how many, when and at what price. "Absolutely everything is on the table," a Government source said.
Even if contracts have been signed, as is the case with the Super Hornets, the Government is prepared to break them if the case is compelling. This is a shift from previous Labor thinking.
The air combat program is supposed to deliver air superiority in the region, long-regarded as fundamental to Australia's strategic doctrine given its large land mass and isolation.
The coming year is looming as a critical one. A final decision must be made on the centrepiece of the air-combat project - a $15 billion outlay on up to 100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, a high-stealth aircraft yet to be developed, has been troubled by delays and is at risk of big cost blow-outs.
The prevailing view in the Government is that it makes sense for the entire air combat force structure to be re-examined at the same time. The Defence White Paper - outlining the nation's long-term strategic priorities and being developed next year - is also likely to guide the review.
Writing in his local newspaper last week, the Minister for Defence, Joel Fitzgibbon, made clear his concerns with the Super Hornets, a purchase pushed through with great haste by his predecessor, Brendan Nelson, who is now the Opposition Leader.
"Few decisions of the Howard government were more controversial than its commitment to spend more than $6 billion on 24 Super Hornets without proper due process or capability justification," he wrote in The Newcastle Herald.
Dr Nelson sold the Super Hornet option to cabinet's National Security Committee this year without the co-operation of defence chiefs or undertaking the long due diligence and comparative analysis that usually precedes acquisitions of such scale and expense.
Before his pitch, RAAF planners had said an interim jet was not required. Defence analysts say it is the wrong aircraft anyway, lacking stealth and power.
The Herald understands that the Super Hornet contract - like those for all foreign military sales - can be abandoned, at a cost of about $300 million. If it is not dumped the Government may seek to renegotiate its terms, or buy fewer aircraft.
THE $6.6 billion purchase of 24 Super Hornets as a stop-gap fighter jet could be jettisoned by the Federal Government as it reviews all aspects of the program to give Australia a critical edge in regional air combat capability.
The Herald understands that Department of Defence planners have been asked to present an analysis on all the fighter jet options to the Federal Government and how they stack up against likely adversaries, the first time such a study has been done for at least five years.
All projects in the $30 billion program will be scrutinised "with fresh eyes". That includes what aircraft are to be bought, how many, when and at what price. "Absolutely everything is on the table," a Government source said.
Even if contracts have been signed, as is the case with the Super Hornets, the Government is prepared to break them if the case is compelling. This is a shift from previous Labor thinking.
The air combat program is supposed to deliver air superiority in the region, long-regarded as fundamental to Australia's strategic doctrine given its large land mass and isolation.
The coming year is looming as a critical one. A final decision must be made on the centrepiece of the air-combat project - a $15 billion outlay on up to 100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, a high-stealth aircraft yet to be developed, has been troubled by delays and is at risk of big cost blow-outs.
The prevailing view in the Government is that it makes sense for the entire air combat force structure to be re-examined at the same time. The Defence White Paper - outlining the nation's long-term strategic priorities and being developed next year - is also likely to guide the review.
Writing in his local newspaper last week, the Minister for Defence, Joel Fitzgibbon, made clear his concerns with the Super Hornets, a purchase pushed through with great haste by his predecessor, Brendan Nelson, who is now the Opposition Leader.
"Few decisions of the Howard government were more controversial than its commitment to spend more than $6 billion on 24 Super Hornets without proper due process or capability justification," he wrote in The Newcastle Herald.
Dr Nelson sold the Super Hornet option to cabinet's National Security Committee this year without the co-operation of defence chiefs or undertaking the long due diligence and comparative analysis that usually precedes acquisitions of such scale and expense.
Before his pitch, RAAF planners had said an interim jet was not required. Defence analysts say it is the wrong aircraft anyway, lacking stealth and power.
The Herald understands that the Super Hornet contract - like those for all foreign military sales - can be abandoned, at a cost of about $300 million. If it is not dumped the Government may seek to renegotiate its terms, or buy fewer aircraft.
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,216
Likes: 1
From: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Gosh doesnt that sound familiar!! When us lucky Kiwis got the current Labour Govt. back 9 years ago, New Zealand had signed contracts for 20 odd F16s at absolute bargain prices and Helen who protested against the old Skyhawks when they arrived in the 70s, cancelled the contract under the guise of saving money, and then cancelled the strike wing altogether saying (and get this) that they were outdated and ineffective (a problem the F16s wouldve sorted no worries)
So point being?
Beware, if the Labour Govt you have inflicted yourselves with, is anything like what we have over here, it will be pathologically against providing an effective defence, and will begin to let the defence forces gradually self destruct, then claim it is ineffective at its job and close squadrons/units down.
Also, watch out for corrupt practices like stealing public funds for elections then retrospectively passing laws to make it legal, covering up for illegal activity that goes right to the top, lying and misinformation campaigns and desperately trying to hang on to power at all costs and anti-democratic laws being passed. In fact, this post would probably be illegal after midnight tonight as we have a new Labour law here that makes it illegal to publish political statements unless you register with the govt as a political organisation!!
You have been warned!
Oh and happy new year
So point being?
Beware, if the Labour Govt you have inflicted yourselves with, is anything like what we have over here, it will be pathologically against providing an effective defence, and will begin to let the defence forces gradually self destruct, then claim it is ineffective at its job and close squadrons/units down.
Also, watch out for corrupt practices like stealing public funds for elections then retrospectively passing laws to make it legal, covering up for illegal activity that goes right to the top, lying and misinformation campaigns and desperately trying to hang on to power at all costs and anti-democratic laws being passed. In fact, this post would probably be illegal after midnight tonight as we have a new Labour law here that makes it illegal to publish political statements unless you register with the govt as a political organisation!!
You have been warned!
Oh and happy new year
Last edited by mattyj; 30th December 2007 at 23:33.
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
From: Steerage
Gosh doesnt that sound familiar!! When us lucky Kiwis got the current Labour Govt. back 9 years ago, New Zealand had signed contracts for 20 odd F16s at absolute bargain prices and Helen who protested against the old Skyhawks when they arrived in the 70s, cancelled the contract under the guise of saving money, and then cancelled the strike wing altogether saying (and get this) that they were outdated and ineffective (a problem the F16s wouldve sorted no worries)
So point being?
Beware, if the Labour Govt you have inflicted yourselves with, is anything like what we have over here, it will be pathologically against providing an effective defense, and will begin to let the defense forces gradually self destruct, then claim it is ineffective at its job and close squadrons/units down.
Beware, if the Labour Govt you have inflicted yourselves with, is anything like what we have over here, it will be pathologically against providing an effective defense, and will begin to let the defense forces gradually self destruct, then claim it is ineffective at its job and close squadrons/units down.
I wonder if after doing your research you come the same conclusions as you state above.
Last edited by Launch_code_Harry; 30th December 2007 at 21:49. Reason: spelling
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
From: South
Absolute crap Mattyj.
The new legislation whilst not the best legislation will allow anyone to SPEND up $12K on saying and doing what they want in an election year. If you want to spend more than 12K you need to register with the election commission and you can then spend up to $100K.
All parties had to return money to the comission due to over spending except the Maori Party. Labour was by far the largest amount but the others also broke the law and over spent.
The new legislation whilst not the best legislation will allow anyone to SPEND up $12K on saying and doing what they want in an election year. If you want to spend more than 12K you need to register with the election commission and you can then spend up to $100K.
All parties had to return money to the comission due to over spending except the Maori Party. Labour was by far the largest amount but the others also broke the law and over spent.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 499
Likes: 208
From: TIBA
Thanks for the "warning" mattyj
"Also, watch out for corrupt practices like stealing public funds for elections"
The unprecedented spending by little Johnny (for misinformation) on everything from work (no) choices to the perils of union officials taking high office have set the new gold standard here in Aus.
"covering up for illegal activity that goes right to the top"
AWB springs to mind
"lying and misinformation campaigns and desperately trying to hang on to power at all costs"
Tampa, children overboard, Iraq war - they never did find any WMD's
"and anti-democratic laws being passed."
Just ask The Chaser team what happens under a Liberal Govt's laws when they highlighted the absurdity of security overkill at APEC
"Also, watch out for corrupt practices like stealing public funds for elections"
The unprecedented spending by little Johnny (for misinformation) on everything from work (no) choices to the perils of union officials taking high office have set the new gold standard here in Aus.
"covering up for illegal activity that goes right to the top"
AWB springs to mind
"lying and misinformation campaigns and desperately trying to hang on to power at all costs"
Tampa, children overboard, Iraq war - they never did find any WMD's
"and anti-democratic laws being passed."
Just ask The Chaser team what happens under a Liberal Govt's laws when they highlighted the absurdity of security overkill at APEC
Last edited by CaptCloudbuster; 30th December 2007 at 21:56.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
From: Great Southern Land
Folks can we get back on topic please?
This is potentially very serious. The damage done to the Army in decades past as a result of the 'acceptable' doctrine of the era is still being repaired. If this review results in a new 'acceptable' doctrine (remember: "Everything is on the table") there could be fundamental changes to the way the RAAF does things.
In the RAAF's favour is the built-in bias in Labor thought towards DOA ... Sea-Air Gap etc. Hopefully this will prevent a mixture of ideology from the left and austerity from the right slashing the $ available.
This is potentially very serious. The damage done to the Army in decades past as a result of the 'acceptable' doctrine of the era is still being repaired. If this review results in a new 'acceptable' doctrine (remember: "Everything is on the table") there could be fundamental changes to the way the RAAF does things.
In the RAAF's favour is the built-in bias in Labor thought towards DOA ... Sea-Air Gap etc. Hopefully this will prevent a mixture of ideology from the left and austerity from the right slashing the $ available.
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 17
From: South Pole
They better have a very good reason to cancel the order and throw away $300 million for nothing. If they do cancel then they will have to pay for strengthening the inner pylons on existing F/A18A's and certifying them for release of long range stand-off missiles as well as other expensive short term changes.
The alternatives are not cheap so there has to be a very good reason for cancelling the order.
The alternatives are not cheap so there has to be a very good reason for cancelling the order.
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
From: Oz
mattyi, I suggest that you view the ABC Four Corners episode that dealt with this issue.
At any rate, they won't cancel the order. This is just a beat up to create the impression that something is being done... and ensuring that the annual "Operation: Deny Christmas" is alive and well in Canberra.
Joined: Jul 2003
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 977
Likes: 121
From: Oz
keep the Super Hornets as a stop gap measure.
What we really need is;
40 x F15E for Long range Strike
60 x F22 for air superiority
20 x B1B for ultra long range strike.(now make it the new B-1R as proposed by Boeing. mach 2.2 perfrmance and 25,000 Kg bomb load out to 3,000 nm radius.
Thats enough of a big stick to stop anyone in our region getting smart.
What we really need is;
40 x F15E for Long range Strike
60 x F22 for air superiority
20 x B1B for ultra long range strike.(now make it the new B-1R as proposed by Boeing. mach 2.2 perfrmance and 25,000 Kg bomb load out to 3,000 nm radius.
Thats enough of a big stick to stop anyone in our region getting smart.
Last edited by nomorecatering; 31st December 2007 at 01:52.
Registered User **
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
From: Sydney
What we really need is;
40 x F15E for Long range Strike
60 x F22 for air superiority
20 x B1B for ultra long range strike.(now make it the new B-1R as proposed by Boeing. mach 2.2 perfrmance and 25,000 Kg bomb load out to 3,000 nm radius.
40 x F15E for Long range Strike
60 x F22 for air superiority
20 x B1B for ultra long range strike.(now make it the new B-1R as proposed by Boeing. mach 2.2 perfrmance and 25,000 Kg bomb load out to 3,000 nm radius.
Do you expect the govt to increase GST to 20% to pay for that little shopping list or do you think we should have another lottery and call it the defence fantasy lottery so we can fund it.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere near here
Chin up, project dudes!
Hmmm...pretty glad I'm not working in that project right now...here comes three months of wasted, pointless work so that the new Minister can change nothing...that's three months that should be spent keeping the project running on time...and three months that all of the usual suspects will bleat about when the project is delayed by...you guessed it...3 months.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
From: Oz
What about a few Missleers?! Who needs B-1Rs when you could spend the entire defence budget on re-engining 6 F111s and calling it the F-111CK.
.... Carlo--->
Anyway, if the Supers are cancelled, what are they going to get in their place??? F-35 won't be here anytime soon, and the F-15 would be a huge mistake!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
From: Canberra, Australia
Defence analyst??
Nothing like a bit of aeros and form, couple of jollies, a few sim rides and a bunch of 'boys own' articles to underpin becoming a 'prominent defence analyst' - Wikipedia says so so it must be true. What, no extensive professional experience or background? The credibility given by the media without much apparent question has to be a worry. Does squeaky wheel mean anything?
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~carlo/ckprof.html
Anyway, draw your own conclusions.
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~carlo/ckprof.html
Anyway, draw your own conclusions.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
From: Brisbane
I think what we really need is a US Navy and Air Force base somewhere between Darwin and Port Headland.
They can base as many B1B's, F22's and ships there as they want- and pay us for the privilege!!
Perhaps we could then channel some of the $billions saved into maybe Education and Health...
Any better ideas?
They can base as many B1B's, F22's and ships there as they want- and pay us for the privilege!!
Perhaps we could then channel some of the $billions saved into maybe Education and Health...
Any better ideas?