Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2012, 05:32
by spazsinbad
Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters By AP News May 02, 2012

http://www.krla870.com/article.aspx?id= ... be&catid=0

"Australia announced on Thursday that to cut costs it is pushing back delivery of most of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters it plans to buy from the United States.

Defense Minister Stephen Smith said delaying delivery of the advanced warplanes two years, to 2019, would save the government 1.6 billion Australian dollars ($1.6 billion) over the next four years. He said Australia remains committed to the Joint Strike Fighter project....

...Australia is contractually obligated to take delivery of only two of the warplanes. Those will be based in the United States and be available from 2014 for training Australian pilots.

Australia had planned to take delivery of the next 12 during the following three years.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard on Thursday confirmed that defense spending will be cut as part of her government's ambitious plan to return the nation's budget to surplus in the next fiscal year, which begins July 1...."

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2012, 13:40
by sferrin
More for us.

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2012, 14:11
by munny
Probably a wise move (unlike every other move the current government has made). It will mitigate risk and as the Aus dollar gets stronger and stronger against the US, prices should come down.

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2012, 16:45
by luke_sandoz
How much longer can Gillard remain in power? Days or weeks?

Seems her government is on life support and this decision could be just kow-towing to her green supporter to hold his vote.'

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2012, 17:23
by popcorn
Would a new government be inclined to reverse the decision?

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2012, 17:26
by stobiewan
Basically, they're mitigating the effect of full rate production being delayed by pushing their own purchases to the right by the same amount.

If they can do that without too many Hornets dropping out of the sky with fatigue, it's a reasonable decision.

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2012, 06:57
by spazsinbad
More or less same story with this extra:

F-35 vs F/A-18E/F: Australia Punts on Both by Robert Wall on May 03, 2012

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 466a891917

"...Smith also had bad news for Boeing. "My current advice is that the life of type of our 71 classic Hornets and our 24 Super Hornets is sufficient for our air combat capability,” while acknowledging the issue was still under study and a decision will be taken by year-end.

Smith had some good news for Boeing. The new defense budget will protect funding to upgrade some F/A-18F to EA-18G electronic attack aircraft, if a decision is taken to do so...."

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2012, 08:41
by popcorn
At least they aren't compounding their situation by acquiring,additional,SHs

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2012, 08:42
by spazsinbad
Tender – Deeper maintenance for the RAAF Classic Hornet fleet 4 May 2012

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012 ... net-fleet/

"Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare announced the release of a Request for Tender (RFT) for the deeper maintenance of the F/A-18 Classic Hornet fleet.

“The F/A-18 Hornet is a very capable multi-role fighter which can undertake a wide range of air-to-air and air-to-ground missions including air combat, close air support of ground troops, and interdiction of enemy supply lines,” Mr Clare said.

“This contract will provide all deeper maintenance requirements for the 55 single-seat and 16 dual-seat aircraft and associated systems.

“This includes operational fight trainers, computer?based training systems, maintenance training systems and Classic Hornet unique ground support and test equipment.”

The RFT closes in July 2012 with the new contract expected to take effect from April 2013."

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2012, 07:36
by spazsinbad
Growler could prove a winner: RAAF chief May 10 2012 by Max Blenkin

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/846 ... raaf-chief

"...In an address to the RAAF air power conference, Air Marshal Geoff Brown said the Growler was truly a game changer which the RAAF would exploit to the maximum.

And in a pitch for the troubled Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), Air Marshal Brown recounted his own experiences flying aboard a US Air Force F-15 against the fifth-generation F-22 Raptor during a recent US Red Flag exercise.

"To put it bluntly we got our **** kicked," he said....

Air Marshal Brown said the fifth-generation JSF would meet Australia's needs for many decades, providing control of the air across the entire spectrum of conflict.

He said he had experienced the hard way advantages conferred by a fifth-generation capability. Flying aboard a dual seat F-15, he was repeatedly "killed" by adversary Raptors during the exercise.

"Let me tell you after this happened five times with not even a hint of seeing your opponent, it becomes very frustrating," he said.

Air Marshal Brown said the fifth-generation JSF would bring a new meaning to the term combat lethality.

"This is a significant capability that alters the calculus of power projection in the region," he said.""

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2012, 16:03
by spazsinbad
DEFENCE MINISTER SMITH TALKS ABOUT C-27J, JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER AND DEFENCE BUDGET AT AIR POWER CONFERENCE May 11, 2012 CANBERRA, ACT, May 10 -- The Department of Defense issued the following ministerial transcript:

http://www.avionics-intelligence.com/ne ... onfer.html

"...JOURNALIST: Minister, when do we expect to see IOC on the JSF now?

STEPHEN SMITH: Well, as we've said, we are monitoring the JSF project very carefully. I have essentially moved our arrangements on the same basis as the United States- the project has come under delays, developmental issues, concurrency issues. The United States, through the Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta, in the course of this year moved nearly 170 planes to the right, effectively putting their ordering schedule two years to the right, and we have essentially mirrored that. We are contractually committed to getting two. We'll get those in 2014/15 in the United States, for training and testing purposes. And then we'll make a judgement two years after that, two years later than originally scheduled, about when we order the twelve. And we'll make further deliberative judgements about further orders in due course.

JOURNALIST: 2021-2022?

STEPHEN SMITH: I'm not putting a time on that.

JOURNALIST: Just quickly-

STEPHEN SMITH: I'm not putting a time on that, because as everyone knows, the experience of the Joint Strike Fighter has been constant schedule movement to the right....

Nothing more at the URL about F-35s. :-( :-)

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2012, 23:13
by spazsinbad
$1.4b Spartan buy gets nod from air chief by David Ellery | May 11, 2012

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nationa ... 1yfsi.html

"The RAAF could have an operational squadron of Joint Strike Fighters by 2019, despite a government decision to delay the purchase of the next 12 planes by two years, according to Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Geoff Brown.

This is only one year later than the schedule for JSF initial operating capacity - or combat readiness - Defence has been working towards for at least a decade....

....Air Marshal Brown told yesterday's Air Power conference in Canberra the RAAF needed at least 100 JSFs and it would be a mistake to order more Super Hornets - that could eat into final JSF numbers - as a stopgap.

''I'm still very much in the JSF camp; the progress I'm seeing is still positive. I haven't seen anything that is a show stopper yet,'' he said.

Air Marshal Brown would prefer Defence to extend the life of the classic Hornets, which date back to the 1980s and have already undergone significant life extension upgrades, and wait for the JSF...."

NOthing more at URL about F-35s except a more rabid description about Brown being bounced by F-22s. :twisted:

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2012, 01:53
by neurotech
The 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets replaced the F-111s. The problem they are facing is that if they purchased more Super Hornets, they would effectively replacing one of the F/A-18 legacy hornet squadrons. It is unlikely the RAAF would expand to have 3 F/A-18F front line squadrons and 4 F-35 squadrons, so the next purchase really would be stop-gap for the F/A-18 legacy squadrons .

There is always the possibility of selling some of the F/A-18F hornets to another country once the F-35s are delivered.

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2012, 02:21
by spazsinbad
No, the 24 RAAF Super Hornets were bought to cover the capability gap when the F-111s were retired earlier than planned before the arrival of the now much delayed F-35As. These Super Hornets do not replace the F-111 and likely will be onsold or retired once all the F-35As are in service; but of course that will be some time in the future. However the RAAF have made it clear that they want to fly only one fast jet and yet we are reminded here that the 'Growler' may growl for some time before during and after the arrival of the last F-35A.

IF the Oz Supers are onsold to anyone in the years to come then that would require US approval (remember the sorry Kiwi A-4K decade long NOT selling saga?) so the likely only candidate would be the USN but I cannot predict the future.

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2012, 03:56
by neurotech
Spaz, I was there when Boeing demonstrated the F/A-18F aircraft at Avalon, and even Carlo Kopp said good things about the jet. There were further demonstrations of the performance of the jet in Australia.

As much as the RAAF claim it'll be a stop-gap, they'd have a tough time sending these jets to the boneyard. The support infrastructure is paid for, as well as the jets themselves. 100+ F-35s is wishful thinking. It's highly likely that number will be cut, as Australia doesn't have the same level of defense spending the US does. My thoughts are that the number will be closer to 70, and all 24+ F/A-18Fs will remain in service.
Do you realistically think that the legacy F/A-18s will remain in service beyond 2020 without a major SLEP?

With the US Navy multi-year contract, Boeing has offered the F/A-18F for between $49m and $66m Flyaway cost, which is relatively cheap.
If the USN extends the MYP contract, which is looking more likely, then the cost will be lower for the RAAF.

The A-4K situation is different as the most A-4 operators had retired their jets, or were close to doing so. Excluding countries not friendly to the US, this only left defense contractors like ATSI as purchasers. The A-4Ks were still basically 50 year old jets, whereas the RAAF F/A-18Fs will still be relatively new, front-line jets after the F-35s are delivered.

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2012, 06:48
by spazsinbad
As I said the RAAF have made statements ("As much as the RAAF claim" indeed). I'm not sure you understand that US State Department permission was required by New Zealand to sell their Skyhawks to only those approved. That permission to sell was not granted for about 9 years of the 10 year saga and then when it was, as you say, the only interested buyer could not get the money to proceed with the sale.

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2012, 08:13
by neurotech
They can make public statements saying they only want F-35 fighter force, but doesn't mean its going to happen.
With the F-35 delay to 2019, there is room in the budget for extra F/A-18F aircraft using the savings.

Did it take 9 years to get permission to sell them to JDI Holdings? or was it 9 years of deals fell through before this?

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2012, 08:46
by spazsinbad
I agree that future events don't always co-incide with statements made today but give us a break.

'neurotech' Q: "Did it take 9 years to get permission to sell them to JDI Holdings?". An initial US buyer was found some years into the process but because permission to sell the A-4Ks was not given until late 2009 that buyer was not able to raise finance in recent/current depressed market. Then the aircraft were either given to museums [an ex-TA4G/TA-4K is currently being remodelled and repainted for display at the RAN Museum at NAS Nowra (FAAM)] with the remainder being sold to the only bidder I believe. The original intending buyer was no longer in the picture I'm told.

Skyhawk sale to US looms 8 Oct 2009 By TRACY WATKINS - The Dominion Post

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politic ... o-US-looms

"The covers could finally be lifted on New Zealand's mothballed Skyhawk fleet, with a sale imminent more than four years after it was first trumpeted.

Defence Minister Wayne Mapp confirmed last night the sale had finally got the green light from the United States Government and it was now a case of concluding a sale and purchase agreement.

The sale of the Skyhawks to Arizona-based Tactical Air Services was announced in 2005 but has been stalled by the need to get US approval...."

Nine Skyhawks heading to museums – Wednesday April 6, 2011

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=10717541

“The decade-long saga of the Royal New Zealand Air Force's 17 mothballed Skyhawk fighterbombers has come to an end, with nine being given away to museums and some being sold as spare parts [JDI Holdings eventually]. The Skyhawks had been on the market since 2001,..."

Another overview here: http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-storie ... to-an-end/
&
Tender Info: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=10726374
&
Nov 2011 story + video:
http://aviationintel.com/2011/11/16/8-n ... s-company/

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2012, 21:02
by neurotech
Thanks for the info on the A-4K. According to the FAA register no A-4K is being flown today.

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2012, 02:53
by spazsinbad
Australia – EA-18G Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) Aircraft Modification Kits

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/ ... _12-27.pdf (36Kb)

"WASHINGTON, May 22, 2012 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress today of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Australia for 12 EA-18G Modification Kits to convert F/A-18F aircrafts to the G configuration and associated parts, equipment, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $1.7 billion.

The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of 12 EA-18G Modification Kits to convert F/A-18F aircrafts to G configuration, (34) AN/ALQ-99F(V) Tactical Jamming System Pods, (22) CN-1717/A Interference Cancellation Systems (INCANS), (22) R-2674(C)/A Joint Tactical Terminal Receiver (JTTR) Systems, (30) LAU-118 Guided Missile Launchers, Command Launch Computer (CLC) for High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) and Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government (USG) and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated cost is $1.7 billion...."

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2012, 05:38
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:Australia – EA-18G Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) Aircraft Modification Kits

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/ ... _12-27.pdf (36Kb)

"WASHINGTON, May 22, 2012 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress today of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Australia for 12 EA-18G Modification Kits to convert F/A-18F aircrafts to the G configuration and associated parts, equipment, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $1.7 billion.

The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of 12 EA-18G Modification Kits to convert F/A-18F aircrafts to G configuration, (34) AN/ALQ- 899F(V) Tactical Jamming System Pods, (22) CN-1717/A Interference Cancellation Systems (INCANS), (22) R-2674(C)/A Joint Tactical Terminal Receiver (JTTR) Systems, (30) LAU-118 Guided Missile Launchers, Command Launch Computer (CLC) for High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) and Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government (USG) and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated cost is $1.7 billion...."


That's a lot of EW kit for 12 Growlers.. or are they usually configured with multiple jamming pods, for instance?

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2012, 06:50
by spazsinbad
A PDF at Scribd has an article 'Jammer Next' in 'Avionics' Magazine Sept 2010 with low quality graphic as shown from:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37007002/Avio ... ember-2010 [Perhaps there is a better graphic out there]

Caption: "Components of the electronic attack suite of the EA-18G Growler include Northrop Grumman ALQ-218 Tactical Jamming Receiver, Raytheon ALQ-227 Communications Countermeasures Set and ITT Interference Cancellation System. NextGen Jammer is being developed to replace the ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming System, contained in underwing pods. First ALQ-99 entered service in 1971."
___________

EA-18G Program: The USA’s Electronic Growler Feb 06, 2012

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ea1 ... ler-02427/

"...The EA-18 is more than 90% common with the standard F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, sharing its airframe, AN/APG-79 AESA radar, AN/AYK-22 stores management system, and weapons options. The exception is the Super Hornet’s 20mm Vulcan gatling gun, which has been removed from the nose in favor of electrical equipment.

Additional electrical equipment is added throughout the airframe, and Raytheon’s internally-mounted AN/ALQ-227 communication countermeasures system uses a dedicated, omni-directional antenna for signals detection, analysis, and recording. That system works with the plane’s AN/ALQ-99 high and low-band jamming pods, in order to perform complex jamming tasks. Northrop Grumman’s ALQ-218v2 is a digital wideband radio frequency receiver, with selective jamming and geo-location capabilities. It currently equips the EA-18G’s wingtip pods.

The use of pods comes with certain penalties. The increased drag of the external pods, coupled with the shorter range of the F/A-18 E/F base platform vis-a-vis the A-6 it replaces, means that external fuel tanks will be needed. The presence of those fuel tanks on the aircraft’s “wet” pylons, and of the pods on its wingtips and underwing pylons, doesn’t leave much space for other weapons. Despite these limitations, Growlers will be more capable of aerial self-defense than their predecessors. EA-18Gs will typically be armed with a pair of AIM-120 AMRAAM medium range air-air missiles mounted under the engine intakes, and another pair of AGM-88 HARM (High Speed Anti-Radiation) or AGM-88E AARGM (Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided) missiles on underwing stations for destroying enemy radar sites.

Boeing has also surveyed future users of the EA-18G “Growlers” to find out what upgrades they might like to see after the US Navy starts fielding the EA-18G. While the AN/ALQ-99 radar jamming pod has received positive reviews, and will be a critical component of the EA-18G’s initial kit, reports consistently cite it as a maintenance and reliability problem. The US Navy’s EA-18G program manager has said that it might eventually have to be replaced, and the USA’s Next-Generation Jammer program is already in motion to do just that. The EA-18 program is also exploring adding more weapon types and replacing the satellite communications receiver, as part of the budget planning process.

Meanwhile, exports beckon. That would be something of a departure, as the USA has traditionally been the only country to field tactical electronic attack aircraft. As anti-aircraft missiles on the global market become more and more sophisticated, serious players are going to need this kind of capability. The ALQ-99 radar jamming pod is still considered too secret to export, however, so “EA-18 Lite” export versions would reply on the ALQ-218 wingtip pods, and the internally-mounted ALQ-227 system. The APG-79 AESA radar that equips all EA-18Gs could also be used as a jammer, if future software development is forthcoming along those lines. Even so, the removal of the ALQ-99 removes the plane’s most advanced jamming, unless ECM pods from other global sources could be integrated instead, or unless America relents and allows ALQ-99 exports, after fielding its future Next Generation Jammer.

The resulting “EA-18 Lite” combination would be a stronger SEAD (suppression of enemy air defenses) option than the F/A-18F, with more range and available weapons than a full EA-18G, but less jamming than the full EA-18G, and less stealth than the F-35A. EA-18 Lites would be able to identify and geo-locate enemy radars, for instance, and immediately target them with GPS-enabled anti-radar missiles like AARGM. Jamming in low-intensity environments, such as the use of EA-6B Prowlers in Iraq to jam enemy land mine detonation frequencies over key convoys, would also be possible.

Australia has taken initial steps toward buying this EA-18 variant. Their contract specified that 12 of its 24 new F/A-18Fs would have all of the internal modifications required to become an EA-18, if the right equipment is added. The availability of this unique option may yet entice other potential Super Hornet customers to pick Boeing’s plane...."

Much more at the URL Url url.... http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/i ... ems_lg.jpg
&
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/i ... ide_lg.jpg
&
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/i ... off_lg.jpg

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2012, 06:50
by munny
3 jammers per aircraft.

Image

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2012, 10:14
by popcorn
munny wrote:3 jammers per aircraft.

Image


I see ALQ-99 HIGH BAND, LOW BAND and a third pod under the starboard wing but unlabeled.. any idea what it does?

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2012, 10:18
by popcorn
munny wrote:3 jammers per aircraft.

Image


I see ALQ-99 HIGH BAND, LOW BAND and a third pod under the starboard wing but unlabeled.. any idea what it does?

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2012, 16:18
by SpudmanWP
The centerline pod is Low-Band and "both" underwing pods are High-Band.

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2012, 22:35
by spazsinbad
'popcorn' do you refer to the inboard station? My guess these are large fuel drop tanks. There is a 'Growler NATOPS' at same site as this PDF where the diagram comes. I'll check that out. Now attached. Plus FUEL that indicates only one capacity 480 gallon fuel drop tank carried.

http://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-000.pdf (19Mb)
FROM:
http://publicintelligence.net/u-s-navy- ... t-manuals/

PRELIMINARY NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL NAVY MODEL EA-18G 166855 AND UP AIRCRAFT A1-E18GA-NFM-000 862 pages May 15, 2008 Download (21.53 MB)

http://info.publicintelligence.net/E18-G-000.pdf

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2012, 23:37
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:'popcorn' do you refer to the inboard station? My guess these are large fuel drop tanks. There is a 'Growler NATOPS' at same site as this PDF where the diagram comes. I'll check that out. Now attached. Plus FUEL that indicates only one capacity 480 gallon fuel drop tank carried.

http://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-EF-000.pdf (19Mb)
FROM:
http://publicintelligence.net/u-s-navy- ... t-manuals/

PRELIMINARY NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL NAVY MODEL EA-18G 166855 AND UP AIRCRAFT A1-E18GA-NFM-000 862 pages May 15, 2008 Download (21.53 MB)

I'llhttp://info.publicintelligence.net/E18-G-000.pdf



Spud,cleaned it up for me, it's a second ALQ-99 pod providing high band jamming for the starboard side.

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2012, 05:58
by spazsinbad
FWIW....

House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Report Notes FY13 May 22, 2012

http://www.informationdissemination.net ... tions.html

"...Navy | Naval Aviation
EA–18G Electronic Attack Aircraft

The Department of the Navy has accomplished the Nation’s airborne electronic attack (AEA) mission for the Department of Defense for several years. This mission has largely been performed with the EA–6B Prowler aircraft flown by the Navy and Marine Corps. The mission is currently transitioning to the EA–18G Growler aircraft (a variant of the F/A–18 aircraft) as the Prowler aircraft age and are retired. There are currently 19 airborne electronic attack squadrons in the Department of the Navy, however, only 15 Growler squadrons are planned. This is due to the fact that the Marine Corps will not fly the Growler aircraft but intends to move away from dedicated airborne electronic attack squadrons and shift to an organic capability using electronic warfare payloads such as Intrepid Tiger and the inherent capabilities within the F–35 aircraft. Although this approach is envisioned to satisfy the requirements of the Marine Corps, the Committee is concerned about the reduced AEA capability for the Nation at large. The Prowler aircraft (and the compatible AEA mission) has been a high demand, low density platform since the days of Desert Storm and is expected to continue as such. Accordingly, the recommendation provides $45,000,000 above the request for the advance procurement of materials for the construction of 15 additional EA–18G aircraft in fiscal year 2014 to preserve the option of increasing the quantity of this vital aircraft.

This is just smart. It is my belief the EA-18G is the best aircraft on the planet being built today..."

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2012, 23:57
by spazsinbad
For 'neurotech' some Israeli Skyhawk news:

44 Skyhawks For Sale 27/11/2012

http://www.israeldefense.com/?CategoryI ... cleID=1788

“Israel's Ministry of Defense is attempting to sell the IAF’s fleet of Skyhawk aircraft in light of the acquisition of the new Italian trainer aircraft.

The SIBAT department of the Israeli Ministry of Defense is calling defense entities, militaries and countries from around the world and inviting them to acquire the fleet of Skyhawk aircraft which have been in IDF service since the 1960s.

The Skyhawk was the first fighter aircraft that the United States agreed to sell to Israel, and the Israeli Air Force began using the aircraft in 1967. Today, the aircraft are used for combat training and instruction in the framework of the IAF’s flight course, and the sale comes as part of the preparation for when the IAF receives the new Italian M-346 trainer aircraft.

During the recent operation Pillar of Defense in Gaza, the IAF used the Skyhawk aircraft for casting notices above the Gaza Strip. The Ministry of Defense is interested in selling the 44 Skyhawk aircraft for several dozen millions of US dollars. The aircraft is expected to be taken out of service in the coming year. If there is no response in the next five years, the aircraft will apparently be transferred for scrapping.”

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 15:00
by Conan
Word on the street is, RAAF are about to be directed by Government to purchase another 24 Super Hornets and the F-35 buy will be reduced and pushed back... A squadron's worth of the oldest and highest FLEI legacy Hornets will also be retired to allow RAAF to man the additional Super Hornet capability.

Along with a 4th Air Warfare Destroyer these will be the major "new" combat capability measures for next years White Paper...

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 16:14
by m
Conan wrote:Word on the street is, RAAF are about to be directed by Government to purchase another 24 Super Hornets and the F-35 buy will be reduced and pushed back... A squadron's worth of the oldest and highest FLEI legacy Hornets will also be retired to allow RAAF to man the additional Super Hornet capability.

Along with a 4th Air Warfare Destroyer these will be the major "new" combat capability measures for next years White Paper...


Versus: But Smith also had bad news for Boeing. "My current advice is that the life of type of our 71 classic Hornets and our 24 Super Hornets is sufficient for our air combat capability”
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 466a891917

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 17:09
by daemonllama
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6535732600

THE Gillard government will consider buying up to 24 new F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter-bombers in a decision that would sharply reduce reliance on the troubled Joint Strike Fighter.


The JSF program, the largest US defence project of its kind, has been plagued by cost overruns and delays, ramping up the cost of the planes well above initial Australian estimates.

And now there is growing concern in the RAAF that the US delays will mean its first squadron may not be ready until at least 2020. Alarm bells are ringing because it's likely that by then the last 30 or so of the older, classic Hornets will have reached the end of their useful lives.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 17:54
by spazsinbad
For those who worry about price of Super Hornet for Canada - here is the news - Oz dollar buys 1.05 US dorrar lately...

Super Hornets considered amid fears about JSF 13 Dec 2012 by: Cameron Stewart and Brendan Nicholson

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6535732600

"THE Gillard government will consider buying up to 24 new F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter-bombers in a decision that would sharply reduce reliance on the troubled Joint Strike Fighter.

The possible Super Hornet purchase, expected to cost well over $100 million each, is part of a range of multi-billion-dollar air-power options due to be revealed today by Defence Minister Stephen Smith...."

Subscription required for the rest and I ain't subscribing.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 18:09
by gtx
If they do this it will be against the advice of the RAAF. From what I understand, this (option to buy more Super Hornets) is just one of the options put to govt. it is not the option recommended or favoured.

If the Govt were to take it up it would be yet another penny pinching action by this govt that is desperate to balance its budget and thus try to portray themselves as good economic managers at the next election. T would have nothing to do wiih the JSF program and would most certainly not be because they want to do what's best for the ADF or Australia's industry. :evil:

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 18:28
by spazsinbad
'The Australian' newspaper has some issues with the Labor Government, similar perhaps to some newspapers in Canada, always willing to make trouble, to make something out of nothing. The possibility of Oz buying more Supers (an option for guvmnt) will hang around until the Government makes a decision. Apparently there is currently a possibility according to 'Conan' but I'm not 'on the street' to know anything until the government announces a decision - if any. It is in the guvmnt interest to NOT make a decision until the last second, increasing the B/S factor on all sides. I think the Labor guvmnt are used to this by now. Agree that the RAAF have stated many times in public that they prefer to have an all F-35 fleet and acknowledge now that the Growler additions will be useful over the longer term (rather than Supers).

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 22:10
by neurotech
As commented in the other thread, current scuttlebutt seems to confirm movement around somebody buying additional Super Hornets. One possibility is that the RAAF might buy factor built EA-18s from Boeing, saving $10-20m in upgrade costs. Another possibility is that the RAAF will buy a Block III jet with improved capabilities, and less expensive upgrade to full Growler capability. A Block III jet could be delivered in 2-3 years to the RAAF.

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2012, 04:23
by spazsinbad
Canada delays troubled F-35 joint strike fighter project Yes I know but this first part is about OZ

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-13/c ... er/4426088

"EMILY BOURKE: The Australian Defence Minister is giving more hints that there could be further delays to the controversial F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Jet project.

Stephen Smith has directed Defence to seek detailed information on acquiring 24 Super Hornets. [I'll assume that direction was recently?]

He's restated the government's pledge that the RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force) will not suffer a capability gap...."

The rest is about Canada and such with quotable quotes from various varieties of variables including WINDslowWheelUS. :-)

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2012, 06:15
by spazsinbad
Australia seeks pricing info on extra Super Hornets Item by australianaviation.com.au 13 Dec 2012

http://australianaviation.com.au/2012/1 ... r-hornets/

"Defence Minister Stephen Smith and Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare have announced that Australia has sent a letter of request (LOR) to the US government for the possible purchase of 24 more Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornets for the RAAF.

The announcement coincided with a declaration of final operational capability (FOC) for the RAAF’s extent Super Hornet fleet based at Amberley with 1SQN and 6SQN.

A comprehensive Cabinet Submission detailing multiple air combat capability options was reportedly handed to government in September, but was only presented to the National Security Committee (NSC) – comprising the Prime Minister, Defence Minister, Treasurer, Foreign Minister and others as required – in early December.

The options laid out in the cabinet submission included staying with the currently planned AIR 6000 Phase 2A/2B plan to buy up to 72 F-35As from 2014 and declare an initial operating capability (IOC) in 2020, or buying additional Super Hornets to mitigate the risk of a capability gap should the current ‘classic’ Hornets not be able to reach their revised life of type (LOT) in 2022. Despite RAAF and ANAO investigations which show the classic Hornets should be able to fulfil their revised LOT, this would require substantial investment in fatigue management in the near to medium term, and reduced flying hours and combat effectiveness in the out years.

A December 13 ministerial release points out that the LOR does not automatically mean a follow up order will be forthcoming. “The sending of this LOR does not commit Australia to purchase more Super Hornets. It is being sent so that the Government can further consider all options in 2013 with the latest and best cost and availability information. This has been made clear to both US officials and to the Defence industry.”"

NOTHING more to see guvnor.

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2012, 06:27
by spazsinbad
The full deal from the horse's mouth:

Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Materiel – Joint Media Release – Australia’s future Air Combat Capability
13 December 2012

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012 ... apability/

Minister for Defence Stephen Smith and Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare today provided an update on planning for Australia’s future Air Combat Capability.

“Australia’s Air Combat Capability is a vital part of our national security framework. The Government will not allow a gap in our Air Combat Capability to occur,” Mr Smith said.

In May this year, Minister Smith announced that the Air Combat Capability Transition Plan, an assessment of the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter project progress and any potential capability gap, would be presented to Government by the end of 2012 to inform Government decisions about Air Combat Capability.

The Air Combat Capability Transition Plan prepared by Defence includes an assessment of whether alternative options need to be implemented to ensure continuity in Australia’s Air Combat Capability in light of Joint Strike Fighter project delays and the ageing of Australia’s Classic F/A-18 Hornet fleet.

The Air Combat Capability Transition Plan considered the process for managing the Royal Australian Air Force’s (RAAF) transition from the current mix of Classic Hornet and Super Hornet to a future Air Combat Capability fleet, including the Joint Strike Fighter.

The plan includes an assessment of progress of the Joint Strike Fighter project, the life of the existing 71 ‘Classic’ F/A-18 Hornets, any potential capability gap and management of the Super Hornet and Growler capabilities.

It includes options to purchase additional Super Hornet aircraft.

The Classic Hornet fleet, which originally comprised 75 aircraft, entered service in Australia between 1985 and 1990. The fleet has undergone an intensive maintenance program to ensure the fleet is able to operate until around 2020.

In September this year, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) completed a performance audit on the management of the F/A-18 fleet upgrades and sustainment. The ANAO found that Defence’s management of the aircraft has been effective thus far in identifying the risks to their continued operation, that effective mitigation measures have been put in place for these risks, and outlined those that will require ongoing close management by Defence.

The Government has now considered the Air Combat Capability Transition Plan and has directed Defence to undertake further work on a range of Air Combat Capability options, including seeking from the United States up-to-date pricing information on Super Hornets.

RAAF currently has a fleet of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft. The fleet was introduced between March 2010 and October 2011.

The F/A-18F Super Hornet was a major step forward in technology for Australia’s Air Combat Capability.

The Super Hornet gives the RAAF the capability to conduct air-to-air combat, to strike targets on land and at sea, to suppress enemy air defences and to conduct reconnaissance.

The Super Hornet is vital to ensuring Australia’s regional Air Combat Capability edge is maintained until the introduction into service of the Joint Strike Fighter capability.

The Government is also acquiring the Growler electronic warfare system for the Super Hornet.

Growler is an electronic warfare system that gives the Super Hornet the ability to jam the electronics systems of aircraft and land-based radars and communications systems.

Australia will now send a Letter of Request (LOR) to the United States seeking cost and availability information for up to an additional 24 Super Hornet aircraft through the United States Foreign Military Sales program.

The Australian Government has not made a decision to purchase more Super Hornets. The sending of this LOR does not commit Australia to purchase more Super Hornets. It is being sent so that the Australian Government can further consider all options in 2013 with the latest and best cost and availability information. This has been made clear to both US officials and to the Defence industry.

Following receipt of the LOR response, Government will further and fully consider Australia’s Air Combat Capability in 2013."

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2012, 07:29
by gtx
That is what has been confirmed internally as well. Basically they're simply asking for a firm price on more SHs. Mind you, this Govt (the party of which I used to belong to) and especially the Defence Minister could learn a lesson or two about really supporting the ADV and Australian Industry!

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2012, 08:31
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:The rest is about Canada and such with quotable quotes from various varieties of variables including WINDslowWheelUS. :-)

I still think the F-35 is the fighter to buy, but another F/A-18F order is still justified.

Wheeler is an idiot if he thinks 25% through operational utility evaluation is a huge problem. All that means is that the training and operating procedures is still being evaluated. Almost all of the major issues have been identified by now, and being fixed as needed.

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2012, 17:26
by maus92
neurotech wrote:As commented in the other thread, current scuttlebutt seems to confirm movement around somebody buying additional Super Hornets. One possibility is that the RAAF might buy factor built EA-18s from Boeing, saving $10-20m in upgrade costs. Another possibility is that the RAAF will buy a Block III jet with improved capabilities, and less expensive upgrade to full Growler capability. A Block III jet could be delivered in 2-3 years to the RAAF.


Australia buying Block III Super Hornets would fantastic for the USN, especially if the Brazilians opt for the Supers as well. With other buyers sharing the cost of the Block III / IR version upgrades, it makes a strong case for the Navy to continue buying Super Hornets, and not wasting money SLEPing older legacy Hornets. And if the Canadians go with the Super Hornet, it gets even better.

When FRP of F-35s kicks in in 2019, the Navy can better evaluate just how many F-35Cs it can afford - or should it accelerate the development of the longer ranged NGAD aircraft needed for Pacific ops.

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2012, 20:44
by gtx
And pigs may fly...

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2012, 21:16
by f-22lm
gtx wrote:And pigs may fly...
Did you mean Bill Sweetman?

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 00:05
by quicksilver
maus92 wrote:
neurotech wrote:As commented in the other thread, current scuttlebutt seems to confirm movement around somebody buying additional Super Hornets. One possibility is that the RAAF might buy factor built EA-18s from Boeing, saving $10-20m in upgrade costs. Another possibility is that the RAAF will buy a Block III jet with improved capabilities, and less expensive upgrade to full Growler capability. A Block III jet could be delivered in 2-3 years to the RAAF.


Australia buying Block III Super Hornets would fantastic for the USN, especially if the Brazilians opt for the Supers as well. With other buyers sharing the cost of the Block III / IR version upgrades, it makes a strong case for the Navy to continue buying Super Hornets, and not wasting money SLEPing older legacy Hornets. And if the Canadians go with the Super Hornet, it gets even better.

When FRP of F-35s kicks in in 2019, the Navy can better evaluate just how many F-35Cs it can afford - or should it accelerate the development of the longer ranged NGAD aircraft needed for Pacific ops.


Delusional, absolutely delusional.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 00:18
by neurotech
gtx wrote:And pigs may fly...

Sorry, they retired the F-111 "Pig". That is the only flying pig that I know of.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 00:31
by neurotech
quicksilver wrote:
maus92 wrote:When FRP of F-35s kicks in in 2019, the Navy can better evaluate just how many F-35Cs it can afford - or should it accelerate the development of the longer ranged NGAD aircraft needed for Pacific ops.


Delusional, absolutely delusional.

That is a little arrogant isn't it? None of us can be 100% what will happen in 7-10 years down the track with a program.

Having plans to cover delays/shortfalls is smart. If that means another 12 Super Hornets, so be it. SLEP programs are not cheap, remember that.

Part of the issue with the F-35 program is that the focus seems to be on "combat coded" birds. Newsflash, training doesn't require fully combat coded and ready aircraft. 12 F-35s would be enough to outfit a training squadron, and later jets could go to a front line squadron, problem solved.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 00:38
by hb_pencil
neurotech wrote:
quicksilver wrote:
maus92 wrote:When FRP of F-35s kicks in in 2019, the Navy can better evaluate just how many F-35Cs it can afford - or should it accelerate the development of the longer ranged NGAD aircraft needed for Pacific ops.


Delusional, absolutely delusional.

That is a little arrogant isn't it? None of us can be 100% what will happen in 7-10 years down the track with a program.

Having plans to cover delays/shortfalls is smart. If that means another 12 Super Hornets, so be it. SLEP programs are not cheap, remember that.

Part of the issue with the F-35 program is that the focus seems to be on "combat coded" birds. Newsflash, training doesn't require fully combat coded and ready aircraft. 12 F-35s would be enough to outfit a training squadron, and later jets could go to a front line squadron, problem solved.


I'd agree with you Neuro, but I think its tiresome to listen to certain posters who come here with utterly dubious claims and fanciful scenarios like this one. I think most posters on here fully acknowledge the risks involved with the F-35 and are hopeful for its future. I can fully understand why Australia would buy 12 fighters going forward and its affect on the overall F-35 program.


However I think posts like that illustrate the frustration some feel at those certain parties who have the arrogance to continually argue that the military is making a terrible mistake with the F-35 and should go with upgraded F-35s or F/A-18E/Fs. Almost all the views they post are just to attack the program, without any discussion of the context or alternative views.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 00:53
by neurotech
hb_pencil wrote: However I think posts like that illustrate the frustration some feel at those certain parties who have the arrogance to continually argue that the military is making a terrible mistake with the F-35 and should go with upgraded F-35s or F/A-18E/Fs. Almost all the views they post are just to attack the program, without any discussion of the context or alternative views.

Upgraded F-35s?

I'm not one to call the program a "terrible mistake". Lets not forget that the F/A-18 was basically created because the YF-16 won the LWF competition, but wasn't viable as a Navy jet. Does that make the LWF competition a mistake.. hell no.

Similarly, the F-14 was created out of the unsuccessful F-111B program. Does that make the F-111B program a failure? Nope.. The F-14 leveraged a significant part of the F-111B design.

Calling the F-35 program a "terrible mistake" is down right stupid. The fact is that if LM imploded and the USAF buys Block III++ Super Hornets, you can bet your a** they'll use technology from the F-35 program to improve the design in fairly short order.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 04:59
by checksixx
The F-14 didn't leverage any part of the F-111's design. The only thing it had in common was swing wings and two crew...that's it.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 05:27
by johnwill
Engines, AWG-9 fire control system, Phoenix missiles

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 05:28
by neurotech
checksixx wrote:The F-14 didn't leverage any part of the F-111's design. The only thing it had in common was swing wings and two crew...that's it.

Grumman played a major role in converting the F-111A design to F-111B for carrier operations. The F-111B and F-14A use the same engines, same radar. There is also some avionics commonality as well.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 05:33
by checksixx
Design does not equal equipment.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 05:45
by johnwill
If the engines, AWG-9, and Phoenix had not already been developed for the 111, the F-14 would have taken many more years to arrive. Thus, they did leverage the 111B design.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 05:53
by checksixx
johnwill wrote:If the engines, AWG-9, and Phoenix had not already been developed for the 111, the F-14 would have taken many more years to arrive. Thus, they did leverage the 111B design.


So now your saying that the engines (made by P&W) and the radar and AIM-54 (made by Hughes), had something to do with the design of either aircraft?? Or that I'm wrong in saying the F-14 was not a follow-on design of the F-111B? I don't think so bud...

You said the F-14 was born from the design of the F-111B..which is flat out wrong. They may have designed it to hold some of the same systems and equipment, but the designs were not common in the way an engineer would think. There was no alteration of the F-111B design...the F-14 was a different design altogether.

Not sure why you changed to 'leverage the 111B design' instead of the other way around...maybe typing too fast?

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 05:57
by neurotech
checksixx wrote:Design does not equal equipment.

The point is that the F-14 was designed after the F-111B was cancelled. They were not designed in parallel, and the F-14 avionics being based on the F-111B probably saved months, if not years in development.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 06:00
by checksixx
neurotech wrote:
checksixx wrote:Design does not equal equipment.

The point is that the F-14 was designed after the F-111B was cancelled. They were not designed in parallel, and the F-14 avionics being based on the F-111B probably saved months, if not years in development.


So you agree with me then...thank you.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 06:13
by neurotech
checksixx wrote:
johnwill wrote:If the engines, AWG-9, and Phoenix had not already been developed for the 111, the F-14 would have taken many more years to arrive. Thus, they did leverage the 111B design.


So now your saying that the engines (made by P&W) and the radar and AIM-54 (made by Hughes), had something to do with the design of either aircraft?? Or that I'm wrong in saying the F-14 was not a follow-on design of the F-111B? I don't think so bud...

Firstly, that comment was actually from johnwill. Secondly, they DO design the airframe around the engine and mission systems. Have you ever looked at the nose of a Su-27 series jet and compared it to a F-15? The Su-27 has a huge nose and sometimes canards because the radar is so damn heavy.

I used the word "leverage" for a reason. The F-14 isn't a follow-on in the same way the F-15D and F-15E share commonality. The program was a follow-on, not the design itself.

For 4th gen or newer fighters, the avionics and mission systems is a significant part of the "design". If the F-111B had been a resounding success, do you think the Navy would have said to Grumman "Okay, now build us a F-14 for dogfighting?" I don't think so.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 06:14
by johnwill
No, sixx, don't agree. Why don't you get some sleep and tomorrow, read what you have just written. Makes no sense to me. How about you, neurotech?

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 06:20
by checksixx
neurotech wrote:Secondly, they DO design the airframe around the engine and mission systems.

I used the word "leverage" for a reason. The F-14 isn't a follow-on in the same way the F-15D and F-15E share commonality. The program was a follow-on, not the design itself.

For 4th gen or newer fighters, the avionics and mission systems is a significant part of the "design". If the F-111B had been a resounding success, do you think the Navy would have said to Grumman "Okay, now build us a F-14 for dogfighting?" I don't think so.


I think you're confusing yourself. I'm well aware the F-14 wasn't a follow-on design from the 111B. The F-14 'design' was NOT based in ANY part on the 111B...it WAS based around engines, and some systems, and Grumman kept the swing wing concept. So we DO agree.

The Navy NEVER asked for a dogfighter, they asked for a long range interceptor.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 06:22
by checksixx
johnwill wrote:No, sixx, don't agree. Why don't you get some sleep and tomorrow, read what you have just written. Makes no sense to me. How about you, neurotech?


Neurotech's post most certainly agree's with my opinion and the facts. Why in the world would I need sleep? The sun just came up and the day just started!!

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 06:27
by neurotech
johnwill wrote:No, sixx, don't agree. Why don't you get some sleep and tomorrow, read what you have just written. Makes no sense to me. How about you, neurotech?

I don't really agree with sixx on this. Engine + Radar IS a large part of an aircraft design.

You actually worked on the F-111 series for GD, didn't you? Were you around for Sec. McNamara vs Vadm. Connolly argument over the F-111B?

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 06:31
by checksixx
Doesn't really matter who was around for what and where...Facts are facts. You are right...engine, radar, internal systems ARE a huge part of aircraft design. What wasn't part of the F-14's design, was the inherent design of the 111B. That's fact. If you disagree with then I can't help you at all...it's plain as day.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 06:38
by neurotech
checksixx wrote:The Navy NEVER asked for a dogfighter, they asked for a long range interceptor.

Actually they did. It was Sec. McNamara who asked for a Navy interceptor, based on the F-111 to save costs. The problem was that the F-111 wasn't particularly agile, and I quote "There isn't enough power in all Christendom to make that airplane what we want!", comment by Vadm. Tom Connoly. It's called TOMcat for a reason.

It is the ghosts of the F-111A/B program that echoed in the F-35 program, for good reason. The Navy won't accept a compromise fighter that doesn't suit it needs. If the F-35A could handle arrested landings, it probably wouldn't be successful on the boat due to the higher AoA and airspeed on approach. The F-35C is a good solution.

The F-35 needs to be successful for all the 3 services, and I think it will be.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 06:55
by checksixx
Nope...the program was ALWAYS for a fleet interceptor. Its called Tomcat for a reason, yes. Folks at Grumman were already going to name it as they had done for years, the Grumman cat family, and had been calling it Tom's Cat because of all the mouth running he was doing over it. I highly suggest looking at historical documents and company history as it will show what the program requirements were at the time.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 07:05
by neurotech
checksixx wrote:Nope...the program was ALWAYS for a fleet interceptor. Its called Tomcat for a reason, yes. Folks at Grumman were already going to name it as they had done for years, the Grumman cat family, and had been calling it Tom's Cat because of all the mouth running he was doing over it. I highly suggest looking at historical documents and company history as it will show what the program requirements were at the time.

The Navy wanted a jet that could function as an interceptor, but still dogfight like a F-4 Phantom or better. To be fair, the Navy DID change the requirements based on their experience in Vietnam. This probably played a large role in why the F-111B was no longer suitable.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 07:39
by johnwill
neurotech wrote:You actually worked on the F-111 series for GD, didn't you? Were you around for Sec. McNamara vs Vadm. Connolly argument over the F-111B?


Right, I spent ten years on the 111 program, including assignments at Grumman and as GD lead structural engineer on the carrier suitabilty test at Pax in 1968.

Although I wasn't at the hearing where Connolly made his infamous claim, I was well aware of the Navy position. By the way, the NY Times agrees with you about naming the F-14.

Back to checksixx, "leverage" means to take advantage. The F-14 took advantage of the previously mentioned hardware and also of much that GD and Grumman had learned from the 111, neurotech's original claim is correct in my opinion.

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 07:55
by 1st503rdsgt
checksixx wrote:Nope...the program was ALWAYS for a fleet interceptor. Its called Tomcat for a reason, yes. Folks at Grumman were already going to name it as they had done for years, the Grumman cat family, and had been calling it Tom's Cat because of all the mouth running he was doing over it. I highly suggest looking at historical documents and company history as it will show what the program requirements were at the time.

You seem to have forgotten that Grumman also worked on the F-111B. Do you seriously expect us to believe that they didn't use what they learned in that process?

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 00:06
by hb_pencil
neurotech wrote:
hb_pencil wrote: However I think posts like that illustrate the frustration some feel at those certain parties who have the arrogance to continually argue that the military is making a terrible mistake with the F-35 and should go with upgraded F-35s or F/A-18E/Fs. Almost all the views they post are just to attack the program, without any discussion of the context or alternative views.

Upgraded F-35s?.


That's a typo.

neurotech wrote:I'm not one to call the program a "terrible mistake". Lets not forget that the F/A-18 was basically created because the YF-16 won the LWF competition, but wasn't viable as a Navy jet. Does that make the LWF competition a mistake.. hell no

Similarly, the F-14 was created out of the unsuccessful F-111B program. Does that make the F-111B program a failure? Nope.. The F-14 leveraged a significant part of the F-111B design.

Calling the F-35 program a "terrible mistake" is down right stupid. The fact is that if LM imploded and the USAF buys Block III++ Super Hornets, you can bet your a** they'll use technology from the F-35 program to improve the design in fairly short order.


I wasn't really referring to you at all. I can understand and accept your viewpoint, you're reasonable, intelligent and well informed. However the original poster was responding to another person who thought a fair and balanced article on the F-35 was about 20+ paragraphs of negative statements weighed against one paragraph of positive statements. The delusional point is suggesting that we should transfer funds from developing and procuring F-35s (when that program now seems to be operating as planned) in order to buy a much older and less capable airframe as well as the development of another airframe that won't see service until 2030. I would completely agree with having an alternative plan... the Navy has done that with its current recapitalization plans and keeping the F/A-18E lines open until 2015. If the Marines at that time will be (or close to) operating a squadron of F-35Bs, then I think the USN can be reasonably assured of the program's future success.

However I'd vehemently disagree with taking funds away from your primary program (and diminishing its chances for success) to push forward a much less capable and riskier alternative. I might not call it delusional... but its certainly foolhardy.

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 02:57
by neurotech
hb_pencil wrote:
neurotech wrote:Calling the F-35 program a "terrible mistake" is down right stupid. The fact is that if LM imploded and the USAF buys Block III++ Super Hornets, you can bet your a** they'll use technology from the F-35 program to improve the design in fairly short order.


I wasn't really referring to you at all. I can understand and accept your viewpoint, you're reasonable, intelligent and well informed. However the original poster was responding to another person who thought a fair and balanced article on the F-35 was about 20+ paragraphs of negative statements weighed against one paragraph of positive statements. The delusional point is suggesting that we should transfer funds from developing and procuring F-35s (when that program now seems to be operating as planned) in order to buy a much older and less capable airframe as well as the development of another airframe that won't see service until 2030. I would completely agree with having an alternative plan... the Navy has done that with its current recapitalization plans and keeping the F/A-18E lines open until 2015. If the Marines at that time will be (or close to) operating a squadron of F-35Bs, then I think the USN can be reasonably assured of the program's future success.

However I'd vehemently disagree with taking funds away from your primary program (and diminishing its chances for success) to push forward a much less capable and riskier alternative. I might not call it delusional... but its certainly foolhardy.

My last comment about LM "imploding" was very much hypothetical.

I do agree that at this point there is significantly less technical risk in bringing the F-35 to FRP, than making a FA-18E/F III++ jet to be competitive to the F-35. So yes, that would be foolhardy to divert funds from the F-35 procurement, to do a major airframe refresh of the F/A-18E/F

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2012, 10:30
by spazsinbad
Williams Foundation questions Super Hornet LOR
Item by australianaviation.com.au at 10:09 am, Thursday December 20 2012

http://australianaviation.com.au/2012/1 ... ornet-lor/

"The Williams Foundation think tank has questioned the government’s decision to further delay a decision on Australia’s air combat capability transition plan and to submit an LOR to the US government for 24 more Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornets. In a December 17 release, the foundation laid out the four options which government considered before announcing the LOR, including a previously unreported option to accelerate the F-35A acquisition under Project AIR 6000 Phase 2A/2B and return it to the original schedule before it was delayed by two years in May’s federal budget.

http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au/blogentry/177

“There are two very important points that highlight government inconsistency in defence acquisition policy by the Minister’s recent announcement,” the release reads. “The first relates to tolerance for risk, and the second relates to attitude towards Australian industry. In terms of risk the government appears to be willing to accept an extreme level of risk with the Future Submarine Project, a program where Australia would be taking the lead and be the sole customer for a small fleet of conventional submarines, that are yet to be designed, that are pushing the edge of technology… This is in stark contrast to the JSF Program where the US has the lead of a nine-nation partnership, development and testing is now largely complete, production is ramping up such that by the end of 2018 over 400 F-35 aircraft will have been delivered and there is a clear upgrade path well into the future.”

The release also compared “the treatment of the Australian aerospace sector versus the land and maritime sectors”, describing it as “stark,” and claiming that, “Ongoing lack of support for Australian aerospace industry and ongoing questions about Australia’s commitment to the F-35 program will further undermine Australia’s aerospace industry sector.”

That is it.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2014, 23:44
by meatshield
Found this today and its worth a read. Not sure how close to the truth it is...

http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-ab ... 6851684344

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2014, 01:33
by XanderCrews
meatshield wrote:Found this today and its worth a read. Not sure how close to the truth it is...

http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-ab ... 6851684344


Other than the F-22 photo, its legit.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2014, 01:38
by popcorn
meatshield wrote:Found this today and its worth a read. Not sure how close to the truth it is...

http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-ab ... 6851684344



Squadron Leader Harper was the first Australian to fly the fifth generation F-22 Raptor and Lieutenant Colonel Berke is the only pilot to fly both the F-22 and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. “Stealth makes you unstoppable and reduces an adversaries situational awareness to almost zero,’’ Squadron Leader Harper said. “The jet provides an exponential increase in survivability, reduces mission risk and increases the probability of mission success.’’ Lieutenant Colonel Berke said the old mantra of “speed is life, more is better’’ had been replaced by “information is life, more is better’’.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2014, 03:51
by Corsair1963
popcorn wrote:
meatshield wrote:Found this today and its worth a read. Not sure how close to the truth it is...

http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-ab ... 6851684344



Squadron Leader Harper was the first Australian to fly the fifth generation F-22 Raptor and Lieutenant Colonel Berke is the only pilot to fly both the F-22 and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. “Stealth makes you unstoppable and reduces an adversaries situational awareness to almost zero,’’ Squadron Leader Harper said. “The jet provides an exponential increase in survivability, reduces mission risk and increases the probability of mission success.’’ Lieutenant Colonel Berke said the old mantra of “speed is life, more is better’’ had been replaced by “information is life, more is better’’.



Which, is why many claim the F-35 is more capable than the F-22 in many respects.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2014, 06:25
by spazsinbad
The second article has the same info as the recent article above whilst the first indicates when the aircraft may be ordered and which batches.

AU to Make Most Expensive Military Purchase to Date 11 Mar 2014 Athena Yenko

"A submission to buy involving Australia's purchase of 86 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, worth $90 million each - the most expensive military purchase to date - is to be presented to Cabinet's National Security Committee for approval any day from March 12 until March 16....

...The planes will roll off the assembly line from 2018 until 2020...."

SOURCE: http://ca.ibtimes.com/articles/542876/2 ... e-jets.htm


JSF price sinks to US$80-85m 12 Mar 2014 Max Blenkin
"Australia looks like paying a less than expected $US80-$US85 million for each F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and that could drop if production ramps up.

That's much cheaper than recent indications of over $US100 million ($A111.73 million) per aircraft.

Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, who heads the JSF acquisition program for the US military, said the price included profit for JSF manufacturer Lockheed Martin and was in 2019 dollars, accounting for inflation....

...In an update on JSF progress, General Bogdan was less concerned about some technical problems.

The aircraft is close to certification to fly in vicinity of lightning storms. The pilot helmet, which displays flight and mission data on the inside of the visor, is mostly working as it should.

In JSF flight tests, live bombs and missiles have hit exactly what they were aimed at.

But General Bogdan remained concerned about JSF's complex software, particularly what's termed "multi-platform fusion".

Currently JSF can talk to other JSF but by 2016 the aim is to allow JSF to receive and disseminate data from and to satellites, airborne warning aircraft, ground radar and other aircraft.

"That is a really hard thing to do with software and there is some risk there," he said...."

SOURCE: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-na ... 34m91.html

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2014, 06:39
by XanderCrews
Go pop some champagne, Spaz! :mrgreen:

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2014, 07:33
by spazsinbad
Not until official announcement and then I only drink coffee/tea these days. Get old and you'll know. :devil:

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2014, 08:46
by meatshield
Why do you think the numbr is 86 now? I've heard 72 or 100 for years now....

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2014, 09:35
by spazsinbad
These recent news reports are a bit muddled about the numbers (one reason why I did not post them myself earlier). Probably best to wait for the official announcement whenever soon. However the plan was to buy 100 eventually with the first being two (being built now) then twelve, which decision for the dozen was delayed by two years by the previous government. I suspect we will see an announcement for the next dozen soon and a promise for more (yyy-14=?) later. With the last tranche of XX still being undecided. I have deliberately made the numbers confusing. What probably is best is to go to earlier announcements in this thread to re-orientate ourselves rather than rely on the recent numbers. OK? :mrgreen:

This quote is at bottom of first page of this thread: [11 May 2012]
""The RAAF could have an operational squadron of Joint Strike Fighters by 2019, despite a government decision to delay the purchase of the next 12 planes by two years, according to Chief of Air Force, Air Marshal Geoff Brown.

This is only one year later than the schedule for JSF initial operating capacity - or combat readiness - Defence has been working towards for at least a decade....

....Air Marshal Brown told yesterday's Air Power conference in Canberra the RAAF needed at least 100 JSFs [which has been the grand total all along] and it would be a mistake to order more Super Hornets - that could eat into final JSF numbers - as a stopgap...."

____________________

Here is some recent speculation which 'jumps the gun' a little :D [First posted here when: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20426&p=260572&hilit=MINNICK#p260572 ]
All Eyes on F-35 10 Feb 2014 WENDELL MINNICK
“...Australia
...A further 12 aircraft have been committed to [but not ordered yet - wait for it....], commencing with low-rate initial production lot 10 (LRIP-10) in mid-2015. But if the Hornet is to be retired on schedule, three squadrons and a training unit are required by the end of 2022. This will require purchasing 72 aircraft, with a further decision to be made sometime in the next decade on a final batch of 28 to replace Australia’s newer F/A-18F Super Hornets.

“The next lots deliver in LRIP-10 [eight aircraft for delivery in 2018] and LRIP-11 [four aircraft for delivery in 2019],” [Lockheed's] Schnaible said. “The Australian government reaffirmed its commitment to procuring up to 100 aircraft.” The Royal Australian Air Force will submit its recommended purchase profile for government consideration early this year, with a decision expected around April. Options include a single tranche of 72 aircraft or a phased approach, which will require a series of government approvals...."

SOURCE: http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... nav%7Chead

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2014, 09:52
by gtx
meatshield wrote:Why do you think the numbr is 86 now? I've heard 72 or 100 for years now....


The number 86 is incorrect. The number is 14 (already approved - 2 already in build with first scheduled to rollout 24 Jul 14) + 58 (next batch will be formalised very shortly - also the subject of the stories today) = 72. A third batch is tentatively planned posts 2020 and will round out the number to 100 (this third lot will replace the Super Hornets).

This was confirmed by those involved during meetings with Gen. Bogdan this week.

BTW, I believe the 86 number is a result of the reporter getting their numbers wrong and doing 14 + 72.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2014, 10:18
by gtx
Poor old Eric Palmer, Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon must be going nuts with all this Australian pro-F-35 reporting today. :lol:

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2014, 17:10
by XanderCrews
gtx wrote:Poor old Eric Palmer, Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon must be going nuts with all this Australian pro-F-35 reporting today. :lol:


I'd be lying if I said I didn't go have a look a see over on ELPs blog :devil:

He hasn't mentioned it yet. :| :| he has a story about how the US Army needs more ships and that its Abrams, Bradleys, and Strykers are all useless.

^ no really, thats not a joke :D

This guy totally knows what he is talking about :doh:

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2014, 17:14
by spazsinbad
SNAFU has Gen. Bogdan on drugs? Briganti just calls him a liar (my interpretation). That is the only way to face reality these days. :devil: Doan get me started on Don Bacon. :D

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2014, 17:20
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:SNAFU has Gen. Bogdan on drugs? Briganti just calls him a liar (my interpretation). That is the only way to face reality these days. :devil: Doan get me started on Don Bacon. :D


I refuse to visit SNAFU, I am waiting on that-- best served cold and all. Besides, in a year or two he will probably be back to being an ardent JSF nut, who insults anyone who disagrees with him again. He loves to delete comments where you post his old material advocating the JSF LOL, especially under stories where he rants that anyone who ever thought JSF was good idea is an idiot :D

There is nothing more bizarre than a person who takes things to extremes and then combining it with indecisiveness. Funny to watch though.

APA has an "ethics" section I never noticed!! complete with psychology and a list of reading material including this:

Why People Fail to Recognize Their Own Incompetence

http://www.ausairpower.net/ethics-culture.html

I think I just fell through an irony vortex!! :doh: but no news of he proposed order

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2014, 17:34
by spazsinbad
At APA I was repelled by the incomprehensible technobabble about 'future' all singing all dancing Russian Tech. Way back before the internet (perhaps in BBS days) Kopp wrote briefly for an OzAv Magn. Thankfully not for long. :D There is good in everything and everyone though but I do not bother to read every damn thing these days. One gets jaded. :devil:

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2014, 19:27
by gtx
This one says a lot of what has also been discussed behind closed doors this week:

F35 Joint Strike Fighters: Pentagon says jets getting cheaper, Australia could become regional service hub

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2014, 20:02
by gtx
XanderCrews wrote:
I'd be lying if I said I didn't go have a look a see over on ELPs blog :devil:



Yeah, me too…I have noted in the past though that whenever there is something positive said about the F-35 and which he can't throw his usual crap at, he just goes quiet and acts like it didn't happen. For instance he did that with the Sth Korean announcement.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2014, 20:50
by rotosequence
XanderCrews wrote:
gtx wrote:Poor old Eric Palmer, Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon must be going nuts with all this Australian pro-F-35 reporting today. :lol:


I'd be lying if I said I didn't go have a look a see over on ELPs blog :devil:

He hasn't mentioned it yet. :| :| he has a story about how the US Army needs more ships and that its Abrams, Bradleys, and Strykers are all useless.

^ no really, thats not a joke :D

This guy totally knows what he is talking about :doh:


The Abrams is often too heavy for regional infrastructure, limiting where it can go, and consumes so much fuel that a massive supply line is needed to keep them topped up. The Bradleys and Strykers are thin skinned vehicles that do not do well on the receiving end of an ambush. I don't know if I'd call either set of vehicles useless, but they do have definite flaws to overcome with future designs and upgrades.

Since the US Navy is instrumental to US power projection around the globe, the boats do have a role to play, and the US' frigate fleet has basically evaporated. The US does seem to need a small and inexpensive hull class to replace the Oliver Hazard Perry, and the Littoral Combat Ship isn't quite the boat for the job.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2014, 20:58
by XanderCrews
rotosequence wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
gtx wrote:Poor old Eric Palmer, Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon must be going nuts with all this Australian pro-F-35 reporting today. :lol:


I'd be lying if I said I didn't go have a look a see over on ELPs blog :devil:

He hasn't mentioned it yet. :| :| he has a story about how the US Army needs more ships and that its Abrams, Bradleys, and Strykers are all useless.

^ no really, thats not a joke :D

This guy totally knows what he is talking about :doh:


The Abrams is often too heavy for regional infrastructure, limiting where it can go, and consumes so much fuel that a massive supply line is needed to keep them topped up. The Bradleys and Strykers are thin skinned vehicles that do not do well on the receiving end of an ambush. I don't know if I'd call either set of vehicles useless, but they do have definite flaws to overcome with future designs and upgrades.

Since the US Navy is instrumental to US power projection around the globe, the boats do have a role to play, and the US' frigate fleet has basically evaporated. The US does seem to need a small and inexpensive hull class to replace the Oliver Hazard Perry, and the Littoral Combat Ship isn't quite the boat for the job.


So you actually went there and read what he wrote? Both this post and his complaints about the M-1? because is not talking about what you think he is talking about...

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2014, 21:27
by rotosequence
XanderCrews wrote:So you actually went there and read what he wrote? Both this post and his complaints about the M-1? because is not talking about what you think he is talking about...


I didn't. My post is just an aside.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2014, 22:02
by XanderCrews
rotosequence wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:So you actually went there and read what he wrote? Both this post and his complaints about the M-1? because is not talking about what you think he is talking about...


I didn't. My post is just an aside.


Protip: You might want to read it before you post about it...

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2014, 22:58
by rotosequence
XanderCrews wrote:
rotosequence wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:So you actually went there and read what he wrote? Both this post and his complaints about the M-1? because is not talking about what you think he is talking about...


I didn't. My post is just an aside.


Protip: You might want to read it before you post about it...


I didn't post about it, I posted about what was said here. I didn't see a "because" in there, just a blanket comment on the ridiculousness of saying the Abrams, Stryker, and Bradley are useless and the Navy not having enough ships. It's not nice to provide less than half of someone's argument and then get upset when they don't comment on the part you didn't provide.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2014, 23:44
by spazsinbad
The HooHaa about 'will they/won't they' buy more F-35As and How Many will go on and on in Oz newspapers until the decision is announced then there will be more bumpf and analysis so at moment I do not post the speculation about numbers of F-35As for Oz but sumpin' else.

Abbott government will buy more Joint Strike Fighters despite flaws 13 Mar 2014 David Wroe

"...It is understood there is some urgency about nailing down the timetable for the purchases because Australia needs to book places to train RAAF pilots at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, US...."

SOURCE: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal ... 34nek.html

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2014, 00:35
by XanderCrews
rotosequence wrote:
I didn't post about it, I posted about what was said here. I didn't see a "because" in there, just a blanket comment on the ridiculousness of saying the Abrams, Stryker, and Bradley are useless and the Navy not having enough ships. It's not nice to provide less than half of someone's argument and then get upset when they don't comment on the part you didn't provide.


Who asked you to comment at all?

Lets go over it: I read something and said it was ridiculous. You having not read it at all say "well maybe not"-- well, maybe read the original article and you might see it is ridiculous. Instead you would rather argue with me about something you heard about 2nd hand.

It was anarticle was actually about the ARMY not having enough ships (but like most eric palmer he loses the message mid rant, and it become about the navy), if you had read the article you might see that. Also "drawbacks" or "downsides" are inherent in everything. It doesn't make something "useless"

definition of useless:

use·less [yoos-lis]
adjective
1.
of no use; not serving the purpose or any purpose; unavailing or futile
2.
without useful qualities; of no practical good

Taking those few drawbacks and turning them into "useless" is the typical extremist, juvenile antics we have seen from this bunch for years. I congratulate you for knowing the limitations of certain vehicles, but trying to promote them as useless? I didnt say they were perfect or without fault. I disagreed with them being useless. Maybe there is a middle ground where something can have issues but still be practical useful and worthwhile? So yes calling all those vehicles useless is pure garbage.

just FYI here is the full article. Now you don't have to comment second hand:

Does the U.S. Army need more ships?
With the U.S. Navy buying more and more gold-plated surface ships that don't have much to do with wars as we fight them, maybe it is time that the U.S. Army has more ships.

In order for the Army to be useful in the Pacific, it needs to manage more of its own shipping. Certainly in the littorals.

Small ships for island-to-island transport would interact with current Army Sustainment Brigades.

Using the Philippines as one example, the U.S. Army would not be moving Stryker Brigades (useless), or anything with M-1 tanks (useless) and Bradleys (useless).

In the Pacific, the Army would be moving light infantry, Rangers and special operations groups.

The Army manages some ships but it needs more if it is going to be useful in the Pacific.

The current Navy, can't see past $15B nuke aircraft carriers, $3B flat-tops without a well deck, and stupidity like the Littoral Combat Ship. For the most part, if it doesn't cost a billion or more dollars each, the Navy isn't interested.

Just like the USAF is moving away for its reason to exist, so is the U.S. Navy.

We need a U.S. Navy. But not at current prices and alleged capability.


Anyway in an effort to not derail the thread anymore I will ask you to PM me if you want to talk more. Hopefully that cleared things up though

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2014, 03:43
by Corsair1963
spazsinbad wrote:The HooHaa about 'will they/won't they' buy more F-35As and How Many will go on and on in Oz newspapers until the decision is announced then there will be more bumpf and analysis so at moment I do not post the speculation about numbers of F-35As for Oz but sumpin' else.

Abbott government will buy more Joint Strike Fighters despite flaws 13 Mar 2014 David Wroe

"...It is understood there is some urgency about nailing down the timetable for the purchases because Australia needs to book places to train RAAF pilots at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, US...."

SOURCE: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal ... 34nek.html



The program will be fine once it gets past the "Chicken before the Egg or the Egg before the Chicken" phase.......


Which, is why the US Government needs to order more F-35's not less.......

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2014, 04:03
by popcorn
Exciting times for the RAAF.

Top Gun veterans learn to fly RAAF’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighters

SAY hello to Top Gun 5.0. Veteran fighter pilots Andrew Jackson and David Bell are the two men at the tip of the spear as the RAAF shifts towards its next-generation combat aircraft, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The two Squadron Leaders, based at RAAF base Williamtown near Newcastle, will be the first Australians to fly the multi-billion dollar machine, billed as the most tech-heavy fighter plane on the planet.

They will spend four years at Luke Air Force Base in Phoenix, Arizona, first learning how to fly the fifth-generation fighters.

They will then insruct other Aussie pilots as they filter through in the lead-up to the F-35’s gradual deployment here from 2018.

More: http://m.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw ... 6851789114

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2014, 15:12
by maus92
SF price sinks to US$80-85m
12 Mar 2014 Max Blenkin

Australia looks like paying a less than expected $US80-$US85 million for each F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and that could drop if production ramps up.

That's much cheaper than recent indications of over $US100 million ($A111.73 million) per aircraft.

Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, who heads the JSF acquisition program for the US military, said the price included profit for JSF manufacturer Lockheed Martin and was in 2019 dollars, accounting for inflation....


The general must have been jet lagged, misquoted, or doesn't read his own budget. The just released FY15 USAF budget has the FY19 URF for F-35A at $91M, and flyaway unit cost at $97M.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2014, 17:41
by smsgtmac
maus92 wrote:
The general must have been jet lagged, misquoted, or doesn't read his own budget. The just released FY15 USAF budget has the FY19 URF for F-35A at $91M, and flyaway unit cost at $97M.


Why must he have been jet lagged,misquoted or doesn't read his own budget? I'm sitting in a Retina Doc's office with one eye dialated and can see two other likely possibile reasons for your observed 'disconnect'. If you try. I'm sure you could see one or two as well.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 17:17
by spazsinbad
Some inaccuracies in this report but unremarkable from most Oz media - but from a 'defence correspondent'? I weep....

Fighter pilots are ecstatic about the RAAF’s next generation Joint Strike Fighter 22 Mar 2014 IAN McPHEDRAN

"...According to the man charged with overseeing the massive $500 billion project for the Pentagon, United States air force (USAF) Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, the F-35 will now be delivered to the RAAF on-time in 2018 for the “bargain” price of about $90 million per jet.

The Abbott Government is expected to approve the purchase of up to 86 of the so-called fifth generation “stealth” aircraft for up to $16 billion (lifetime cost) before June this year....

...Many critics focus on the jet’s air-to-air combat or “dog fighting” capabilities and the fact that it cannot turn as fast as either a Raptor or a Russian Sukhoi F-27, but that misses the point.

As Bogdan told News Corp Australia, if an F-35 JSF found itself in a dogfight then the pilot has done something very, very wrong.

“He (the enemy) should never see you, he should never hear you and he should be killed long before he knows you are there,” he said.

According to Bogdan the critics simply did not know what the aircraft was capable of or what it brought to modern-day air combat.

“Unfortunately much of that is classified or secret,” he said.

That means we have to take much of what he and the aircraft maker Lockheed Martin’s vast public relations machine say about its capabilities on faith. But that faith is supported by $500 billion of US taxpayer funds....

...As of end of 2013, 50 per cent of the F-35’s flight testing had been completed, 12,000 hours had been flown, and more than 8000 flights had been completed in the 59 operational and 20 test aircraft in the air....

...If Australia buys 72 aircraft the purchase price will be about $6 billion with another $6 billion required for through life support.

News Corp Australia understands that the Abbott Government might even increase the initial purchase to 86 aircraft for about $7.3 billion or between $14-16 billion all up for their 30-year service life.

SOURCE: http://www.themercury.com.au/news/natio ... 6861468997

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 17:52
by sprstdlyscottsmn
oh no, it doesn't turn as fast as the fastest turning plane on earth! Doom and gloom! and what the heck is a Sukhoi F-27? :bang: You shouldn't write on a topic you don't understand. So-called stealth aircraft? Well, only the "ZOMG invisible" F-22 has better stealth and no other fighter is equal to the "so-called stealth" F-35... Seriously, reporting like this hurts my head. the only part I appreciated was stating the big $$$ were for total all-up lifetime costs.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 20:33
by gtx
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:and what the heck is a Sukhoi F-27? :bang: .


Sovietized version of this: :wink:

Image

Ian is usually better in his reporting. I wonder if it was edited after he submitted it or whether it was a rush job?

The comments from Gen Bogdan such as this: “He (the enemy) should never see you, he should never hear you and he should be killed long before he knows you are there,” are accurate though.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2014, 21:29
by sprstdlyscottsmn
:lmao:

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2014, 09:16
by popcorn
...If Australia buys 72 aircraft the purchase price will be about $6 billion with another $6 billion required for through life support.

It would be interesting to know what the RAAF has included under "thru life support" for a projected 30-year operational lifetime. It would be remarkable if support costs match acquisition cost on a 1-to-1 basis. My perception is that it would be closer to 3 or 4-to-1 for legacy .

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2014, 18:59
by spazsinbad
F-35 fighter purchase reasonable: report 24 Mar 2014 AAP

"AUSTRALIA is likely to push ahead with the acquisition of its first operational F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, according to a report by an independent defence think tank.

In a report released on Monday, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute says it makes most sense for the federal government to commit to spending between $8 billion and $10 billion on 58 of the fighters, which are expected to enter service in 2020....

...Start-up costs to take on the JSF are predicted to be $2 billion, with a ongoing annual cost of about $200 million....

...As the government keeps a watchful eye on Australia's budget, the report suggests an option of reducing the F-35 order to 50, thus saving about $800 million on the initial cost...."

SOURCE: http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/national/ ... 6862761303

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2014, 03:05
by spazsinbad
ASPIbergerBabies Report mentioned above here: :devil:
Taking wing: time to decide on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 24 Mar 2014 Andrew Davies & Harry White
"The government is about to make a decision on whether to spend between $8 and 10 billion of taxpayer’s money on the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. It’s also an important call because it will cement the F-35 as the main instrument of Australian air-power for decades into the future...."

FROM REPORT PDF: ...Conclusions
On balance, the decision that appears to meet government priorities for capability, industry participation and alliance
management with the US seems to be a further purchase of the F-35.

Risks to both schedule and performance seem sufficiently under control to make that a responsible decision. Although the
development program could still throw up surprises, it looks like the F-35 will be ready in time to retire the vintage Hornet fleet as scheduled, and will perform as required. However, delays to date now mean that there’s little additional scope for further slippage in an Australian in-service date.

Moving to the acquisition of additional F-35s on top of the Super Hornets and Growlers currently in service or under order will necessarily mean that the costs of a mixed fleet are now unavoidable. One option for offsetting those costs is reducing the number of aircraft purchased. That would complicate the management of the fleet and its readiness, but it would still provide a good basis for an expansion with further F-35 buys of later block aircraft should the future strategic circumstances warrant it.

SOURCE: https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/ta ... ke-fighter

PDF: https://www.aspi.org.au/publications/taking-wing-time-to-decide-on-the-f-35-joint-strike-fighter/SI70_F35_decision.pdf (1.9Mb)

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2014, 04:19
by weasel1962
I would post this in support of Australia's FPDA allied operations (1000km/540nm range circles). Air cover over LHD/F-35 entry routes into SE Asia. Note the broad cover over Indonesia as well...

Image

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2014, 19:23
by gtx
This one has really gotten under old Eric's skin since he has made two consecutive rants about it...I can imagine I him foaming at the mouth. :D . For a real laugh, have a look how he references both himself and Carlo Kopp as his expert evidence. :lmao:

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2 ... leads.html

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2 ... eport.html

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 01:57
by XanderCrews
gtx wrote:This one has really gotten under old Eric's skin since he has made two consecutive rants about it...I can imagine I him foaming at the mouth. :D . For a real laugh, have a look how he references both himself and Carlo Kopp as his expert evidence. :lmao:

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2 ... leads.html

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2 ... eport.html


Image

It begins! LOL

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 08:10
by spazsinbad
Dr. Jensen (OzFed Pollie) FIGHTS Back with a counterrotatingassbackwardskissyourarsegoodbye SPUN of his own. :devil: An Example of FLUFF from the GetGo:
A Strong Critique of Lockmart's Spinning of Joint Strike Fighter

"...Head of the program with the Pentagon, Lt. Gen. Bogdan, says that we will be able to buy them for $90m each. This is misleading at best, a blatant lie at worst. Let’s put them to the test, offer $9 billion for a purchase of 100.

It is a complete misrepresentation, and Bogdan knows it. He is talking about the equivalent of buying a car for a certain bargain price, only to then be told, oh, but sire, the seats, carpet, air conditioning, power steering ABS brakes, battery, sound system, paint etc are all extra. Wonder what the ACCC would make of that?..."

(Source: Dr Dennis Jensen, MP; posted March 22, 2014)

SOURCE: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?shop=dae&modele=verbatim&prod=152650&cat=4

A classic Oz Style Dummy Spit. Where to start. Poor old USMC Col. Chip Berke (only flying F-22/F-35 pilot at moment) gets the burk treatment. I think it IS a case of TOO Much Information for our Dr. Jensen but the soothsayers seven years ago got it right. What. :devil:
___________________

Just so there is no confusion about berk/burk:
"berk or burk (bɜːk). —n. slang (Brit) a stupid person; fool....."
:doh:
SOURCE: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 7204,d.dGI

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 09:47
by gtx
Interesting...I had heard rumours that Jensen had been strongly advised to shut up re the F-35...by his own political party! Mind you, he isn't exactly welcomed within his party anymore and may well be expected to be come an independent in the near future.

Either way, the guy is a complete idiot and easily refuted. Mind you, like all these fools they aren't prepared to let facts sway their belief. I am sure that many of them refuse to believe the world is round or that man have landed on the moon...

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 10:06
by mk82
I am not suprised if the rumours are true GTX. I would have expected good ole Tony Abbott to tell Dr Jensen to shut up and get with the program by now. Dr Jensen running as an independent eh...that will be a sight to see :P

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 17:33
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:Dr. Jensen (OzFed Pollie) FIGHTS Back with a counterrotatingassbackwardskissyourarsegoodbye SPUN of his own. :devil: An Example of FLUFF from the GetGo:
A Strong Critique of Lockmart's Spinning of Joint Strike Fighter

"...Head of the program with the Pentagon, Lt. Gen. Bogdan, says that we will be able to buy them for $90m each. This is misleading at best, a blatant lie at worst. Let’s put them to the test, offer $9 billion for a purchase of 100.

It is a complete misrepresentation, and Bogdan knows it. He is talking about the equivalent of buying a car for a certain bargain price, only to then be told, oh, but sire, the seats, carpet, air conditioning, power steering ABS brakes, battery, sound system, paint etc are all extra. Wonder what the ACCC would make of that?..."

(Source: Dr Dennis Jensen, MP; posted March 22, 2014)

SOURCE: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?shop=dae&modele=verbatim&prod=152650&cat=4

A classic Oz Style Dummy Spit. Where to start. Poor old USMC Col. Chip Berke (only flying F-22/F-35 pilot at moment) gets the burk treatment. I think it IS a case of TOO Much Information for our Dr. Jensen but the soothsayers seven years ago got it right. What. :devil:
___________________

Just so there is no confusion about berk/burk:
"berk or burk (bɜːk). —n. slang (Brit) a stupid person; fool....."
:doh:
SOURCE: http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 7204,d.dGI


Thank you for the defintion this Yank was confused. This Yank also hopes that Yank means "American" and not something more sexual down under. LOL :D

Bogdan said that its dogfighting capabilities were irrelevant, it would never dogfight. This is very similar to the F-4 Phantom of the 1960’s, where it didn’t have a gun, because the kills would all be done by missile. Then the ugly reality of Vietnam intervened, the missile and aircraft performance did not work as advertised, and a gun was quickly retrofitted.

Which begs the question, why does the JSF have a gun? Surely if there is to be no dogfighting, it is just so much lead, weight of gun and ammo that would be better used for fuel or additional missiles?



LOL Wut!? So "we thought in the 60s we wouldn't dogfight so we left a gun off, then we were wrong so we put on a gun! And now we don't think the JSF will dogfight, yet we put a gun on!!" doesn't that mean we learned the lesson?? Whats next? complaints of fire trucks that are equipped to shoot water and not gasoline?

Also: guns can be shot at ground targets. :doh:

jesus that article isn't just wrong, its incoherent and contradicts its own narrative.If you want to be a narrative writer rather than an analyst, can we a least take some creative writing classes?

http://treasure.diylol.com/uploads/post ... 126445.jpg

even if I didn't know anything about airplanes it makes no damn sense!!

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2014, 20:08
by spazsinbad
Correct. Yank = contraction from Yankee Doodle Dandy. Am I rong or am I rite? :devil:

Riming Slang: 'Septic' from 'Septic Tank'/ Yank. Clank.... Crickets chirping.... :D

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2014, 06:33
by spazsinbad
PM say in OzLand....
Prime Minister and Defence Minister – Joint Transcript – Press conference 04 April 2014

"...QUESTION:
Prime Minister, something that’s worked its way through the last two White Papers the previous Government produced, very comprehensive re•equipment program, and it was never fully funded and this created a serious problem and it was possibly a crisis of expectations. Are there any of those things that were locked in those two White Papers, such as 100 Joint Strike Fighters and 12 submarines, a fairly massive re-equipment program for the Army in terms of vehicles – are they all locked in? Do you remain committed to those things, or might those numbers shift?

PRIME MINISTER:
Look, in terms of the Joint Strike Fighters yes, we are committed.... we want more capable, not less capable armed forces going forward and we need to get out of this White Paper a new Defence Capability Plan which is affordable but also funded. And this was the big problem with the last two Defence White Papers; it was basically an equipment wish list rather than something that was affordable and funded.

QUESTION:
Are you close to a decision on JSF yet (indistinct)..?

PRIME MINISTER:
Look, the short answer is we’re on track to be making decisions and ultimately acquiring aircraft at the right time...."

SOURCE: http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2014 ... onference/

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2014, 08:29
by gtx
The formal announcement re the next 58 will be within the next 2 months.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2014, 20:06
by spazsinbad
I wonder what the final 'as ordered' configuration will be for our Oz Growlies? I hope there will be room for upgrades etc.
Without New Orders, Boeing's F/A-18 Line Will Shut Down Within Two Years 07 Apr 2014 Dan Parsons

"...Negotiations are nearing completion on a 12-Growler order from Australia, said Morley. With a fleet of 24 [Super Hornets], that nation is the only country other than the United States that owns [X Number of] F/A-18s...."

SOURCE: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... a2&ID=1463

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2014, 20:40
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:I wonder what the final 'as ordered' configuration will be for our Oz Growlies? I hope there will be room for upgrades etc.
Without New Orders, Boeing's F/A-18 Line Will Shut Down Within Two Years 07 Apr 2014 Dan Parsons

"...Negotiations are nearing completion on a 12-Growler order from Australia, said Morley. With a fleet of 24 [Super Hornets], that nation is the only country other than the United States that owns [X Number of] F/A-18s...."

SOURCE: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... a2&ID=1463

Boeing are still pushing the Growler-Lite configuration, without ALQ-99 jammers, to other countries. Australia will be getting ALQ-99 pods from the US Navy, and upgrading them for their EA-18Gs. The Growler systems are being upgraded between blocks. The EW "processor" computer is quite modular and upgradable. My guess is that Australia will probably buy Next Generation Jammer pods when they become available.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2014, 08:32
by Corsair1963
Yeah, it just kills me when some quote the current projected numbers as the final and end all. The F-35 will be produced for decades to come. The US originally procure more F-4's, F-15's, F-16, F/A-18's, etc. etc. than planned. Which, is true for many Air Forces. So, to say todays numbers are concrete and won't increase in the years to come is well "laughable". :doh:

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2014, 01:17
by spazsinbad
Australia Likely To Order More F-35s 07 Apr 2014 Bradley Perrett

"Australia is likely to commit to buying 58 more Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightnings this month, setting aside the alternative of consolidating its combat aircraft squadrons on the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The decision will increase the country's total commitment to 72 F-35s and expand the Royal Australian Air Force's fast-jet fleet, counting a separate order for 12 EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft as additional to, not part of, the fighter force renewal....

...Canberra has already ordered two F-35s and committed itself to another 12, though the latter are not under contract. “In the near future” the government will consider a defense department recommendation that it authorize an order for another 58, making for a total of 72, say the [ASPI] institute's analysts Andrew Davies and Harry White. According to the source, the cabinet will decide the issue around mid-month, though delays in government decision-making are always possible....

...The analysis does not consider the great boost to the air force's capabilities that will come when 12 Growlers become operational in 2018. The Growlers could be regarded as part of the combat-aircraft renewal effort, bolstering the case for trimming the F-35 order, but the air force has argued that they are support aircraft and therefore separate. In effect, it hopes the Growlers will increase its fleet....

...“But in the strike-fighter role, the F-35 is a far more capable aircraft than the Super Hornet and would give greater capability against a more capable adversary, including the ability to penetrate sophisticated air defenses,” says the think-tank. The F-35 would also be more resistant to obsolescence. Moreover, backing out of the order would be harmful to Australia's alliance with the U.S. and would take away business opportunities for Australian companies participating in the program.

Among the Australian suppliers to the F-35 program, engineering company Marand is building tail fins. The company delivered its first ship set on March 31. BAE Systems Australia, also involved in making the tail, said on April 1 it had commissioned a machine tool for making long spars and longerons. Composite-parts maker Quickstep has delivered more than 200 high-grade carbon-fiber components and is ramping up production with its out-of-autoclave process.

The think-tank's analysis assumes a unit cost for the F-35 of $90 million in 2019, lower than the Joint Strike Fighter program office's forecast of $97 million because the program's estimates have been trending down. Another 50% can be assumed for other acquisition costs, such as support equipment, and running costs over two decades of twice the acquisition cost, the think tank says. That implies that Australia will spend almost $10 billion to buy 72 aircraft, including the two already on order, and the April decision for 58 will be worth a little more than $8 billion. Operating the 72 aircraft until around 2040 should cost about $20 billion and then more after that.

The air force has probably only set aside, not given up, its ultimate aim for about 100 F-35s. By 2030, the Super Hornets will be 20 years old, an age that could justify retirement and replacement by F-35s. Twelve of the Super Hornets are wired for EA-18G configuration, so they could be kept and mixed into the Growler force to share airframe wear and tear and extend the life of the electronic attack capability; equipment could be moved between airframes during overhauls, as well. RAAF officers have suggested that the small Growler fleet could rely on U.S. Navy support, minimizing the expense of operating it alongside the main fleet of F-35s."

SOURCE: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 676627.xml

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2014, 06:10
by popcorn
Not a good day for the naysayers, witness the gnashing of teeth in the comments section. :D

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2014, 20:03
by gtx
The air force has probably only set aside, not given up, its ultimate aim for about 100 F-35s.


The 100 aircraft requirement hasn't changed. The next 58 are definitely happening - safe money bet! The third tranche (if you like to call it that) will be looked at around the mid 2020s.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2014, 20:06
by gtx
popcorn wrote:Not a good day for the naysayers, witness the gnashing of teeth in the comments section. :D



Indeed - how surprising (NOT!!!) to see it led by the whack job Eric Palmer. The guy must be foaming at the mouth. Pity he censors any post that disagrees with his own warped sense of reality on his blog. Otherwise I would be having a field day tearing him to pieces.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2014, 21:49
by XanderCrews
gtx wrote:
popcorn wrote:Not a good day for the naysayers, witness the gnashing of teeth in the comments section. :D



Indeed - how surprising (NOT!!!) to see it led by the whack job Eric Palmer. The guy must be foaming at the mouth. Pity he censors any post that disagrees with his own warped sense of reality on his blog. Otherwise I would be having a field day tearing him to pieces.


LOL oh man

Whoever "scarletPin1" is though he brought him up short LOL. Thanks for reminding me to read those comments all, Their tears are my fuel. :devil:

It sure is fun to see the F-111 still being brought up... how long has it been now since they were buried? Remember kids nothing good ever came from the compromises of a joint concept... but the F-111 is awesome. :doh:

How long do we think the belly aching will go on even when the writing is on the wall?

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2014, 22:09
by spazsinbad
Someone mention 'writing on the wall'? There is a classic 'jump the shark' moment with overtones of the 'Godwin's Law' [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law ] "...While falling afoul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose his argument or credibility..." shenanigans with this spray: http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2 ... -f-35.html

Words they live by: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HYWBS0VgZio/U ... einF35.jpg

It is all over and they are just shouting.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2014, 22:15
by gtx
I'm surprised someone hasn't taken Ol' Eric to court over some of the comments/accusations he has made - surely he is treading close to slander with some of his posts.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2014, 22:30
by gtx
XanderCrews wrote:Whoever "scarletPin1" is though he brought him up short LOL.


Glad to see someone is taking it to him.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2014, 01:08
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:Someone mention 'writing on the wall'? There is a classic 'jump the shark' moment with overtones of the 'Godwin's Law' [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law ] "...While falling afoul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose his argument or credibility..." shenanigans with this spray: http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2 ... -f-35.html

Words they live by: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HYWBS0VgZio/U ... einF35.jpg

It is all over and they are just shouting.


Oh boy :roll:

you know who else censored dissent, refused to see the historical writing on the wall ,and liked to quote Mein Kampf there Eric?

Its a good thing these guys have no authority over anything.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2014, 04:09
by newmanfrigan
gtx wrote:I'm surprised someone hasn't taken Ol' Eric to court over some of the comments/accusations he has made - surely he is treading close to slander with some of his posts.


True, but he is also irrelevant. Maybe not in his own mind, but even so.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2014, 17:41
by XanderCrews
newmanfrigan wrote:
gtx wrote:I'm surprised someone hasn't taken Ol' Eric to court over some of the comments/accusations he has made - surely he is treading close to slander with some of his posts.


True, but he is also irrelevant. Maybe not in his own mind, but even so.


It would give him a credibility he doesn't warrant. Not that he hasn't said incredibly, unbelievably stupid and ignorant lies. It would also allow them to hoist the "silencing the truth" victim of gov. oppression flag. he is guilty but not worth it.

Its far easier to just make fun of them, and let time run its course, laughing all the way :D

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2014, 19:06
by gtx
Federal Government to announce purchase of 72 stealth fighter jets for RAAF
APRIL 23, 2014

THE Abbott Government will purchase 72 advanced American-built stealth fighter jets to spearhead the nation’s defence for the next half century.

The $12.4 billion through-life outlay, to be announced in Canberra today by the Prime Minsiter, is the biggest defence purchase in Australian history and includes every aspect of the system from hangars to missiles.
The so-called “fifth generation” F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) planes will be deployed in three operational squadrons and a training squadron based at RAAF Williamtown near Newcastle in NSW and RAAF Tindal near Katherine in the Northern Territory.

About $1.6 billion will be spent on new facilities at the air force bases.

The Lockheed Martin-built JSF is the most expensive and controversial aircraft ever constructed and the US military is due to purchase more than 2500 of the jets. The project is running years behind schedule and each jet is likely to cost more than $100 million “fly-away”.

More than a dozen other countries, including the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, Singapore, South Korea and Israel, will take the total number of F-35s in service to more than 3000 worldwide. The government has already ordered 14 planes and another 58 will be added, taking the total to 72 with the option of another 24 further down the track. They will enter service from 2018 and will serve alongside 24 Super Hornet fighters already in service with the RAAF.

The jets will replace the RAAF’s fleet of ageing F/A-18 Classic Hornet fighters that will retire by 2022.

Tony Abbott said the F-35 was the most advanced fighter in production anywhere in the world and would make a vital contribution to Australia’s national security. "Together with the Super Hornet and Growler electronic warfare aircraft, the F-35 aircraft will ensure Australia maintains a regional air combat edge. The F-35 will provide a major boost to the ADF’s intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities,” he said.

“The acquisition of F-35 aircraft will bring significant economic benefits to Australia, including regional areas and local defence industry.”

Defence Minister David Johnston said that because of the Howard Government’s decision to join during the development phase, Australian defence industry has been awarded over $355 million worth of JSF work.
“It stands to win well in excess of $1.5 billion in JSF-related production and support work over the life of the program creating long-term advanced manufacturing and engineering jobs,” Senator Johnston said.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2014, 20:05
by XanderCrews
gtx wrote:
Federal Government to announce purchase of 72 stealth fighter jets for RAAF
APRIL 23, 2014 12:01AM

THE Abbott Government will purchase 72 advanced American-built stealth fighter jets to spearhead the nation’s defence for the next half century.
[...]


If I didn't have to work tonight I would sit home and just hit up every site on the net for this reaction:

Image

But alas it will have to wait. I'm sure EPL and co will handle it well, and barely quote Hitler.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2014, 22:35
by southernphantom
Nice one...
I think we all saw this one coming. I, for one, didn't mind. Once it became clear that the F-35 was the platform of choice (I'm a little frustrated with the RoKAF procurement, but I digress), I stopped worrying. It generally works, mostly as advertised, and above all, they're new, zero-time airframes!!!! Knowing the issues the Corps has had keeping its 'Classic' Hornets airworthy (barely, in some cases), and the cost of the RAAF center-barrel replacements, I think that that is the biggest takeaway. It's an improvement, and the RAAF really expanded its capability portfolio with acquisition of the Super Bugs and Growlers.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2014, 19:27
by gtx
Yep, little old Eric has posted all sort of crap over on his blog re the decision…claiming the RAAF will get less capability with the F-35s than the existing F/A-18As... :doh:

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2014, 21:10
by spazsinbad
Australia to confirm 58-aircraft F-35 order 22 Apr 2014 Andrew McLaughlin

"Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott will announce on 23 April that his government has approved the acquisition of 58 Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters, to replace the Royal Australian Air Force’s Boeing F/A-18A/B "classic" Hornets.

The 58 aircraft will comprise a second tranche of the Australian Defence Force’s Air 6000 Phase 2A/2B new air combat capability (NACC) project. The first tranche totalled 14 A-model jets, two of which are currently in final production as part of the multinational programme’s sixth lot of low-rate initial production (LRIP). A contract covering long-lead production items for the other 12 during LRIP blocks eight and nine is currently being negotiated with the USA.

The first two RAAF aircraft are scheduled to be delivered to the USAF’s integrated training centre at Luke AFB in Arizona by the end of the year, while the service’s first pilot for the type will begin training at Eglin AFB in California in December, and the second at Luke in April 2015. Australia's first F-35A unit will be 3 Sqn, based at RAAF Williamtown in New South Wales. Its first four aircraft are to be ferried to Australia in 2018 to support operational evaluation activities, before the type achieves initial operating capability in 2020...."

SOURCE: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... er-398443/

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2014, 02:42
by spazsinbad
Australia Orders 58 More Joint Strike Fighters 23 Apr 2014 Dave Majumdar

"...“Lockheed Martin expressed its delight in a statement released by company spokeswoman Laura Siebert.

Lockheed Martin appreciates the confidence the Australian government has demonstrated in the F-35 by their decision today,” she wrote...."

SOURCE: http://news.usni.org/2014/04/23/austral ... e-fighters

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2014, 11:55
by popcorn
A 2-part interview providing context for the acquisition of the F-35.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rKk1WtKMrnU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZMAxFQBC_c

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 06:58
by spazsinbad
This 'lady' has to be a ..... probably not polite to say but she says some hilarious things here.... Bit sad really if you do not agree with the analogy but hey I'm carping - right? :devil: At least 'our EyeFones' will be upgraded as is convenient (any LRIP that we may buy - does Apples do dat?). TOOLette was the word I was looking for. :mrgreen:

Australia New Fighter Jets Is like Buying an iPhone 24 Apr 2014 Lydia Bradbury

"When people decide to buy the newest iPhone, they realize that next month, a new edition will be released that is even better and so a lot of consumers decide to wait for the best model to be released. Apparently certain members of the Australian government have never bought an iPhone as they display the worst sort of consumerism in the decision to buy Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II...

...The situation over Australia’s new fighter jets is a little like asking Steve Jobs whether or not to buy the latest iPhone and having him tell you to wait a month because Apple is coming out with a better one. In fact, Lockheed Martin already has a better jet, the F-22 Raptor, in production. This aircraft costs about 150 million dollars to produce and is supposed to be even better than the JSF. But the United States government is not allowing Lockheed Martin (an American company with numerous lucrative defence contracts with the US) to sell this fighter to any other country right now. At some point, the F-22 Raptor will no doubt go on the market, but it has not yet and until then the JSF is the best available to non-American countries, including the Land Down Under....

...All in all, the purchase of the JSF by the Abbott government looks less and less like a good defence move and more like when kids want to buy the latest Apple device.... The JSF might be fine once it gets made and improvements will no doubt occur as time goes on. But defence spending for a prosperous nation should not be comparable to buying an iPhone, which is what Australia has done with these new fighter jets. It really seems like none of the politicians involved have ever tried to buy something from Apple or any other tech company, for that matter."

SOURCE: http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/australia ... an-iphone/

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 07:18
by popcorn
Sipping APA KoolAid?

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 08:07
by lookieloo
popcorn wrote:Sipping APA KoolAid?
More like straight-up bimbo.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 08:14
by XanderCrews
lookieloo wrote:
popcorn wrote:Sipping APA KoolAid?
More like straight-up bimbo.


LOL wow. I am embarassed for her.

So far Australia's purchase has been as entertaining as I hoped

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 16:31
by sprstdlyscottsmn
The F-22 is NOT in Production, it cost $150,000,000 in 2009 dollars so thats $200,000,000+ now, and it is INFERIOR to the F-35 in every role other than Air Dominance and Interception. It has inferior A2G radar modes, inferior A2G weapons, inferior RWR/ECM, inferior datalinking, no IRST, no sperical IR tracking/targeting, and less range.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 16:36
by spazsinbad
'2c4e4076-bffc-11e3-9e64-000bcdcb2996's REIGN OF TERROR over at SNAFU on the 'Oz Buys F-35s' thread mentioned earlier has ended. IT (2c4e4076-bffc-11e3-9e64-000bcdcb2996) has gone to the great NIFCA in the sky. PACE. SemperFi.

OOPs '2c4e4076-bffc-11e3-9e64-000bcdcb2996' is on this thread but whatever: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=25424&start=15

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 16:42
by SpudmanWP
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:The F-22 is NOT ....


WAIT!!!!

Who gave you permission to bring FACTs into this?

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2014, 16:53
by spazsinbad
Australia Raises their F-35 Commitment 24 Apr 2014 Defense Industry Daily staff

"Australia’s new Liberal Party government has announced that they’ll buy up to 58 F-35s, raising the RAAF’s approved fleet size to the 72 aircraft mentioned in the Labor Party’s May 2013 White Paper. They’re saying that the money has been reserved by successive governments, leaving them a budget of A$ 12.4 billion, minus about A$ 1.6 billion for required support infrastructure at RAAFB Williamtown, NSW and RAAFB Tindal, Northern Territory.

RAAF F-35As: Fleet Plans
The RAAF has already ordered 2 F-35As, which are scheduled to begin arriving in 2018, but a recent GAO report external link indicates that they aren’t likely to be fully combat-ready by then due to software delays. Another 12 F-35As were approved to buy in 2009, but haven’t been placed under contract yet [being negotiated however]. These 14 aircraft are more likely to be ready by 2021, which is when RAAF No.3 Squadron is supposed to be operational.

It will need to be, because the last of the RAAF’s 71 modernized F/A-18AM/BM Hornets is scheduled to leave service in 2022. Additional F-35 orders will begin with 8 aircraft, probably in 2015, and continue over a number of years. All 72 of the F-35s are supposed to arrive by 2023, however, which suggests that 70 fighters will be ordered over the next 7 years....

...Decision time
Finally, it’s worth pointing out that this is an announcement, not a contract. [duh] Furthermore, Australia’s budget is supposedly fixed. If F-35 costs remain high until 2020, and rework to correct faults found in testing becomes expensive, it will lead to cuts in Australian orders. Even so, the announcement is a clear sign that Australia’s Super Hornet fleet won’t be growing past 36 planes....

...Options & Decisions
Initial F-35As with Block 3F software will have a very limited set of weapons, including only AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, laser-guided bombs, and GPS-guided JDAM/ Small Diameter Bomb Is internally. Shorter-range AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missiles can be carried externally, at some level of cost to the plane’s stealth profile....

...Once Block 4 software is integrated in the early 2020s, it would add Kongsberg’s stealthy Joint Strike Missile for anti-ship and land attack roles, creating a significant increase in combat power. The missile’s unique selling point will be its status as the fighter’s 1st powered strike weapon, and internal carriage in the F-35 that allows the fighter to maintain stealth. Norway is buying F-35As as well, which means that integration will be available as a defined, off-the-shelf add-on for Australia’s fleet."

SOURCE: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aus ... nt-023629/

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 18:22
by spazsinbad
Wow. I had thought - and been told as the PM recently stated - that money was already put aside to buy the F-35As and that that amount of money was limited but nevertheless sufficient in context of the intended buy. :wtf: WTF? Over. :doh:

Defence challenge: reconciling Australia's warfare shopping list with reality 28 Apr 2014 Hugh White

"Abbott wants us to believe there's a full piggy bank for defence, but there isn't.

Last week the government decided to buy 58 F-35 fighter aircraft for $12.4 billion. When asked where the money would come from, the Prime Minister reassured us that it was already there. “It's money which successive governments have carefully put aside to ensure that our nation's defences are strong,” he said.

This suggests that Tony Abbott believes there is a special savings account somewhere – almost like a piggy bank – into which successive governments have been dutifully depositing money for years. We just have to break it open to find the cash to buy our new fighters.

Abbott was happy to share the credit with Labor for such far-sighted thriftiness. “The way successive governments to their credit have tried to do these things is... to start putting the money aside now for the major purchases that you need in the future to keep your defence forces effective and operational.”

Alas this is not true. There is no piggy bank. Instead there is just a plan. Ever since 2000 the government has been planning to spend a lot of money on new fighters, but plans are not hard cash. The money itself will still have to be found in each budget as the bills for the F-35 come in, year by year, over the next decade....

...And now the government has committed itself to a big fleet of F-35s.... I do not think that decision is in itself a mistake. The F-35 has its problems, but on balance it is the best bet for Australia’s future air combat and strike capability, and that capability will be very important in the decades ahead....

...Hugh White is an Age columnist and professor of strategic studies at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, ANU."

http://images.watoday.com.au/2014/04/28 ... 20x349.jpg Illustration: Rod Clement.

SOURCE: http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/defen ... zr0ng.html

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2014, 18:40
by spazsinbad
Australian Buy Comes at Key Time for F-35 Program 28 Apr 2014 NIGEL PITTAWAY & AARON MEHTA

"MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA, AND WASHINGTON — When Australia announced it would purchase 58 F-35A joint strike fighters last week, it agreed to the single largest batch of F-35s acquired by an international partner to date — an important milestone for a program that appears headed to smaller domestic buys than planned....

...MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA, AND WASHINGTON — When Australia announced it would purchase 58 F-35A joint strike fighters last week, it agreed to the single largest batch of F-35s acquired by an international partner to date — an important milestone for a program that appears headed to smaller domestic buys than planned....

...“If our partners and FMS [Foreign Military Sales] customers start shifting planes to the right, with them about 50 percent of the airplanes we’re going to build in the next five years, you will see the price change,” Bogdan said.

However, he cautioned that this does not mean a major price increase if partners cut their orders.

“When I say the price changes, everybody thinks the price is going up,” Bogdan said. “It’s not really going up. ... It’s not going down as fast as it would have otherwise. The price is still going to go down, lot after lot after lot, because we’re ramping up.”...

...Australian Defence Minister Sen. David Johnston told Radio National that the government has a risk-mitigation strategy if costs increase to unacceptable levels.

“If Australia decides that cost has blown out to such an extent, we are not bound to continue,” Johnston said.

“We are committed to the program. Every indicator at the moment indicates costs are headed in the right direction for us,” he said. “But should there be a major turnaround in cost, then the option is available for us to leave the program.”

SOURCE: http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... /304280012

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 20:10
by gtx
Let's spice this up with some images - here are some Fictional RAAF F-35 profiles done for me a while back Many are retro style schemes envisaging some interesting paint schemes for the RAAF's 100th Anniversary in 2021. The rest take inspiration from F-111 or F/A-18A schemes:

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

The last one is one my office wall at work!

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2014, 20:16
by spazsinbad
'gtx' thanks for the graphics. What is the story about the 'piggy bank' not being there (seen in the WHITE article above) - is that true?

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2014, 00:24
by spazsinbad
Interesting number for two RAAF F-35A Squadrons at RAAF Willytown....
Second strike of Joint Strike Fighters in sights for Williamtown 29 Apr 2014 SARAH PRICE

"...It is a decision which will see Williamtown RAAF Base reap much of the rewards with Paterson MP Bob Baldwin saying $986 million would be spent on infrastructure at the Port-based location for JSF-related works.

"It's great news, it's been a long time coming," Mr Baldwin said.

"Two squadrons are to be based at Williamtown . . . 48 of the aircraft....

...The remaining aircraft will be based at Tindal.

Mr Baldwin said "if we play our cards right" Williamtown could also become the main maintenance location for all JSF....

...The first F-35 aircraft will arrive in Australia in 2018 and enter service with the RAAF in 2020.

The JSF will replace the F/A-18 A/B Classic Hornet aircraft which are to be withdrawn from service by 2022.

The government will also consider acquiring an additional squadron of F-35 aircraft to replace the Super Hornets in the future."

SOURCE: http://www.portstephensexaminer.com.au/ ... lliamtown/

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2014, 21:08
by gtx
spazsinbad wrote:'gtx' thanks for the graphics. What is the story about the 'piggy bank' not being there (seen in the WHITE article above) - is that true?


I can't say for certain as I am not privy to the inner workings of the Treasury Dept etc. I do know that for many years now the planning to buy the aircraft has been there and the budget requirements were well known and planned for and confirmed before making any decisions (that is all part of the 'mundane' part of acquisitions - 1st & 2nd passes etc..). I also know that the budget planning factored in aircraft costs far higher than will be the case. As for the implication that Gov't somehow stash away the money in some big bank account waiting to pay…that's simply not the reality of the way these things occur (or for that matter, how most of us manage our own budgets - who here has all the money in an account before they buy a house or a car??). Planning is there and money is allocated in budgets…but it is not necessarily all there up front. :roll: This is nothing to be worried about.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2014, 21:14
by spazsinbad
'gtx' thanks for the explanation however there seems to be some conjuring in the use of
"...Planning is there and money is allocated in budgets…but it is not necessarily all there up front...."

Planning is not money, "money allocated in budgets" so does that money accumulate somewhere? Or does that 'allocated in budget money' just remain ephemeral. I think I have seen similar explanations over the years with the F-35 total cost always remaining under the "......" however it seems - according to White - that there is no money set aside anyway. I can understand the budget for the total cost of purchase and whatnot but still and all I believe I was reading / hearing that the money was also set aside for the purchase etc.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2014, 21:34
by gtx
I think (and this is just guessing) that when PM Abbott made the comment that "“It's money which successive governments have carefully put aside to ensure that our nation's defences are strong,” he might have beentretching the truth a tad. In essence, IMHO, what Hugh White has said is corret: the money is not sitting in a big bank account at this instant. What the successive Govt's have done is say something along the lines of "in yr X, we will need to ensure we have $Y available to buy…" and then kept that in mind during budget planning over the years…

As I said earlier, this is essentially no different to what you or I might do in our own personal budgeting/planning.

Of course this is all a rather simplistic explanation and I may well be wrong…maybe there is a big bank account somewhere. :D

Either way, I don't see this as being an issue one way or another. The RAAF will get all of its F-35s in the time planned. Both sides of Australia's govt are fully supportive.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2014, 21:42
by spazsinbad
'gtx' thanks. I think that has been referred to as you say over the years however in perhaps more recent times the notion of a 'bank account' alluded to by the current and previous PMs recently was that 'bank' suggestion. There is such a thing as 'consolidated revenue' [Commonwealth of Australia Consolidated Revenue Fund] I guess where money can appear and disappear at will there. Perhaps the pollies can get around to explaining about this more but I'm not holding my breath. Accounting is never for the faint of heart anywhere eh. :devil:

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2014, 10:11
by spazsinbad
ONLY the first question about HOW Australia Buys Defence Equipment (F-35) and LHD question are in the edited .MP3 attached (11min 20sec). Full interview (40 Mins) is at the URL below.

Australia's Defence and the Strike Fighter Purchase 09 May 2014 Helen Richardson

"The Government has announced plans to spend over 12 billion dollars on the purchase of 58 more Joint Strike Fighters. Why are they needed and where will these fighters fit into Australia's defence strategy? How can it afford this at times of Budget cost cutting, when we're all being asked to 'tighten our belts'? Trevor Chappell discussed this with Dr John Blaxland who Senior Fellow at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at ANU."

SOURCE: http://www.abc.net.au/overnights/stories/s4001497.htm

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2014, 16:02
by spazsinbad
SHOW ME THE MONEY!
Defence Portfolio Budget Statements 2014-15 http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/14-15/pbs/
Defence Materiel Organisation page 158
"...Joint Strike Fighter
Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft - AIR 6000 Phase 2A/B
Prime Contractor: Lockheed Martin is contracted to the United States Government for the development and production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Australia is procuring the aircraft through a government-to-government agreement.

This project is approved to acquire 72 JSF aircraft and supporting elements to form three operational squadrons and one training squadron. This comprises 14 aircraft approved in 2009 and 58 approved in April 2014. The funding for the recently approved 58 aircraft and associated elements will be transferred to the DMO post the 2014-15 budget.

During 2014-15 production of Australia’s first two JSF Aircraft will be completed at the Lockheed Martin facility in Fort Worth Texas. The aircraft will then be ferried to the International Pilot Training Centre at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona to support the commencement of Australian pilot training.

Some of the major risks for the project include the establishment of an electronic warfare reprogramming capability and the stand up of sustainment systems and facilities required to support Australian operations...." [get dem Canuks onboard]

SOURCE: http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/14-15/ ... 04_DMO.pdf (0.7Mb)

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2014, 16:36
by spazsinbad
Minister for Defence – Transcript – Interview with Chris Coleman, ABC Riverina 20 May 2014

"MINISTER:...
...There is a lot of rebuilding to do and that is why we are working on a new White Paper due out next year, with a funded Defence Capability Plan and defence force structure review that will set the path out to 2030 as it should have been under the previous Government....

CHRIS COLEMAN:
There has been a bit of criticism that the JSF, 58 extra JSF and more than $28 billion at the same time that money is being taken out of health and education, according to the coverage, how do you respond to that?

MINISTER:
Well, look I am pleased to respond to that, because we took that decision in 2002 to go with the JSF

CHRIS COLEMAN:
The extra 58 of them ?

MINISTER:
Well, in 2009 we said 100. We’re going to 72 within the second half of the next decade, we will look at where we are at and what decisions the then Government can make, but can I say this about the Joint Strike Fighter – it will be a regionally dominant platform, there is nothing comparable to it, it is a fifth generation fighter and anybody who understands history, any history at all, will understand that air capability is crucial to the survival of our nation, particularly with our vast maritime environment and responsibility.

Now, what has been happening is that since 2006 is we have been funding and putting money away into that particular program, there is no new money into the Joint Strike Fighter Program out over the Defence Capability Plan out to 2025. Now, this is the way Defence runs its capital accounts, we acquire the large capital and put the money away at an early stage because the Government needs to know, when these projects are going to be available, how much it is going to cost, when the payments will be due, it is just good planning. So a whole host of programs have had money taken from them, but this is not one of them. So the Joint Strike Fighter coming forward is probably one of our most important Defence purchases.

CHRIS COLEMAN:
Provided they can get them flying.

MINISTER:
Look, there are a hundred of them flying, there are a whole lot of them at Eglin Air Base and Yuma, in Arizona, the marines have taken possession of them, they’re coming along. This aircraft, I will be very pleased to show you Chris in 5 years, is just the aircraft for us, and is ultimately coming to us at a reasonable price.

....

MINISTER:
Well, I think they are going to realise that this Government is planning and charting a course that is funded, now we are not going to make big splash announcements, but we are going to make sure that the commentators that know what to look for, the Mark Thompsons at ASPI and others that do a constant surveillance if Defence funding can see transparency where the money is coming from and where it is going.

Now, the fact that we have stabilised the haemorrhaging from the Defence Budget, or attempted to means we have a greater responsibility to make sure that we have a clear and transparent chartered course in the portfolio going forward, and of course, in the projects that we are funding, that we are getting good value for money, which is a huge increase in responsibility on Defence, to get better value for money, so we’re conducting reform...."

SOURCE: http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2014 ... ranscript/

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2014, 18:10
by SpudmanWP
CHRIS COLEMAN:
Provided they can get them flying.

Classic "Journalistic" research integrity

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 21 May 2014, 19:00
by sferrin
SpudmanWP wrote:
CHRIS COLEMAN:
Provided they can get them flying.

Classic "Journalistic" research integrity



Expecting journalistic integrity from the anti-F-35 crowd? Shame on you.

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2014, 17:35
by spazsinbad
What will make our RAAFie Chappies COOL DOODS indeed when it all goes operational. NGJ here we come.... :mrgreen:
The Future of Airpower from the Fleet 22 May 2014 Marc V. Schanz

"Preserving key electronic attack capabilities will be critical to projecting airpower in future conflicts, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert told reporters in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday. Greenert said these “critical” electronic warfare capabilities will be just as important as stand-alone stealth in the future. “The ability to detect sooner, to spoof, jam, intercept other sensors and weapons, I think, is key to the future,” Greenert said. Although the Navy is getting delivery of the F-35C, the strike fighter is just “one element of stealth,” and works alongside assets like the E/A-18G Growler electronic attack jet. He also emphasized the importance of unmanned aircraft in future fights, indicating their importance to naval air operations will only grow in the near future. “There’s so much payload on an aircraft associated with a person that you can only imagine the sensors, and potential weapons, we could carry on that,” he said. While all the services are focus on anti-access, area-denial problems, Greenert stressed that he does not see the solution as “knocking down and defeating every single item” in a conflict. He said that would be “exhausting, too expensive, and prejudicial to the most efficient way to operate.” Instead, the focus should be on capability needed to get in to a fight, achieve a set objective, and get out, he added.​"

SOURCE: http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... Fleet.aspx

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2014, 01:08
by popcorn
Adm. Greenert's approach is suited for Navy's mission, given their relative limited resources that can be brought to bear via a CAW. AF can bring more assets to bear and is focused on the more demanding task of more aggressively going after the IADS,a strategy going back to TAC.
Traditionally, Navy is more SEAD-focused vs more emphasis on,DEAD for AF.. is that a fair assessment and can we see any changes coming in their respective doctrine?

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2014, 02:01
by spazsinbad
Australia Eyes Strengthening Japan Military Ties
12 Aug 2014 Jason Scott

"Australia, in talks to acquire submarine technology from Japan, may further bolster military ties as the East Asian nation eases its pacifist doctrine and rules on defense exports, Defense Minister David Johnston said....

...Australia also sees an opportunity to share information with Japan on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. It’s buying 72 [perhaps 100 in future total?].

“There’s a huge opportunity because there’s a very big investment by both of us in air combat capability,” Johnston said. “We can do exercises together, we can exchange views on how to sustain the aircraft, how to make repairs, and generally get as much value out of the platform as we both want to do. Leveraging off each other’s capabilities is a very significant part of the interaction.”..."

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/201 ... -ties.html

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2014, 06:25
by spazsinbad
F-35 AU-1 Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) "Roll Out Ceremony" HD
Published on Jul 24, 2014

"The first two Australian F-35 were officially unveiled at a ceremony in our Fort Worth, Texas, factory on July 24, 2014. The F-35 will provide the Royal Australian Air Force with a transformational 5th generation fighter capability."


Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2014, 22:20
by spazsinbad
Might be interestin'?
Upcoming Public Hearings NACC (for Nics? - NicNaccNO?)

"The committee will consider and report on the AIR 6000 Phase 2A/B New Air Combat Capability Facilities.
23 Sep 2014: Canberra, ACT"

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... Works/NACC


Some 'beaten into submission' PDFs here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... ubmissions

Most interestin' is this 11.2Mb PDF jobbie:
Facilities Requirements for the New Air Combat Capability June 2014
http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=254100

Re: Australia delays delivery of 12 F-35 fighters

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2014, 22:42
by spazsinbad
Plan Jericho - Introducing 5th Generation Capability
July 2014 ADM Magazine Nigel Pittaway

"...A STOVL F-358 for Air Force?
CAF also revealed that Air Force is currently studying the potential operations of a short take off vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B from the decks of Navy's new Landing Helicopter Dock ships.

The Abbott government is reportedly interested in expanding the LHD role by the addition of combat jets and analysis is now being undertaken to determine what will be required.

Air Force has previously (and repeatedly) said that the F-35B was not under consideration and that modelling showed the LHDs could be adequately protected by shore-based F-35As.

"Any idea is worth a look at, because the situation changes, circumstances change. STOVLs have their place, they are a more expensive aeroplane, they have a lot less range and they don't have the weapons capability," he noted.

"It depends on how you see the LHD. If you want to convert it to take STOVL, there are a lot of considerations that you have to take into account and JSF/STOVL by itself isn't a capability. It needs weapons and it needs fuel.

"And I think that if you go and look at the changes you have to put in place to operate STOVL off an LHD you will see that it's got its challenges. That's what we'll work through over the next few months is to articulate what those challenges are, what additional cost, if that's the way we decide we want to go."

Source: July 2014 ADM Magazine