Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

barrelnut · by **barrelnut** » 25 Oct 2015, 20:40

AUD or USD? I guess USD since AUD (and EUR) prices will vary with the exchange rate and projecting those derived AUD prices into the future might not make sense.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 25 Oct 2015, 21:48

Usually the indication for US dollars will be made otherwise it is Oz dollars. There is a budget with exchange rate contingencies built-in and AFAIK Oz has never been close to going over the budget. Here is one example of the exchange rate at time of the order for the last 58 (there will be others):

This official news release uses Oz dollars (12.4 Bil for 58): http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2014 ... apability/

Australia to Buy 58 More F-35 Jets, Scaling Back Initial Plan [not true but 'newspapers online' gotta eat]
23 Apr 2014 Jason Scott

"...The U.S. ally is ordering 58 of the Lockheed Martin Corp.- made aircraft for A$12.4 billion ($11.6 billion)...

...A 2009 policy paper commissioned by the previous Labor government confirmed Australia planned to equip its air force with about 100 F-35s.

The 72 [2+12+58] aircraft are expected to be fully operational by 2023, Abbott said today. Australia is retaining the option of purchasing a further squadron of 18 [+72=90] Joint Strike Fighters, he said...."

[The OFFICIAL news release cited above says only 'squadron' without a number - generally it has always been assumed that the total buy will be 'up to 100' or '100'.]

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... e-fighters

optimist · by **optimist** » 25 Oct 2015, 21:50

aud 17 billion at current xchange rate and was 13billion before . 90million was at prior xchange rate 1:1 that would be higher now 1:0.75
If they don't give the number and xchange rate at the time it was done, it means nothing.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 25 Oct 2015, 22:05

Do you understand 'budget'? The exchange rate fluctuations are factored in at that time so as Indicated the Oz/US dollars were mentioned for the buy of 58. Otherwise the RAAF official says the 'average' cost per aircraft over the buy time for the (at moment) 72 aircraft. How else can this dollar amount (future) be quantified? The first two LRIP aircraft cost is mentioned in the PDF if you bother to read it: "$126.7 million each". So that was in the past. NOW as each tranche of LRIP aircraft is purchased we will know that cost - however we have budgeted for it - whatever it is. This quote is somewhere:

Minister for Defence – Transcript – Interview with Chris Coleman
20 May 2014 ABC Riverina

“..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 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...."

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

optimist · by **optimist** » 26 Oct 2015, 08:34

There was a gov independent costing that the numbers came from, I think that gave the exchange rate used at the time. With the xchange rate, the cost can alter a lot, depending on when it is calculated.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 26 Oct 2015, 08:37

No kidding. That is why Oz has a budget to allow for these exchange rate fluctuations and likely price increases. And... All the way along any of these ups and downs has never breached the budget for the stated numbers of F-35s. Simple huh.

Attached is a 13 page PDF extract about the Australian F-35 project / budget from ANAO report 2014.

2013–14 Major Projects Report - Defence Materiel Organisation
2014 –15 - No. 14 Australian National Audit Office ANAO

"...Project Financial Assurance Statement
As at 30 June 2014, overall Project AIR 6000 Phase 2A/2B cost performance remains within the approved budget. Noting the budget remaining for completion of the project, together with the estimated future expenditure and current known risks, the DMO considers that there is sufficient budget remaining for this project...."

Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/Multimedi ... 3-2014.pdf (8.9Mb)

Defence Portfolio Budget Statements 2014-15 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....”

Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/14-15/ ... 04_DMO.pdf

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 29 Oct 2015, 01:19

Recently 'oldiaf' as is the want posted only an URL to a 'BOB Farley'? DIPLOMAT? article about such and such which included some nonsense by Farley about F-22s for Oz. Bugga Me if I can find that forum link here [having found the Farley online article then I could find the URL part string via search forum - so here it is: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24027&p=307018&hilit=thediplomat#p307018 ] - probably I could find the DippyPlomy artickle but anyway I thought just to add this info for the sundries and over runs. Earlier posted here on - OH NO NOT ANOTHER THREAD 'bout Canandnandada: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=18504&p=242220&hilit=Harvey#p242220

TOBEfair FARLEY says 'IMAGINE' but even so there was no need for us OzLanders - we know our stuff dood.

Imagine: F-22 Raptors For Export So, who wants the F-22 Raptor?
08 May 2015 Robert Farley

"...Today, the F-22 might fly in the air forces of Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Australia.... Australia would likely have become interested as well, and Singapore has proven a reliable customer for the most advanced U.S. systems...."

Source: http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/imagine- ... or-export/

Nothing 'stealthy' about the F-22
21 Feb 2007 DMO Defence Material Organisation
Air Vice-Marshal John Harvey, Program Manager, New Air Combat Capability Project, Department of Defence, Canberra

"DR CARLO Kopp's "Nelson tries stealth to win jet fighter debate" (Opinion, 20/2/2007) is misleading in a number of areas.

Defence analysis shows that the F-22 is not the right aircraft for Australia's air combat needs. The F-22 is without doubt a highly capable fighter aircraft, but we need a truly multi-role aircraft able to conduct the full range of air-to-ground as well as air-to-air combat missions.

Defence never has made a formal request to acquire the F-22. Nor have we ever asked US officials to start a process to lift the Congressional ban on selling the F-22. It is hardly unusual that the US should decide that some of its military technology is not for export, and hence the F-22 remains prohibited from export by US Congressional legislation.

The recent letter from the US Deputy Secretary of Defence regarding the non-availability of the F-22 was in response to a letter from the Minister for Defence, Dr Nelson, advising of Australia's intended participation in the next phase of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program — already an example of successful alliance co-operation. The Government has not yet made a final decision to acquire the JSF and will continue to assess its options ahead of a decision in 2008."

Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/ceo/record/21FEB.pdf (17Kb) No longer - so attached

beepa · by **beepa** » 03 Nov 2015, 09:13

RAAF current capability snapshot including the F35..things are looking good.

maus92 · by **maus92** » 27 Nov 2015, 15:01

Push for inquiry into Australia's $24 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter purchase
Daniel Flitton, Senior Correspondent | Sydney Morning Herald | November 27, 2015 - 3:29PM

"A push to examine the wisdom of Australia's planned $24 billion fleet of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters - ranking as the nation's largest ever defence purchase - is underway in the Senate.

Greens defence spokesman Peter Whish-Wilson on Friday has urged the Senate's standing committee on foreign affairs and trade to inquire into the suitability of the stealth jet for Australia's strategic interests.

The move comes after the election last month of new Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on a promise to abandon plans to purchase the troubled fighter.

Officials from Australia's Defence Department told a Senate hearing a Canadian withdrawal from the F-35 project would not have a cost to Australia, only for US Air Force Lieutenant-General Chris Bogdan to soon afterwards estimate the price of each aircraft would likely increase by up to US$1 million.

"This is about the public's right to know how their money is being spent and if we are getting value for money," Senator Whish-Wilson said.

"I would like to see many of the criticisms levelled at this procurement answered by a wide range of experts and discussed in detail at this inquiry.""

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... z3shSQoMXC
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

This is the problem when acquisition programs take so long to come to fruition: the initial proposal is low-balled; the pricing inevitably increases, and program official defend their figures, until it becomes obvious that they have been disingenuous. In Canada, they were caught, and paid the price. There has to be a better way.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 27 Nov 2015, 15:08

I have earlier read this bollocks above & decided NOT to post it here because 'THE GREENs' are a very minor party in the Australian Federal Parliament (and I think ONLY ONE representative on the Committee responsible for oversight of the F-35. The GREENS can call for all kinds of things and yes they will get some mileage in a friendly newspaper with a friendly journalista but that will be it. THE KEY TO THE ENTIRE STORY IS THE LAST SENTENCE: [conveniently NOT quoted]

"...A vote on the proposed inquiry will be held Monday." [WAKE ME UP WHEN IT IS OVER]

Then there is some disingenuousness but we all expect that from naysayers.

"...Former prime minister Tony Abbott was reported to have favoured Australia also acquiring the jump-jet variety of the jet, but this was abandoned in favour of the traditional take-off version...." [ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. The former PM along with the former DefMin were interested in another look at having F-35Bs on LHDs and that was all. SHEESH.]

Whilst the comment at the end from 'maus92' may have merit in his eyes however the recent SENATE Enquiry addressed this point about extra Canadian Cost which has been quoted here earlier plus the ONGOING delays so called have been covered over and over by same committee with different members over the years and STILL IT KEEPS ON KEEPING ON!

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 27 Nov 2015, 19:31

The reason why they said that the Canadian decision will not cost the Australians anything is that they have a "margin" built into the authorized funds total. IIRC They talked about this margin back when there were engine problems and how the fix would affect the cost.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 27 Nov 2015, 21:55

Yes 'SWP' the project has a budget where price and exchange rate fluctuations are factored into this budget and reviewed regularly. And here is the reason why the overwhelming majority in Federal Parliament will ignore the request to hold 'yet another inquiry' on top of the regular overviews of the project oft quoted in this forum. Both the Liberal Party at moment in Government and the former Labor Party government are adamant about purchasing the F-35A for the RAAF as per 2014.

Joint Strike Fighter: Purchase of 58 extra aircraft not new spending, Tony Abbott says
24 Apr 2014 Emma Griffiths

"Prime Minister Tony Abbott says the multi-billion-dollar program to purchase new jet fighters for the Defence Force does not involve any "new spending" by taxpayers.

The Government has given the go ahead for the purchase of 58 more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) at a cost of $12.4 billion - making it the nation's most expensive Defence asset.

Asked if he was worried taxpayers would question the cost of the program at a time his Government is warning of wide-ranging cuts, Mr Abbott responded: "I want to stress that this is money that has been put aside by government over the past decade or so to ensure that this purchase can responsibly be made."

"This is not new spending today. In the context of a tough budget, this is spending money that we need to spend that has been sensibly put aside in the past to ensure that our nation's defences remain strong."

The extra aircraft will bring Australia's total Joint Strike Fighter force to 72 aircraft, with the first of them to enter service in 2020.

The Prime Minister said the Government was "not going to sacrifice the defence of our nation".

"In the end, government has no higher priority than the defence of the nation, and an effective Defence Force for a country such as Australia requires modern and capable joint strike aircraft such as these. It requires a small but powerful and flexible army and it also requires a strong and effective navy, including a substantial submarine force," he said.

The Government says it will also consider the option of buying another squadron of the next-generation fighter jets to eventually replace the RAAF's F/A-18 Super Hornets.

As part of the announcement, more than $1.6 billion [out of the total of 12.4 bill] will be spent on new facilities at air bases in Williamtown in New South Wales and Tindal in the Northern Territory.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has backed the purchase of extra aircraft.

"It was Labor who believed that the Joint Strike Fighter was an appropriate addition to our air power," he told Radio National.

"There had been some problems in terms of aspects of the aircraft but it appears that they have been ironed out."...

...The Government says it has the option to bow out of the program if the price blows out, but Mr Abbott said that appeared unlikely.

"We are expecting to pay about $90 million per aircraft. We think that as time goes on, the cost per aircraft will actually reduce," he said.

Defence Minister David Johnston added "the curve on costs is headed in the right direction".

"We are purchasing each year, there is flexibility in that purchasing regime for us to defer, for us to be unhappy as a customer, we've built that flexibility in," he said...."

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-23/a ... ng/5406716

optimist · by **optimist** » 29 Nov 2015, 06:11

I think that A$90m has gone to around A$120 flyaway, with the current exchange rate. It would be easier if we just used US$ and convert on the day.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 29 Nov 2015, 06:26

It seems to me you do not understand. The Oz Dollars quoted are today (at the time of the quote) dollars so you will have to look at the date of the quote to know when. DOING THEIR BEST to predict the future the quote in dollars is as it is and it is STILL WITHIN THE BUDGET. How easy is that? The reason for a FudgieBudgie (soft budget with allowance for the increases particularly) is for all the reasons you want to repeat over and over again. This way everyone remains calm.

mk82 · by **mk82** » 29 Nov 2015, 10:35

maus92 wrote:Push for inquiry into Australia's $24 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter purchase
Daniel Flitton, Senior Correspondent | Sydney Morning Herald | November 27, 2015 - 3:29PM

"A push to examine the wisdom of Australia's planned $24 billion fleet of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters - ranking as the nation's largest ever defence purchase - is underway in the Senate.

Greens defence spokesman Peter Whish-Wilson on Friday has urged the Senate's standing committee on foreign affairs and trade to inquire into the suitability of the stealth jet for Australia's strategic interests.

The move comes after the election last month of new Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on a promise to abandon plans to purchase the troubled fighter.

Officials from Australia's Defence Department told a Senate hearing a Canadian withdrawal from the F-35 project would not have a cost to Australia, only for US Air Force Lieutenant-General Chris Bogdan to soon afterwards estimate the price of each aircraft would likely increase by up to US$1 million.

"This is about the public's right to know how their money is being spent and if we are getting value for money," Senator Whish-Wilson said.

"I would like to see many of the criticisms levelled at this procurement answered by a wide range of experts and discussed in detail at this inquiry.""

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... z3shSQoMXC
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

This is the problem when acquisition programs take so long to come to fruition: the initial proposal is low-balled; the pricing inevitably increases, and program official defend their figures, until it becomes obvious that they have been disingenuous. In Canada, they were caught, and paid the price. There has to be a better way.

Really Maus92....Australian Greens....ahahahaha....bwahahaha....seriously....

Don't be such a wank*r Maus92 and do keep up with Australian politics. You really look like a d*ckhead but we knew that a long time ago don't we :mrgreen: