Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1252
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post16 Feb 2016, 02:29

so we are still talking about retiring the Shornet in the 20's, I thought with the growler buy, we would retire the Shonet when the USN does. If the F/FX is available for export, it would give us an option to have a mixed or solo fleet at the time.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24491
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Feb 2016, 02:36

Probably the WHITE PAPER due any day now - month - year - Buehler anyone? will say what the situation is NOW, given all the speculation earlier about all kinds of whatifs&buts regarding the onselling of the Super Hornets when their time is UP. Who does one believe? The government of the day changes and may change before that time. The RAAF have said lots of things before the Supers were bought, and then during. What have they - the RAAF - said recently? This may give a clue.

I will suggest no matter what is said today - what happens up north in the next four to five years will determine what happens to the Super Hornets (whether the wired for growling are kept along with the growlers) and whether even more than 100 F-35As total are purchased - oh gawd - including some F-35Bs. Five years is a long time in our part of the world.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1421
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post16 Feb 2016, 02:54

When the current buy is 72, and the indicated possible future buy is 18 more,

i.e. 90

As per:

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

Then that bolded quoted text indicates up to 10 more than that 90 number may still be ordered, and also as replacement for Supers in late 2020s. We'll convivially disagree about thinking that's significant detail and confirmation of current plans, coming from RAAF brass, not from "speculation".

What chaffs or enrages you about highlighting that does escape me though. :mrgreen:


EDIT: just read your reasoning directly above Spaz, so fair enough, but may I cheekily suggest yoga sessions in the morning? :mrgreen:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24491
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Feb 2016, 03:08

'element1loop' you will do well to not make erroneous claims - my post over the page said this:
"The bolded text part quote is not eye-popping at all - the speculation about finding stuff that mystifies people - IS."

IF someone bothers to read this forum about Oz stuff they will get lots of info about the 'possible 100' with all kinds of explanations about why people were misquoted or quotes over many years suggesting the possibility of 100 so not news.

Let us take a trip down memory lane for the umpteenth time... building on this quote I'll look for similar in this forum....
The case for the JSF
c.2002 AM Angus Houston

"...Important set of numbers...
...The 2000 Defence White Paper and subsequent reviews propose the acquisition of “up to 100 aircraft”, and the Defence Capability Plan 2004-2014 identifies a notional budget for the project of $11.5bn to $15.5bn....

...The JSF will require the Air Force to rethink the basis of squadron sizing, taking into account the increased endurance of the JSF and the expected increased availability of aircraft.

Overseas operators are looking at squadron sizes ranging from 12 through to 24 aircraft. Our current thinking is that a larger number of smaller squadrons might be preferable, providing greater flexibility for a relatively small force.

Options of 12 or 16 Fully Mission Capable aircraft are currently being examined, which would require either about 14 or 18 aircraft in a squadron, allowing for maintenance requirements.

The recent decisions to acquire five AAR tankers and the additional two AEW&C aircraft (giving a total of six) are an acknowledgment of the need for the Air Force to have the capability to conduct air control operations in two separate areas simultaneously. This is consistent with White Paper 2000 guidance that identified the need for land forces to conduct two concurrent but geographically separated operations.

Each area could need at least one squadron of fighters deployed to cover air control tasking, possibly more if intensive 24/7 operations were in prospect.

It is quite possible that at the same time direct support of land operations may be required.

And concurrent strike operations may also be required – either land or maritime. Four squadrons looks like being the minimum prudent operational force to meet potential concurrency requirements.

With four deployed squadrons of even 14 aircraft, backed up by a squadron-sized rotation capability, the total number is already up to 70 aircraft.

To this must be added aircraft for training – possibly 10 to 18 – plus a pool of aircraft undergoing deeper maintenance or regular upgrades, and additional aircraft to allow for expected attrition over the life of the fleet.

The number quickly gets up to 100. So the number mentioned in the White Paper, and accepted by government to date, is pretty close to the mark.

A much greater number obviously would be much more expensive and possibly difficult to sustain, and a much smaller number could leave us seriously exposed...."

Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews ... ture01.htm
Last edited by spazsinbad on 16 Feb 2016, 03:25, edited 1 time in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1421
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post16 Feb 2016, 03:24

As I indicated, I have no clear idea what you're trying to say in your response, it came across as curiously aggressive and mystifying, made no clear sens, required interpretation. See that? I haven't found a PM option on this site, but suffice to say I'm not making "erroneous claims". And I also have no idea what you're trying to say there either, or what "erroneous claim" you think was made. ... moving on.

The case for the JSF
c.2002 AM Angus Houston

I read that doc when it was first published, I know it well, but that's not Feb 2016, it's 2002. And very familiar with all the capability development docs and plans since.

Don't be so condescending.

I'll reiterate, I have no idea at all what chaffs you about what I quoted. Happy not to discuss anything with you if it helps. :mrgreen:
Last edited by element1loop on 16 Feb 2016, 03:30, edited 3 times in total.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24491
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Feb 2016, 03:26

I'll just ignore you and if you continue to misrepresent what I post on this forum I will report you to the moderators. & to respond to your claim - the old information explains why 100 will be required. & as posted there were going to be more up to date sequential mentions of the '100' but I won't bother now - most quotes are on this forum & I have them....
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1421
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post16 Feb 2016, 03:42

spazsinbad wrote:... and if you continue to misrepresent what I post on this forum ...


That right there is actually a false claim.

If you want to try moderation (as opposed to threatening it) maybe the moderator can figure out what you're on about, I give up.

Cheers
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24491
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Feb 2016, 04:07

For my own records, some recent quotes about the '100' from reputable sources have been gathered. Most recent is one year old but there you go. viewtopic.php?f=58&t=19100&p=271687&hilit=Coleman#p271687
All Eyes on F-35
10 Feb 2014 WENDELL MINNICK

"...“The Australian government reaffirmed its commitment to procuring up to 100 aircraft.”..."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... -Eyes-F-35

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

"...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..."

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

Australia's Next Generation Air Combat Capability
16 Jul 2014 DMO page 60 of 80 pages

"...A subsequent AIR 6000 Phase 2C is planned to acquire the fourth operational squadron to bring the total number of aircraft to around 100. A decision on Phase 2C is not expected before 2019 and is linked to the withdrawal of the F/A-18F Super Hornets later next decade...."

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=254100 (PDF 11.2Mb)

RAAF pushes for tighter integration of assets
22 Feb 2015 Greg Waldron

"...Several officers spoke on the topic during the conference, which preceded the biennial Avalon air show outside of Melbourne. They made much of the Lockheed Martins F-35 fighter's possibilities in the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance areas, in addition to its combat capabilities. Australia has commitments for 72 F-35s, and could acquire up to 100 of the type...."

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ts-409308/
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1421
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post16 Feb 2016, 05:31

Linked within this same post thread, and which I already referenced above on this page, but failed to make a dent:

"... 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 aircraft are expected to be fully operational by 2023, Abbott said today. Australia is retaining the option of purchasing a further squadron of 18 Joint Strike Fighters, he said.

“Countries like the U.S. and the U.K. are not in the business of being beaten,” Abbott said. “This aircraft is, in the judgment of the U.S. and the other principal Western powers, a very, very effective aircraft. ...”
- April 23 2014

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

i.e.

The April 2014 article makes a clear distinction, within that quote, that the plan was changing, from "about 100", to no more than 90 F-35.

A Prime Minister saying the plan is not more than 90 (he even indicates it may not be that many - read it) out ranks other sources. Until another PM contradicts that, or white paper and DCP contradict it, I'll tend to go with 90 as the valid upper number, with 72 being the possible lower procurement number (depending on testing in 2019-2020).

In other words, the plan had changed from about 100 to a solid figure of 72, and not more that 90 potentially, at that time.


Combined with this:

"... The RAAF plans to spend the years 2019-20 operationally testing the F-35 in Australia. ... Around 2020, Australia will decide whether to increase its order for the F-35 to as many as 100 [i.e. it may not, too, as this is far from a settled decision for as many as 100], as a replacement for the Super Hornets in the late 2020s. ..."

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... 35-choices

That quote, is a further update to a dynamic and floating number in the acquisition planning, that was not cast in stone in 2002, nor in 2014, or in 2015, nor will it be in upcoming official planning documents to come. And this thus constitutes new information (and very good news), despite some curious reactive resistance to acknowledging that which has/had me bemused.

It is the decision in, "about 2020", that will seal the acquisition numbers, but the planned numbers are clearly a floating variable, still.

And that's the meaning of my "eye-popper" comment, because RAAF, under a new Prime Minister, are saying the plan is back up to as many as 100 once more.

Which is an eye-poppingly good thing. :)

Other's mileage may differ.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7720
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post16 Feb 2016, 05:50

spazsinbad wrote:Probably the WHITE PAPER due any day now - month - year - Buehler anyone? will say what the situation is NOW, given all the speculation earlier about all kinds of whatifs&buts regarding the onselling of the Super Hornets when their time is UP. Who does one believe? The government of the day changes and may change before that time. The RAAF have said lots of things before the Supers were bought, and then during. What have they - the RAAF - said recently? This may give a clue.

I will suggest no matter what is said today - what happens up north in the next four to five years will determine what happens to the Super Hornets (whether the wired for growling are kept along with the growlers) and whether even more than 100 F-35As total are purchased - oh gawd - including some F-35Bs. Five years is a long time in our part of the world.
.

I'm thinking that as F-35s are fielded and SHs are retired, it becomes less and less compelling to justify Growlers and more and more attractive to realize the benefits of a common fast-jet platfform. But that egg is still to be hatched.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24491
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Feb 2016, 05:55

OK thanks for explaining. My issue was with you saying erroneously about what I supposedly said/reacted and yes I needed to have made that clear I can see now...:
"...What chaffs or enrages you about highlighting that does escape me though.'..." green smileyface

For the record I'm seldom enraged - chaffed? - probably - if a nice meaning is envisaged. What I hope is made clear about 'the possible 100' will be in forthcoming White Paper. However it may remain unclear as usual. Why? Decision in future.

And to answer 'popcorn' the RAAF have made it clear all along that they would like to have had an all F-35A force. And then along came the Shornets and then the Growlers so they have to live with them for the time being. I guess they will lobby for what they require with explanations to suit - such as cheaper to run - but what about a fleet grounding? Answered recently by 'zandercrews' - if they need to fly in wartime - they will fly. And the devil take the hindmost.... :devil:
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1421
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post16 Feb 2016, 06:09

spazsinbad wrote:OK thanks for explaining. My issue was with you saying erroneously about what I supposedly said/reacted and yes I needed to have made that clear I can see now...:
"...What chaffs or enrages you about highlighting that does escape me though.'..." green smileyface

For the record I'm seldom enraged - chaffed? - probably - if a nice meaning is envisaged. What I hope is made clear about 'the possible 100' will be in forthcoming White Paper. However it may remain unclear as usual. Why? Decision in future.


No problem Spaz, perhaps take my remarks on face value from here, we shouldn't be clashing over simple misunderstandings in this way, I respect your deep knowledge of topics greatly btw, but I do my own thinking and data logging and detail taking, it's a bad habit I just can't shake. :) 8)
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24491
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post16 Feb 2016, 06:25

Usually I just post the articles/facts with links/citations or whatever. What I think - except for my jokes - is not here nor there in the scheme of things. I am out of the loop; but await the public advice in the White Paper - whenever it appears.

IF you want to peruse my collection of 'facks maam - nuttin' but the facks' go to the shortified links at the bottom of each of my posts. These shorties go to OneDrive and GoogleDrive for heaps of material related to the RAN FAA and the F-35. Particularly I'm interested in the 'how to deck land' aspects of the F-35B/Cs but how to land them on a runway is interesting also. Perhaps a Norwegian F-35A pilot will tell us soon - as promised. Otherwise I comprehend that a lot of F-35 information will remain classified, making understanding of how it does what it does not always easy to comprehend. Some posters here such as 'blindpilot' & others have made a good impression on me about understanding - my way though.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1421
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post16 Feb 2016, 06:48

spazsinbad wrote:... my way though.


I respect that. And thanks for the link advice, I've actually been reading your PDFs for some time now, very informative.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1421
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post16 Feb 2016, 06:59

popcorn wrote:I'm thinking that as F-35s are fielded and SHs are retired, it becomes less and less compelling to justify Growlers and more and more attractive to realize the benefits of a common fast-jet platfform. But that egg is still to be hatched.


I was originally against the idea of getting Supers at all. LO F-35 with Hornets mixed? Nah! And to sticking to F-35 single-type plans, until events required otherwise. I see some hurdles now to early withdrawal of SH-G (I'd say at least 12 F's will go for sure).

The new build acquisition inquiry date was Dec 2012, ordered in 2013. Not long ago. The impediments I see are these:

(1) RAAF seems strongly committed/invested in both public and official comments toward its deep integration, for example:
"... former Chief of the Air Force Geoff Brown said the acquisition of Super Hornet ‘Growlers’ is the biggest single advance in RAAF capability since the purchase of F-111s in the 1960s. He explained that because of the broad spectrum Electronic Attack features of the aircraft, they will constitute a major step forward in the ability of the ADF to conduct successful combat operations. He expressed the view that the Asian region is becoming potentially more dangerous to operate in mainly because of the growth in numbers and capability of anti-aircraft missile systems. ..."


Source: http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.c ... rolled-out

(2) The cost for the 12 new builds was $3.6 billion AUD (at the time), plus $420 million AUD spent on the 12 SH-F, fitted for but not with G upgrade. So just over $4 billion AUD total, invested in future G capabilities (that's without including the cost of the first 12 SH-F aircraft upgraded to SH-G).

That's a lot of political and budgetary cabbage, to make lots of painful coleslaw out (APA, media blah), for years to come, if COTS SH-G was canned early. You'd get public inquiry and outcry in media and Canberra.

F/A-18G are to be classed as support aircraft, not air combat aircraft, so are not part of the 100 strikefighter force. So if you've paid for them, and they're delivered, people trained, air bases upgraded for them, and you can also get 100 F-35 with them, then why cut them away, at all?

Operating costs? Redundancy? What's wrong with keeping them for decades?

The joint EA targeting support concepts envisioned:

"... This is a capability we have never had before – the jamming ability to shut down hostile radars, to shut down enemy missile systems and allow us if necessary to operate in hostile airspace.

“The ‘Growler’ is such a big change from what we have had before. I always think that with military capability there are three things you really want: you want good cyber capabilities; good kinetic effect capabilities, which we have always had – and also a good electronic warfare capability. Never previously having had the ability to attack the electromagnetic spectrum in the way that this aircraft can means that not only does the air force benefit from its acquisition but so does the entire ADF.

“Capability like this will be in our inventory for 30 plus years. Unless you can guarantee air superiority you cannot do any other land or sea operations, so to have this sort of capability makes the rest of Defence function, to be honest.”

Asked how the ‘Growler’ will work with the stealthy F-35 – which comes with a formidable electronic attack capability of its own – the Air Marshal explained:

“The ‘Growler’ will support the F-35s, but it will depend on the scenario. Sometimes you won’t necessarily fly them together, but other times you will – it all depends on the mission planning. The ‘Growler’ brings a much wider spectrum of electronic attack to the equation, whereas the F-35’s EA capability is more directed against surface-to-air missiles. I don’t think the two types will always operate together because the F-35 has the ability to go into hostile airspace by itself. We are looking at the ‘Growler’ in terms of its ability to support the wider Australian Defence Force and protect all of our assets.” ..."


http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.c ... rolled-out

I could live with 100 F-35, with 12 (and potentially 24, or 12 in reserve) SH-G.

Coordinated asymmetric EA clout up the wazoo.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests