text:
Jet order no flight of fancy, they're worth it
Critics of the decision to buy new jet fighters say things like "we're spending too much" and "why spend anything at all", but they miss some key points in the debate, writes Andrew Porter.
There's a fantastic line in P.J. O'Rourke's Give War a Chance that encapsulates the boondoggle of military verbosity the world over.
O'Rourke observes wryly that a bolt's accompanying nut is termed by the US Department of Defence as a "hexaform rotatable surface compression unit". If it's not amusingly dense descriptors, there's always acronyms.
Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) - the highly advanced basket that the Government announced on Wednesday would soon be filled with $12 billion worth of eggs - has a couple of them here. It's known at Russell as AIR 6000, or NACC (new air combat capability). And $12 billion seems like a lot, doesn't it? It is.
In consideration of that sum, the RAAF will receive an additional 58 JSFs to go with the 14 already on order, two of which are already paid for. From the outset, it's worth declaring that I'm part of the bipartisan consensus that sees Labor and Liberal alike back an F-35 buy. Until it's eclipsed by the construction phase of an even more complex challenge - replacing the Collins Class - yesterday's announcement represents our single largest spend on armaments in a single project since federation.
It's a figure, and a capability, that elicits a number of responses. They run the gamut from "we're spending far too much" to "why spend anything at all", and include:
1. Defence spending is a waste of money. Who's going to attack us, in, like, ever?
2. We should buy something proven, and cheaper - JSF's delays/cost blowouts are unprecedented;
3. Why are we asking this plane to do the job of several types that preceded it?
4. These aren't the hundred JSFs Air Force was looking for.
The first argument is the one you'll find most commonly on social media and among the far left. Analogous to the argument that insuring your house is unnecessary because you don't apprehend an immediate risk of fire or theft, it assumes Australia finds itself in a static, favourable geopolitical milieu under the watchful eye of a benevolent ally happy for us to do less for ourselves and our friends, now and into the future.
If you believe this, I have a well-priced bridge to sell you. Granted, most household risks don't cost $12 billion to insure against, but most insurance policies aren't also required to function as a deterrent to would-be intruders. And as much as anything else, you're insuring against what you don't know or can't accurately foresee may happen in the future.
In a region that's seeing rapid increases in defence spending, this is a prudent spend. Other departments can budget for measurable outputs like the number of patients who present for treatment, or the quantum of benefits claimed. Based on previous years, they can reasonably budget for and predict the challenges they'll face in the years ahead and appropriate against outlays accordingly. If an external threat emerges down the track, we can't just head to the dealership and ask for a sweet driveaway price on a fleet of F35s, hoping they'll be in stock. Do they come in red? Does it have keyless entry? Can I fly it home today? Sadly, Lockheed don't tend to do end of financial year sales.
The most vocal proponents of the second and third points include commentators like former Defence official and current Liberal MP, Dr. Dennis Jensen, and AirPower Australia principals Peter Goon and Dr. Carlo Kopp. Their contributions are rooted in a concern that the JSF, principally a large scale replacement to a number of aircraft in current service in the US, plays Commodore to Rollers the Joneses of our neighbourhood are developing, acquiring, or looking to do either.
In short, they charge that throughout its development, the JSF has been too slow, too observable, lacking agility, too heavy (not merely lacking straight or climbing grunt - can't turn quickly). We're told it can't run, it can't turn, it can't hide, and with fewer weapons points on the airframe than many combat aircraft, it can't fight, either. These aren't new criticisms in a development phase of an aircraft.
We've seen production setbacks in the past, like the delayed yet ultimately venerable F-111. It's not as if the JSF program has stood still amidst its very public problems; it's more that an expensive, complex program lifting its game isn't really a lead 6pm story. Having said that, defence contractors lifting their game ought not be a cause for celebration, either.
The F-22 production line was shut down years ahead of schedule for the same sorts of reasons the JSF is now in the firing line, leaving the USAF hundreds of airframes short.
Successive F-35 program managers, most recently USN Vice Admiral David Venlet and United States Air Force (USAF) Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, have cut through the reassuring "too big to fail" and "it'll be all right on the night" messaging alternating from the Pentagon and Lockheed. The number of airframes ordered has been cut; the number of them being tested, mostly incident free, grows. The lead customer is, in essence, reminding Lockheed who's boss.
The part of the critique is why are we buying, again, a Commodore, when the USAF is operating the world's most potent air superiority platform: the aircraft's older sibling, the F-22 Raptor. Unfortunately for us, that plane has sailed. The previous Republican administration hinted at times it might be willing to export the crown jewels but didn't follow through.
The F-22 production line was shut down years ahead of schedule for the same sorts of reasons the JSF is now in the firing line, leaving the USAF hundreds of airframes short. While it's beyond dispute that it's a more capable airframe than the JSF, it's not on the table. Nor should far less capable or advanced European airframes that aren't going to do the job we'd want, and are often touted as alternatives by the JSF's critics despite even more glaring performance shortcomings.
The third point explains the second, in part. The JSF has several variants. We're signed up to the conventional 'A' variant - any more normal and we'd be asking for white paint for a better resale. Others have gone for the sunroof and neon purple paint - short take-off and vertical landing. The F-35 isn't doing what earlier generations of aircraft have done, replacing a single capability like an air superiority fighter, or a ground attack aircraft. Many armed forces, ours included, want it to do the job of a number of platforms.
While there are several variants of F-35, its mission is the same regardless of the way it's equipped to land: to be a versatile fighter or bomber or otherwise as needs be. This love of a single type - expecting the F-35 to be part ute, part Maserati - underlines the problem not with the airframe itself, so much as how expensive trying to save money by way of omniplane can turn out to be. It is looking to be, and will likely prove to be in years ahead, a highly capable platform. It might have been more capable still were it, like its older sibling, conceived of for one, rather than every purpose.
On the fourth point, dating back to the Howard government's 2000 Defence White Paper and earlier, the Royal Australia Air Force (RAAF) was keen on 100 aircraft this time around to replace the Hornet. This morphed into 100 to replace the Hornet, a fighter in the traditional sense, and F-111C and F-111G, a more versatile capability that was better described as fighter-bomber/ground-attack/defence suppression.
While talk is cheap - and fighter jets aren't - my takeaway from this is that a government of no surprises and no excuses surprised no observers by breaking a promise to sharply increase spending here, and didn't really offer an excuse.
Under the Abbott Government, this has now morphed into 72 F-35s (plus options) to replace the 30 or so retired F-111s, 71 F-18Cs, 24 F/18Fs (an upgraded hornet) and a dozen EA-18G (a highly advanced electronic warfare capability). 72 is a lot less than 130 or so. And it's less than a hundred. And it's not that high a number to have as a primary means to defend an entire continent for 20-30 years.
Why, then, didn't the RAAF get a boost from the heroic Liberal Government working tirelessly to redress the legion funding injustices rendered unto Defence by Labor? Dating back to 2009, Defence Minister David Johnston made clear that he thought an order for 72 a copout, complaining on November 26 of that year that "The 2009 Defence White Paper had outlined the purchase of 100 Joint Strike Fighters but the Rudd government will now only commit to a maximum of 72, with the rest to be considered 'at a later date'."
Last year, Johnston was crystal clear in saying he thought a JSF order of less than 100 was a sign of incompetence, a broken promise, a number the Coalition supported. What's changed?
While talk is cheap - and fighter jets aren't - my takeaway from this is that a government of no surprises and no excuses surprised no observers by breaking a promise to sharply increase spending here, and didn't really offer an excuse. Seen through the prism of mooted pension and Medicare cuts, this might seem odd - but the Coalition relies on a quaint presumption that it's stronger on defence for little other reason than they say so.
Broken promises like this, however unfortunate, might help change that perception.
Andrew Porter was an adviser to prime ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, and most recently worked as press secretary to then minister for defence Stephen Smith, and Bill Shorten. View his full profile here.
Topics: government-and-politics, defence-and-national-security, defence-forces
Comments (258)
Comments for this story are closed.
the yank:
24 Apr 2014 12:13:16pm
The blinding light here is the pointlessness of buying these planes.
If you want to see how future wars are going to be fought and won then look at Russia and what it is doing now. Just a handful of highly trained men going into a country and destabilising it.
The time of large confrontations on battle fields is over. Now it will be highly trained small groups that will rock your boats.
24 Apr 2014 12:36:35pm
So you're saying we should have no air force?
the yank:
24 Apr 2014 2:20:27pm
When was the last time one of our planes fired a shot in anger?
Transport planes, the type doing searches for that missing airliner, helicopters and support planes maybe. But planes that are going to cost us now $24 billion? No.
24 Apr 2014 3:59:23pm
Yank, the aircraft searching for the missing airliner are P3 Orions which are anti submarine and maritime surveilance aircraft, they are not transport aircraft.
the yank:
24 Apr 2014 4:28:04pm
I didn't say they were but I did say that they should be part of an Australian air force.
Unless we are planning on invading some country I don't see the value of these planes.
24 Apr 2014 5:30:39pm
Yank, what you say makes a lot of sense and I would have agreed with you until about a decade ago. There is a lot of waste in our armed forces and the cost is always 'too much'. But we have something of value here in Australia and it is worth defending ....there are a lot of people who would like to have what we have and like all nations we have to make it clear that any such venture will not be easy.
It is too late to be casting about for planes when the need becomes obvious, these things take a lot of time. You may remember the F111 that has recently been phased out, I remember when Bob Menzies ordered 24 of them from the Yanks in 1960...they cost 240 million pounds plus 60 million for parts and service ....i.e. 300 million pounds all up. The first one was delivered around 1975 I think it was and I was one of those that opposed it 'vigorously'.
I doubt if this lot ( of planes) will last 50 years, but those F111's were very good value for money. Certainly better value than a paid parental leave scheme.
24 Apr 2014 11:35:41pm
Yank I often agree with you but not in this case.We have an airforce for our defence, not offence.Not a lot of people on here were around when Darwin, and Broome were bombed, when Sydney Harbor was attacked by submarines, I was albeit in Primary School,we had air raid shelters at school.Would you seriously suggest that the world has learnt the lessons from those times and that they would never be repeated?Are all nations in this world content within their own borders?As the article implies we are taking out insurance.
24 Apr 2014 4:13:19pm
Yank. You forget an important point.
Russia was easily able to annex Crimea. But it wasn't because of the handful of trained men. It was because Russia had a massive conventional army sitting on the border, ready to cross the border and help those men if Ukraine dared to fight back.
You also forget another important point. If we don't need planes to defend our country, why do our neighbours need an air force to defend theirs? And if their planes start firing shots in anger, what good will transport planes do us?
don't believe the media:
24 Apr 2014 4:50:22pm
I'm with you Yank. Why put the whole of society into a false state of austerity to rob from the poor and increase the wealth of the corporations, including the giant U.S arms industry, which is larger than the next 20 countries combined.
Here's a better idea; Let's get a P.M with some sort of statesman like ability who won't bang around the region pissing our neighbours off.
And Zing, are you from the school of thought that believes if the teachers were all armed then the school shooter wouldn't have killed so many kids?
This is the last on the list of the characteristics of a fascist nation.
24 Apr 2014 5:52:49pm
Pacifism only works against pacifist armies, DBTM.
If you don't have a defence force, you're a potential victim of everyone else who does. Few nations are dumb enough to neglect their defence force. And those that do don't remain nations for long.
24 Apr 2014 6:39:40pm
Zing, should PNG, NZ and our other Pacific neighbours be worried about us?
24 Apr 2014 10:25:47pm
Indonesia has a fairly large defence force, Danny.
Perhaps you should tell them to cut their defence spending? I'm sure they'll care about your opinion as much as I do.
25 Apr 2014 6:16:12pm
What has Indonesia got to do with this?
They aren't a threat to us and never have been. Yes they have several hundred thousand Defence Force personnel, but that is only because the government wants to give jobs to people they can control much more easily. They are employed to keep the status quo and their officer corps is riddled with corruption.
The last thing the Indonesian army wants to do is fight anyone else. The troops have no commitment to it, it's just a way of earning an income that would otherwise be unavailable to them. And the officers would lose their gravy train and might get themselves killed.
Whereas our Government has a long history of sending troops to all corners of the globe. And now we're even destabilising near neighbours by forcing desperate refugees from war torn countries onto them.
China has been very interested in Pacific nations for some time now and we are fast becoming Best Friends with them.
In a couple of decades China may replace the US as our strategic partner and we may have to do their bidding, in the same way as we currently do with the US.
don't believe the media:
25 Apr 2014 7:05:03am
I guess that means yes, we should all be armed to the teeth in case someone else with a gun comes along. There's only one outcome there.
Stephen S:
24 Apr 2014 6:20:26pm
Excellent response, and yes, the Yank has it right!
24 Apr 2014 5:33:07pm
2003 for the Hornets, the Orions have in service in the Middle East up until last year from memory
Joe Maverick:
24 Apr 2014 10:10:57pm
Absolute right point about the pointlessness of buying these types of planes when unmanned drones can be just as lethal as hi-tech jets and it seems I'm not the only one thinking this, so are the Russians and as we know the US like to use them a lot as can be seen in the Afghanistan/Iraqi theatre. No crews flying inside of them so no loss of life if they are shot down or malfunction, no expensive maintenance programs and much cheaper. And with the money saved we could hire private US armies like 'Academi', that are in the Ukraine at the moment, to do the dirty work for us instead of sending our troops in. Saves heaps more on paying danger monies, pensions for serving overseas and if any of them die that's not our problem. Australian families will never have to attend the funeral of their loved ones who made the ultimate sacrifice for fighting a war that is funded by greedy central banks and sanctioned by blinkered and one-track mindedness governments who are obliged to follow the leader. War!..what is it good for?...absolutely nothing!! Except for the bankers! Pffftt...tighten our belts indeed!! I can't even afford a belt!
25 Apr 2014 3:06:16pm
Joe Maverick, a lot of that which you speak of is fair comment, I wonder if anyone has done the figures as to how much Australia paid to this same Lockheed Martin corporation relating to the now dumped inferior capacity F-22 Strike Fighter?
Then there was the annual R & D costs of $300 or so Million dollars paid out each year for the past 10 or more years, in which we received Jack Schitt in return for these mega millions, John Howard was responsible for signing the agreement that cost Australia all that taxpayers money.
If we need Fighter Jets, we are better served if we purchase the latest Russian Fighter Jets, at least we will receive them.
I wonder has anybody calculated just how much Australia has been dudded by the American Defence Manufacturers over the past 25 years, it would have allowed the people of Australia to continue to retire at 65 years instead of Big Joe Hockey's 70 years in the work force.
Will Big Joe still be working himself, or will Big Joe be burning his superannuation candle at both ends well before he reaches 70 years of age.
25 Apr 2014 2:19:08am
Surely the killer question is; what functionality will these aircraft offer over unmanned and vastly cheaper unmanned alternatives.
Indeed, for the price of these F-35s we could fund an unmanned aircraft development program that would give us leading capacity into the future.
Australia's weapons research has a proud history of accomplishment that myopic governments have failed to recognise.
25 Apr 2014 10:17:26am
Pros include:
1) significantly lower cost compared to manned vehicles (although they can get pretty expensive depending on their sophistication); this should allow the military to buy UAVs in much larger quantities than manned aircraft
2) expendability, you can afford to send them into heavily defended areas and risk losing some without endangering a pilot
3) more maneuverable than manned planes without the limitations of a human pilot
4) can be built stealthier than a manned plane since one of the least stealthy parts of the aircraft (the cockpit) is unnecessary
5) should be lighter, smaller, and easier to transport
Cons include:
1) limitations of their programming, may not be able to compensate for the changing battlefield environment (such as being able to attack a new more desirable target that appeared after the aircraft was launched or changing course to avoid enemy defenses)
2) because they are typically smaller than a manned plane, they cannot carry as large a payload (however, they do generally have a greater ratio of payload to total weight)
3) along the same lines, they may not be able to carry as much fuel and therefore may have a shorter range
4) typically tailored to specific kinds of missions and not as versatile as a modern multi-role fighter
5) if contact is lost with a ground station, the vehicle may be lost.
24 Apr 2014 5:21:51pm
What is the point of an air force if we have nothing left to protect.
Once we have lost all of our manufacturing businesses and allowed all of our mines and farms to be bought up by overseas investors, we will have nothing left to protect.
James Murphy:
24 Apr 2014 6:34:21pm
It's funny how energy security is often overlooked. Australia will shortly have no major oil refineries in operation, thus, becoming totally reliant on imported fuel. Like it or hate it, we still need these to keep the country running, and there is no 'quick-fix' to this.
Why would anyone bother to invade when all they have to do is cut off the fuel supplies, or increase the costs...? The same could be said for a lot of what we import, not just fuel.
24 Apr 2014 9:49:19pm
If China ever became our enemy , how could we cope ? ,
our manufacturing industries are disappearing including our car and white goods industries . Australian textile and clothing factories have become a thing of the past and it is almost impossible to find a shoe that is made in Australia
Primary industries like fruit , vegetables and fishing are slowing disappearing as Australians buy more and more from overseas .
Once Australia could have coped if it was isolated from the rest of the world but now Australia would have no hope without it's imports .
don't believe the media:
25 Apr 2014 7:11:41am
James, there has been myriad options for many decades. Instead of fighting the U.S oil and construction wars we should have and could have created a progressive society that isn't reliant on fossil fuel.
Instead, just like 400, 000 years ago we are burning fossil fuel and picking up rocks and sticks to kill our fellow humans with. And still we kid ourselves we have evolved.
24 Apr 2014 8:48:21pm
Actually Bizbob we are actually getting to do really advanced manufacturing on titanium structures - 700 tailfins built here in Oz for the worldwide program - along with composite structures for about another 700. If Oz is to be a clever country then the F-35 program is one way to do it. GNK in Melbourne contributed hundreds of thousands of engineer design hours to design the F-35 because were in the right time zone to do the American night design night shift
25 Apr 2014 11:04:32am
I would say that the pen is mightier than the sword!
24 Apr 2014 12:42:18pm
I am not sure that is a circumstance that Australia is likely to face.
Australia needs to be prepared for a destabilised world as a result of population growth, climate change and resource scarcity and the possibility that our asian allies may need our support against a resurgent China throwing its weight around.
In order to defend against a possible scenario that could see any combination of China, Russia, North Korea & Iran working together to press their desires on neighbouring countries would require a strong US and effective West aligned armies in the rest of Asia: South Korea, Japan, Thailand, The Philippines, India, Singapore, Australia & NZ.
If China's military spending is heading up (and it is) then so should Australia's. WWII and the German lesson is not so long ago - the countries involved may change but not the strategies, humanity will get there in the end but is not yet ready to leave partisanship and greed behind.
the yank:
24 Apr 2014 3:39:29pm
If that is the case we'd be a lot better off building a nuke we can send via a missile.
Unless we are planning on invading countries such planes are a waste.
24 Apr 2014 10:01:44pm
An airforce is internationally acceptable for Australia. A nuke is not.
If you want to damage Australia in the present, a nuke would be a great way to go.
As for choice of aircraft, I would refer to the experts regarding Australian military, not internet commentators and their wild predictions.
There must be a reason every OECD country and every European country (excluding Vatican) have an airforce.
It may be ABC commentators know better than the experts in all these countries. I just doubt it.
24 Apr 2014 11:42:11pm
Yank ,I repeat again, we are not intending to invade anyone, we are defending ourselves and any neighbors who may need our assetts eg NZ.We put locks on our doors to prevent intruders, not to assist us to intrude on someone elses home.
25 Apr 2014 10:54:35am
But why are we so steadfast in buying American planes. There are a whole range of choices. Just because we are allies does not mean we have to buy their planes- look at most of Europe. They have more than satisfactory planes, which are "affordable" and still conduct operations with the US.
25 Apr 2014 3:13:42pm
After American aircraft, probably the next most effective aircraft would be Russian not European.We prefer to purchase US aircraft so that both airforces have commonality in equipment and training.We are far more likely to be involved with US forces in any conflict than any European equipped force. It should be noted that European countries are also signed up to purchase the F35.
24 Apr 2014 4:02:42pm
Yes, instead of investing to address the causes and mitigating the problems of population growth, climate change and resource scarcity, we should be talking up war and spending all that money on weapons and those that profit from them.
Like, totally holistic.
24 Apr 2014 5:24:17pm
The third world war may well be the one to solve all of those problems.
No more population growth, climate change and or resource scarcity, with total annihilation.
24 Apr 2014 5:05:12pm
Lgh, well said, very well said. It's sad but reality. We are not there yet and there will be very tricky things Australia needs to do in the next 50 years. Having these things in our pocket will make those challenges much easier without them even ever being deployed in aggression.
24 Apr 2014 5:11:27pm
Who gives a rats about China? The Chinese have made it clear they are happy to trade- their territorial ambitions lie a lot closer to home in any event.
On the other hand, the Indians have a burgeoning population problem that they can't readily contain through government, a growing blue-water naval capability, and multiple aircraft carriers capable of projecting power far from their shores. This is the greater risk to the status quo, no matter how much people want to talk up China.
So- the question becomes- how best to defend against potential Indian expansionism in future? Perhaps a stronger relationship with China, less of the historical guff supporting a relationship with the US?
Might be time we grew up and looked more at what was good for our own future rather than trying to prop up the Pax Americana. I'd go so far as to say that if the Chinese had a base in Darwing rather than the Americans, that would serve as a far greater deterrent to any expansionist ambitions expressed by local regional powers in future. After all, we ARE trying to move forward into the Asian sphere of influence, aren't we?
Just a thought...
24 Apr 2014 1:37:07pm
Yank, you say that it's OK for the US to destabilise the elected Yanukovych government, but not OK for Eastern Ukranians to oppose this. Sort of one-sided isn't it?
The internal conflict you need to be looking at is Syria and how the JSF would operate in those conditions. You could always use the aircraft like Obama wanted to do - blow people up because their government allegedly tried to gas them and failed. Otherwise I'd have to agree with you that they'd be utterly pointless
the yank:
24 Apr 2014 2:29:45pm
Hope I didn't say that at all. If you bothered to read what I posted I said that fighter aircraft for a country like Australia is pointless.
If you bothered to look at wars fought since WWII you would see that Australia has not had a use for fighter air craft. Now we have had great need for highly trained and skilled land troops backed up with appropriate air support helicopters and the like.
You tell me the last time an Australian air force played a part in any of the conflicts they have taken part in?
24 Apr 2014 2:49:00pm
Because it's not like we will ever need them again, right? Heck, we haven't torpedoed a ship for a long time, lets ditch the submarines. When was the last time one of our surface fleet blasted something? More savings there.
24 Apr 2014 3:01:48pm
Maybe if we didn't build overpriced poorly built Collins subs that didn't leak.
The German subs are the best - the Israelis have bought a number. Good price, advanced and they don't leak - which I guess is a prerequisite for a sub.
Yank is right, we need to spend on small, highly trained commando squads who are very mobile (backed up by choppers, transport, fast navy ships, small subs) and well armed with the latest gadgets.
Wars in future will either be very small counter insurgency engagements or WW3.
24 Apr 2014 3:30:54pm
That's a great idea, Rusty more affordable and more practical than fielding battalions in the imperial armee.
24 Apr 2014 4:14:37pm
So we have helicopters filled with commandos. Good.
Along come bad guys in jet fighters and shoot down the helicopters. Bad.
Alternatively, bad guys come over with their helicopters (and fighter cover) and we have precious little to shoot them down with. Bad squared.
In order to use helicopters you need control of the air. In order to control the air you need fighters. Imagine if the Luftwaffe had sent over wave after wave of Junkers 52's (the equivalent then of troop-filled Blackhawks today) during the Battle of Britain, and the Brits had no Spitfires of Hurricanes.
We need the fighters. It is a pity though that we couldn't get the F-22.
24 Apr 2014 5:52:37pm
> Imagine if the Luftwaffe had sent over wave after wave of Junkers 52's (the equivalent then of troop-filled
> Blackhawks today)
There is no great need to imagine much. The Luftwaffe did send over slow Junkers 87s dive bombers at first, expecting similar successes to those in mainland Europe. But very heavy losses to the higher performance fighters they faced rapidly forced their withdrawal from combat.
The question we need to ask here, is why can F22 production not be resumed, given that even the F35 proponents agree that USA's second best is second best to Russian fighters already flying in the region, and the F22 is the aircraft we should have.
Just because the submarine purchase was (on the basis of reports to date) supremely incompetent, providing utter rubbish which must now be replaced, the air force does not need to duplicate the process, or does it?
Perhaps we taxpayers misunderstand, and the prime reason for the program is to siphon of billions to overseas and local corporations - making product failure a process success, because it hastens repeat expenditure to the friends of political parties.
24 Apr 2014 8:31:11pm
Um, we can't get it because the US won't export the F22. We asked, they said no. Even Israel didn't get the F22, and they have a much closer defence relationship with the Americans than we do.
Its also more expensive.
Also, the submarines would have needed to be replaced soon even if they'd been built properly. You do understand that military equipment becomes obsolete, right?
Major Bob:
24 Apr 2014 9:13:16pm
The F-22 IS a fantastic FIGHTER but it does have limitations, least of which is the number the USAF could afford to buy. It has no helmet mounted sight for high off bore sight targeting, no infra red search and track, and limited air to ground capability. It is not the aircraft needed by a small multi role airforce, it is more expensive over its' service life than the F35and the US Congress has vetoed its export - the Japanese wanted it badly and were told sorry, you cannot have it at any price.
25 Apr 2014 12:00:15am
Erik the US Government had decided that the F22 Raptor would not be available for sale to any country.It then decided for budgetary reasons to close production of that aircraft.This aircraft was vastly more expensive than the F35.
24 Apr 2014 4:34:48pm
This has been our basic military stratagic planning from the beginnings of Vietnam War. We do the small specialist role better than any other military on the planet. As that war and those in Iraq and Afghanistan showed "high tech" don't count for anything against large domestic opposition using "low tech" without any air support, willing to sacrifice themselves in large numbers in order to get foriegners out of their country.
Any conserted effort to invade Australia would come from a military with a much larger number of personnel and landing to the north of the continent. To be honest our troops, because of their small number, would be forced to fight a geurilla war. Our best defence is using the complete inhosbility of our land, as demonstrated by the small Japanese force that landed in the Kimberlies during WW2 (Maj. Les Hiddens "The Bush Tucker Man" ABC). Unlike our troops they'd have poor to no knowledge on how to survive off the land with very long vunerable supply lines. It took almost a decade but this worked for the Iraqi resistance.
As for our "deputy sherrif" role in our region my family and friends have suffered enough from this over the last half century. We spend bugger all on veterans and veterans families (60% of the children of veterans with PTSD end up with it themselves) after they've completed their service. PTSD is almost a certainty for service men in modern warfare and our military though trying has no comprehensive plan to turn soldiers back into civilians (don't believe me ask a Vietnam veterans kid or give it thirty years and ask the kids of our present generation of veterans) . Highly arrogant of us to tell our neighbours how to run their own country and what to do with their resources in any case. Attempting this with our military would breed hate and resentment leading to more conflict. If it came to WW3, we'd be swamped by todays convential weaponry, the Yanks would take over everything and we'd end up like the South Korean military with a foriegner as commander in chief of our own defence force. That's just how the US always rolls.
Our best defence would be to work with our nieghbours to mitigate the threats of refugees, global warming, diminishing resources, corruption, nepotism and income inequality. we'd have t set the example first. "Expedential economic growth" being the human intelectual construct, unrelated to the finite physical world we live in, being the mantra of government there's not much chance of that happening. Most fascist governments, dictators or elected parliaments, cut welfare and essential services and increase military spending. Waving the flag takes the peoples minds off the enourmous social pile of doo-doo they've created whilst creating handy scapegoats.
24 Apr 2014 4:54:34pm
Rusty, I know the Collins had plenty of problems, but am told they have performed well in spite of the teething problems. If China goes the way it appears, we will need a viable air defense. It's not about starting a war, it's about having a bit of deterrent value, and I daresay the US probably demands it as part of our security pact.
24 Apr 2014 11:15:10pm
The way we human virus keep breeding we may well need in future to defend our arid, waterless, polluted, overcrowded land against hordes of those who come from even more overcrowded lands.
.303`s and tiger moths won`t do that.
24 Apr 2014 2:57:43pm
The RAAF do all the transport for every conflict we have been involved in.
The F 18s went to Iraq
the yank:
24 Apr 2014 3:36:58pm
And we saw hoe well that war went.
24 Apr 2014 4:57:44pm
Yes yank, Iraq was a disaster. We lost all those Australian troops and the bad guys still won. Yank, there is never a good war, but sad am is gone, and our troops are home, without significant casualities.
24 Apr 2014 5:38:10pm
Yank, the initial major combat between the Iraq and Coalition forces was a whitewash. The following insurgency was the major problem afterwards. It was not like the Iraqis even came close to holding their own in major battles.
24 Apr 2014 6:52:09pm
Exactly, so why bother with these inferior aircraft in the first place. Conventional warfare is obsolete. If we had to buy planes we should have bought from the Chinese or Russians. " keep your friends close but your enemies closer" methinks!
the yank:
24 Apr 2014 7:13:27pm
That actually is my point. we won all the battles but lost the war. Why because we were fighting it in the wrong manner. Future battles will not be held on the traditional sorts of battle fields. They will be fought by small highly trained troops with robot sorts of machines. It is already obvious look at how the USA is dealing with things in Africa and Afghanistan.
25 Apr 2014 12:10:27am
"It is already obvious look at how the USA is dealing with things in Africa and Afghanistan". seems to me that a scruffily dressed bunch of beared guys with kalishnakovs and home made explosive devices driving batterd Toyota utes have managed quite well against highly trained troops with fancy equipment.Yes war is different now just not as we have known it.
Just anuva Lawyer:
25 Apr 2014 3:30:25pm
the yank,
You are right on the money again, drones and robots will do the heavy lifting whilst our operators are tucked away safely in bomb proof shelters watching the screens and working the joy stick, this will suit our youngsters who are very good at war games on computers and ipods.
I agree Yank, I watched a video on what was available to man 100 years ago compared to today and it is mind blowing to see what has changed, just go back 5 years and reminisce .
By the time we get these friggin planes the Chinese will be using lasers or something similar from the moon or another planet even.
When you get clowns and Politicians like Abbott as leaders of this country what else can we expect, I say put our brightest young minds in a room and let them brainstorm ideas , you will get something vastly different from the Likes of our Politicians.
24 Apr 2014 3:37:11pm
in both conflicts we had fighters in operation, they did some killing and we lost some
gulf war one, came close to losing a few, but we didn't
in the 2000's they have been in the desert areas, as part of the alliance we have not lost any.
They have been valuable in keeping our losses of ground forces down, without them we may or may not have been successful.
24 Apr 2014 3:53:33pm
Ralph, we didn't deploy any fighter aircraft to Vietnam, we did however deploy a squadron of Canberra bombers.
24 Apr 2014 4:12:51pm
I think you will find that our Airforce patrolled the skies during the Gulf War!
don't believe the media:
24 Apr 2014 4:53:48pm
This war talk is sickening. we should not have been involved in any of those wars mentioned and they have all been exposed as being based on lies and U.S imperialism.
What ever happened to peace?
Local 1:
24 Apr 2014 5:54:43pm
The Yank, Our hornets were used in battle in Iraq. That was in 2003 for air support of our troops on the ground, and also launching laser guided bombs on the enemy. That was 2003, before that our guys flew regular sortees in Vietnam. Both a lot more recent than WWII. The AWM website has lots of info, just google it
24 Apr 2014 8:07:25pm
I'm sooooo bored with the China angle. Its propaganda. The US is effectively in a trade competition with the Chinese and we keep listening to their crap.
Break it down. The Chinese have invested in the POTENTIAL of a blue-water capability based upon ex-Soviet era platforms that you could LITERALLY count the number of 'missions' that operated off them on your digits.
The Indians have invested in a proven blue-water capability based upon the successful operations of the Brits. They have developed the Tejas which can operate off that platform.
So- what we have is a lot of drivel about the risk of the Chinese, who might be able to do something in another 20 years, assuming they could be arsed, particularly given the interest in the 'threat' the pose being talked up by our erstwhile allies in the US.
Flip side is that we have a carrier capable threat that exists here-and-now.
Forget China. Its embarrassing to see how much we buy into other people's propaganda. Lets have some consideration about where a more realistic threat might originate
Major Bob:
24 Apr 2014 9:03:06pm
Your ignorance is appalling "Yank". Australia had a fighter squadron of P-51, then Meteor, fighters operating in the Korean war, as well as a RAN aircraft carrier with Fury and Firefly aircraft. The RAAF operated a bomber squadron of Lincoln bombers against insurgents in Malaya and a squadron of Mirage fighters were based in Malaysia as a deterent during the confrontation with Indonesia. A squadron of Canberra bombers served in Vietnam and a squadron of F/A-18 served in Guld War 2. In addition we have personnel on exchanges with British and USA that have gone "in harms way". Do your research instead of posting such dribble!
24 Apr 2014 11:53:54pm
Not sure when you came to Australia Yank but the RAAF was in air combat in Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam,and had aircraft involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For your reference read, "Across The Parallel" by George Odgers, the story of RAAF 77 Squadron and their P51 Mustangs then Gloster Meteor 8 in Korea.There are also books about the RAAF Canberra bombers in Vietnam.The RAAF flew Mirages out of Butterworth in the Malaysian conflict.
Hope this helps
24 Apr 2014 2:48:13pm
Sorry Yank, the way a SE Asian war will be fought is not like the Ukraine. It would simply be a question of who can dominate the Malacca Straits and strangle the other side of precious oil.
Fighter jets and subs are a must for Australia to maintain peace in the region.
the yank:
24 Apr 2014 3:35:26pm
"the way a SE Asian war will be fought is not like the Ukraine." you know that for certain? Look at the wars that have been fought and you might notice that while the use of large armies are affective at first they don't win, insurgencies are much more cost effective.
Unless we are planning on invading a country I see no need for these planes. Better to buy a bunch of drones and other weapons that can be operated from afar.
Peter NQ:
24 Apr 2014 4:40:03pm
Hmm, being on the ground, underfire from small arms, is a lot better than being on the ground under fire from enemy Aircraft. The Yank nay says the acquisition of the F35, and probably nay sayed the acquisition of the M1A1 Main Battle Tank. In tiny girly voice "Oh, we are but fighting the nongs in thongs, we need nothing but light infantry, they are much harder than my plush armchair therefore must be sufficient"
Perhaps before we should examine some history before we gallavant off preaching the utilitiy of light commando forces. If you want a protracted war and high casualites, then get rid of your capable platforms. "Oh but Commandos and SAS are so Special".
Pray examine Dieppe Commando raid, also the Parachute Operations in Normandy. They would have stalled rapidly had not armour broken out of the beaches. Look at Long Tan, had it not been for the application of artillery and the arrival of 'mechanised' forces, D Coy would have been wiped off the orbat, by nothing more advanced than 2000 armed peasants equipped with AK. Unfortuantely automatic weapons trump unsupported light infantry in nearly every instance. Perhaps yank, read a book - Actung Panzer is a good educational reasource.
These support weapons aren't toys for the military to have fun with, but essential elements of combat power, and have been key to keeping our forces safe during every major conflict since Vietnam.
I will grant that they are extremely expensive, mainly due to cost of labour and the complexity of the systems. Its projected that in a few short generations of aircraft, the US will only be able to afford 1unit. Unfortunately keeping a technological advantage over our potential adversaries for $12B is probably worthwhile if it prevents a major military disaster in our next conflict.
24 Apr 2014 5:41:05pm
Russia has a number of factors in Ukraine that Australia wouldn't have anywhere, such as a large and loyal local ethnic population, a substantial pre-existing military force already on the ground and - crucially - a long land border. Australia would have none of those things in any engagement we could plausibly end up in.
But if we're going to take lessons from Russia, I'd refer not to the Ukraine situation, but to the brief war with Georgia just a few years ago. That was more or less a straight conventional war, right down to the strategic bombers flying overhead and the tank columns advancing on the ground. Battlefields might be fewer and smaller but they still exist.
24 Apr 2014 6:53:14pm
If it was just a handful of trained soldiers, Ukraine would have taken them out in a few hours. They don't dare because that "handful" is backed by a nuclear capable massive army comprising overwhelming air, ground and sea assets. You have no clue what you are talking about, i.e. business as usual.
24 Apr 2014 8:50:02pm
Ukraine is destabilized because the UN and the US convinced her to dispose of her nuclear weapons 20 years ago - to Russia, as it turned out - and in return, Ukraine will become an established Nation.
Now the US, especially, feels a massive responsibility to save her own humours, and Ukraine's future.
PS The similarities here with Iraq are chilling ... and I wish all of us the best of luck.
24 Apr 2014 10:44:17pm
Absolutely right!
And biological warfare has come leaps and bounds! Genetically engineered bio-weaponry says "thank you" to your taxes. Forget the poor and the needy, the old and the sick.
24 Apr 2014 11:19:46pm
OMG! This is a first - I find myself in furious agreement with a Yank. Even the Pentagon knows these aircraft are a lemon.
And why does a 'Defence Force' need an offensive weapons systems anyway - is Tony planning on attacking someone?
24 Apr 2014 12:20:57pm
"The first argument is the one you'll find most commonly on social media and among the far left. Analogous to the argument that insuring your house is unnecessary because you don't apprehend an immediate risk of fire or theft"... NO! It's the same argument that says that insuring myself against an invasion from Indonesia, or China is far more wasteful and far-fetched than insuring myself (through the use of my taxes by the Government) against illness (= hospitals), uncompetitiveness (= education), etc. Money does not grow on trees, I was told when I was 5: More expensive fighter jets mean fewer social services.
Nobody is arguing in favour of dropping our pants in the area of defence. But given the evidence for the past 7 months of this Conservative-plus-Neoliberal Government, it's obvious that their obsession with defence and all that sounds military is purely ideological.
world in union:
24 Apr 2014 12:54:00pm
Hear hear ! I agree with you wholeheartedly and take offense at Andrew Porter's assertion that this type of comment comes from the far left. Rubbish! It comes from fair minded people who want to see money better spent on health & education.
Stuffed Olive:
24 Apr 2014 1:43:59pm
Exactly. It is the reasoning which some of us tell the climate change deniers. Amazing how the left can be both right and wrong on these matters based on the Right's idiotic view of a number of things. Pity they weren't as zealous about supporting amelioration of pollution as they are about buying planes to go to war (and they hardly have ever been used in war!)
24 Apr 2014 4:43:06pm
Area's of permafrost melting for the first time in 60 million years. "Nothing to see here, move along, business as usual."
24 Apr 2014 3:29:56pm
World In Union we spend enough money on health and education. If you want better services then spend some of your own hard earned on private schooling and private health insurance. The nation's security is more important than your desire for gold-plated everything at the expense of the taxpayer.
24 Apr 2014 4:20:04pm
It's just a matter of priority, Brad, not whether an individual personally wants better schooling or health care. Some of us believe that given a choice, the money - or some proportion of it - spent on these planes would be more beneficial if spent instead on improving identified shortfalls in education and health services - for all.
Jimmy Necktie:
24 Apr 2014 4:34:52pm
"gold-plated everything "
Tin plated you mean. We put heaps of money into health, sure, but not much comes out the other side. I pay a medicare levy and I still have to pay out of pocket at the doctor's (not one bulk biller in this neck of the woods and Medicare only refunds about 80%) and now they want an extra $6 surcharge?
Scrap this system and build a proper one. And stop subsidising private health, same for schools.
24 Apr 2014 4:41:36pm
"Money does not grow on trees"
No it doesn't, at present most of it only exists in the mainframes of large multi-national banks extended as lines of credit without being backed up by gold or other commodaties.
"approximately $10.5 trillion in existence, using the M2 money supply definition. If you just want to count actual notes and coins, there are about U.S. $1.2 trillion floating around the globe." (How Things Work.)
Less than 10% in real physical money.
You mentioned ideology?
24 Apr 2014 6:17:36pm
As any bad credit rating person forced to borrow from loan sharks will testify, it's not so much the amount of money that you borrow that kills you, but the interest rates. The tragedy of this system is that interest rates make both lending worthwhile and yet they can kill your client. When it comes to lending to a country (without a gold standard backup) you can't even claim their properties.... although the Germans did seem to have had some strange ideas about the Parthenon in Athens...
24 Apr 2014 8:46:46pm
Perfectly put, Alpo. Such a waste of money on so many levels as other posts have stated along with yours.
No Stealth Here:
24 Apr 2014 12:34:31pm
Key features:
+ lower manoeuvrability than Russian and European equivalents;
+ similar radar visibility to stealthy Russian Equivalents;
+ limited weapons payload unless hard points on wings are used (but this removes stealth)
+ operational and cruise ranges are only middling to average.
+ SLOW ... very slow in comparison to other 4th and 5th gen aircraft. This means that the pilot can't hit a target quickly and then can't run.
+ Only one engine ... what if there is a malfunction?
+ EXPENSIVE. Maybe double the cost of many alternatives. Too expensive to use in any ground attack role.
+ Not designed for air superiority (may itself need fighter cover).
Design focus is for the support of US forces against an advanced adversary. Integrates "on line" to a hypothetical US battle plan. Think of the Borg collective from Star Trek.
Concept is to get the first shot (missile launch) in then run but it's too slow to run.
Assumes avionics, electronics and and smart missile design from the US will remain superior.
Does not assume a future for UAV fighters, perhaps coordinated from something like Growler Super Hornets.
In a nutshell this is a decision to keeps the 5 Eyes alliance looking strong which is actually important for Australia. I'll live with this one!
The aircraft itself is an interesting toy but its combat functionality is narrow and not particularly suited to Australian conditions. It is completely inferior (in stand alone mode) to aircraft such as Sukhoi's PAK-FA
If we are getting them, we may as well get some navy & vertical take off ones for the 2 "helicopter" carriers. No mention of this in the budget? Must be an oversight.
I am assuming that the very poor reliability issues will be fixed at minimal cost over the next little while. A big assumption ??? maybe.
24 Apr 2014 1:11:35pm
Agreed - this purchase has more to do with backing up the US military effort than offering Australia a competent, no-nonsense fighter/bomber suited to our own terrrain. Plus, of course, it greases the wheels of the ANZUS alliance, should we ever get in the deep stuff.
Being in the fortunate position of being an island continent, any invader of Australia would have long and tenuous supply lines which could easily be disrupted. Against this, however, is the sheer scope of our coastline and the fact that it really is indefensible in the immediate aftermath of an aggressive attack. That said, we are more likely to suffer a multi-targeted missile strike as a precursor to any invasion.
The F35 may very well be a good aircraft, but there are better (and older) aircraft on the market with proven capabilities. The Sukhoi SU-30 comes to mind immediately, It is faster than the F35 by some 200kph, has a longer range (about 20-25% longer range) and much the same armaments capability. OK, so it's a Russian make. They build their planes to be pretty rugged, a necessity given their terrain and our terrain is not dissimilar.
At the end of the day, any dogfight will come down to pilot ability. I have no doubts about the abilities of Australian pilots - they're top notch, but at least give them some decent equipment.
24 Apr 2014 1:53:34pm
Filz, if our years of loyalty at war, the UN, trade and snooping for America means that they would not honour their alliance with us were we to be attacked, then we've been wasting our time and we've been had. From a strategic perspective we no more need them than balloons twisted into funny animal shapes. What we are doing is a multi-billion dollar funds transfer from our consolidated revenue to their arms industry, for that is the price of alliance. We must buy american and we must buy often and we must buy big. That's the pattern of all their allies around the world. Witness the gulf states just last year. It is our tribute, our tithe and our protection money. I'd rather those balloons.
24 Apr 2014 8:02:10pm
Your comments and those of others here shows your complete lack of knowledge and understanding of air combat. In reference to the higher speeds and acceleration of the Russian fighters such as the SU27,33,30,35,34 derivatives there is no way in the world that these aircraft can attain those speeds and agility with a meaningful war load. There is such a thing as physics and drag. Tell me just how long do you think an aircraft can sustain a high Mach number before it has exhausted its fuel supply? The F-35 is a low observable aircraft. What does this mean? Is it completely invisible to radar? Of course not but neither is the F-22. The F-35 is comparable in size to a metal golf ball and the F-22 a metal marble. But radar detection and track and fire control quality radar information ie: the high quality radar information that the launch aircraft sends to the missile for targeting purposes are two very different things. All of the systems of the F-35 are designed to allow first release of said missile. There are no prizes for launching second in air combat. One must also ask ones self is why is the F-35 being chosen by every first world air
force? Israel long acknowledged as the worlds tier 1 air force with almost continuous combat exposure has selected the F-35 think about it.
24 Apr 2014 9:22:38pm
eerr Israel selected it because they are and have always been heavily subsidised by the US.
25 Apr 2014 4:35:22am
Russian aircraft are rugged and there current upgrades are very good.
The range of there missiles is superior to any western country's
There SAM Grumble series has a insane range double to triple of what current western air defenses have.
New build Su-35 are 4++, a 4th gen fighter with 5th gen tech.
Also the nozzles of the Su-35 allows it an other Russian aircraft to perform a "Cobra" maneuver.
From what i know i would like to combine some of the western tech with Russian ruggedness(F-666).
The F35 advance as it might be is maintenance intensive what comes back in reoccurring maintenance costs.
Unit price is also very steep with lots of bugs in the firmware.
24 Apr 2014 1:43:01pm
You forgot to mention that 72 planes are too few to be of any use against a well armed adversary.
We would be way better off buying more and cheaper planes.
24 Apr 2014 3:03:47pm
I actually asked someone from the RAAF about this.
I said we could buy 2000 spitfires or something like that. We would win on shear numbers.
He did say that it had been looked at (Not spitfires, but large numbers of cheaper jets)
The problem then becomes one of manning, maintenance, and real estate.
The bottom line is, what you save on the planes, you end up spending on personal, and additional air bases to house them.
24 Apr 2014 6:19:35pm
> I actually asked someone from the RAAF about this.
> I said we could buy 2000 spitfires or something like that. We would win on shear numbers.
> He did say that it had been looked at (Not spitfires, but large numbers of cheaper jets)
In a war of attrition, trained pilots quickly become the limiting factor. The Luftwaffe was forced to withdraw the Ju87 soon after engaging Britain in WWII, due to excessive aircrew losses. Later it was forced to reduce manning in the He111 and Do17 bombers, due to losses. The prime purpose of the allied bombing was to draw up Luftwaffe fighters, so their air power could be eliminated through pilot attrition. Aircraft production was increasing despite the bombing - trained aircrew were much harder to replace.
Now if you were to suggest 2000 small fast pilotless automated fighters, _then_ you'd be onto a winner.
On an important mission, it would not be essential to have fuel for a return to base, and if all missiles are used, a manned opponent could be taken out by collision.
24 Apr 2014 3:04:21pm
I'm reminded of a TV show about design (of many things, not just military equipment) that I was given on DVD. One of the designs they referenced was the WWII German Tiger tank. The Tiger was a beautiful piece of machinery, made to perfection - hands down the best tank in WWII. They were made to such a high standard using so many manufacturing resources that Germany only managed to make about 1,000 of them. In comparison, Russia made crap tanks - but they made something like 30,000 of them.
Guess who won.
Sir Henrys Butlers:
24 Apr 2014 4:13:41pm
Reminds me of a conversation recalled by Lt Col David Hackworth in his book About Face. He was guarding a captured German artillery officer who waxed lyrical about how superior a weapon the German 88 mm field gun was compared to the US Army's Sherman tank. Hackworth asked" if the 88 was so superior why did you (the Germans) lose?" " Because we ran out of shells before you ran out of Shermans", came the reply
Jimmy Necktie:
24 Apr 2014 4:47:33pm
Another problem with the Tiger was that it was too big, too heavy for many bridges, too wide for rail cars, a pig on fuel. However the Panzers were a very good tank.
The Russian T34, on the other hand, was not a high precision machine, but it sure wasn't crap. It had good armour, a big gun, was easily maintained and ran in cold weather.
USA had the worst tank, IMO, in the Sherman. Under-gunned, thin armour with little slope, high silhouette, and slow.
Peter NQ:
24 Apr 2014 4:50:09pm
The Russians also had about 2.4M females replacing males in combat roles by wars end. This wasn't because females were suited to the work, but because they were alot better at it than the dead comrades that German forces had depopulated from the russian census.
It was actually poor strategic decision making by the supreme command that lost the war in the east for the Germans. In fact they made it to the outskirts of Moscow in 1941 despite having vastly inferior vehicles compared to the russians and being heavily outnumbered. Same goes for the invasion of France in 1940.
Counting forces to estimate combat power is a fools errand.
Jimmy Necktie:
24 Apr 2014 5:58:02pm
Hitler was directly responsible for the German failure to capitalise in the East. He overruled his staff many times, convinced he was a strategic genius.
The Germans had better equipment at that point because Stalin had thought he'd have more time. He had no modern tanks, few aircraft and had recently decimated the officer corps in purges. Hitler's insane decisions, supply line troubles and Mussolini?s botched invasion of Greece (the Germans had to divert troops to fix it) meant winter caught the Germans out which bought Stalin time. But it was close nonetheless.
24 Apr 2014 8:06:49pm
Underestimating your enemy in a fight of national survival is the key message here.
24 Apr 2014 8:05:09pm
Your wrong as usual. The T-34 is recognized as the best tank of WW2. The tiger 1 although well armed and protected had dismal battlefield mobility and mechanically unreliable.
24 Apr 2014 9:15:48pm
In the same way a VW Beetle was superior to an Alpha Romeo
25 Apr 2014 11:09:18am
Michael- this isn't WW2- the numbers involved are so much smaller these days.
The air wing on a Nimitz class carrier runs to around 90 aircraft. However, they are bloody enormous, and most other countries operating carriers can only put 20-30 aircraft on one. So suddenly, your 72 aircraft looks like a pretty good number against the 40-60 that an opponent with 2 carriers can put into the region.
72 aircraft is more than enough of a defence, particularly when one anti-ship missile or a torpedo can halve you enemy's strike power.
The real question is- are these the RIGHT 72 aircraft? Another post mentioned the two helo carriers we are buying. If we had a strategy to integrate those carriers with these aircraft we'd have a point. But we don't appear to, eh?
24 Apr 2014 4:01:15pm
It seems that the Sukhoi Su35 has the edge in quite a number of areas over the JSF. Also far cheaper. 4 to 1 differential. We were probably constrained though in our choice by our allegiance to the yanks. Still, why should we worry, the reform to the age pension should cover it.
25 Apr 2014 2:44:54am
WW2 radar can pick up these planes the F35 they are only stealthy besides WW2 radar in dry conditions if they operate in rain they show up like light bulbs.
But Politicians whatever side of Politics they come from want to pretend they are doing right by us in defence rather than buying what is necessary .
As for buying these lemons Tony must do it to prove his mentor Howard was right in tying us into this bad decision.
25 Apr 2014 1:44:52pm
If we are looking at "stealth" as the objective maybe we should be buying a fleet of Boeing 777's.....they seem to have stealth capacity beyond all current radar technology!
24 Apr 2014 12:35:18pm
Struggling to find a coherent narrative in this article. Are you for or against the purchase?
24 Apr 2014 1:08:42pm
The article's title says "Jet order no flight of fancy, they're worth it."
Let's hope the JSF's early warning, enemy detection and threat assessment systems are better than some people's levels of vision and comprehension.
24 Apr 2014 1:56:39pm
I think the point he was making (and which you missed) is that, despite the title, the article seems to mostly point out all the failings and arguments against, the F35. Very little in the way of "this is why they are all wrong". In that regard, I see the Colonel's point. It is an entirely unconvincing article. It fails to back up the title. Capiche?
24 Apr 2014 2:26:37pm
I have to agree with The_Colonel. This was a meandering, illogical, ultimately confusing piece. That it was written by a press secretary and adviser to federal ministers is a real concern.
Try to follow his logic.
On the point of why are we buying this aircraft Porter finally arrives at a conclusion, which essentially is "it'll be alright on the night". A refrain he himself was glad the US was "cutting through". It simply makes no sense.
As for the point about why not 100 aircraft. He states quite clearly that Rudd committed to 72. Then he blames the Liberals for sticking to that 72 plane commitment instead of bolstering it to 100. It's naive reasoning of this sort that gives "spin" a bad name.
24 Apr 2014 4:09:02pm
Thanks, glad I wasn't the only one left confused!
24 Apr 2014 8:59:10pm
It made no sense because the argument for buying these planes is, at the very best, thin.
24 Apr 2014 12:45:13pm
The arms race is just a game that certain types of men like to play. If we need to play our part in this charade by spending multi-billions to keep a big ally (ie. the US) on side to protect us then I guess that's some sort of insurance policy. But the author is not suggesting this as a reason for tooling up & comes across as one of those men who likes playing with guns.
24 Apr 2014 12:46:25pm
I would rather have the jets and have the right to discuss how expensive they are, than have no jets and wish we did.
Remember France after ww1 didn't spend much on military updates as they had far more tanks and planes than Germany. Come WW2 and the rest is history. You can't fight a conflict with 30-40 year old weaponry and expect to win.
24 Apr 2014 4:08:23pm
Correct. Had the French invested in jets in the 20s and 30s they would have easily defeated the Germans.
Jimmy Necktie:
24 Apr 2014 5:02:37pm
actually France almost bankrupted itself building the Maginot Line. They only built light and medium tanks to act as infantry support and their air force was a joke. The Germans invested in heavy tanks and planes and went around them. They had captured Paris before they bothered to attack the Maginot Line from behind.
Long range air-air combat was designed for the cold war, and it's all these fighters do. I would think Australia would want a handful of air-air (fast ones) but many more multi-roll ground attack and anti-shipping assets.
24 Apr 2014 5:47:49pm
France actually had plenty of heavy tanks like the Char B1 that was practically immune to almost everything the Germans could throw at it. The Germans had next to no heavy tanks at all - their armour was mostly medium and light, hence why it moved so damnably fast. Germany didn't start fielding heavy tanks until it began rolling out Tigers late in the war, which proved to be too heavy and were plagued by all sorts of problems as a result even if they were horribly dangerous when they worked properly.
The other thing is that the JSF actually IS a multirole aircraft - it's the F-22 that's the dedicated air-to-air fighter.
The rest of your post I agree with wholeheartedly. France's problems in WW2 were less due to their budget than what they spent it on and how they used the results.
Jimmy Necktie:
24 Apr 2014 6:17:29pm
Thanks for the corrections. I agree about the Tiger, I suppose I meant the Panzers were more suited to purpose. But they didn't have many at the start, did they. Didn't need them against the Poles, or the French for that matter. I didn't think the French had many Char B's, or maybe I assumed so since their strategy was defensive.
As for the JSF as multi roll, I'll stand corrected but add it doesn't seem like it would be that good at it. It seems to try and be too much. Fine for the US if it doesn't work, they can always afford more of something else.
24 Apr 2014 9:02:44pm
The difference is 100 or so years ago people thought war was the answer - now only idiots do.
24 Apr 2014 12:49:36pm
I'm wondering what the politics behind this decision was? Australian Governments have, for many years, been talking about getting the JSF and now, 6 months into the Abbott governments first term and weeks after US Generals declared before Congress that they had grave concerns about the JSF as a platform, its been announced that we will buy 72 of them.
Was the announcement always a forgone conclusion regardless of which party won office in 2013? Alternatively has the Defence Minister succumbed to intense lobbying by defence companies and the pro-JSF factions of the defence force? I'm betting it was the latter. I wonder if, when Johnston leaves office, we will see him land a plum job as an "advisor" to one of the large defence companies involved in JSF following in the footsteps of many Ministers who've come before him (Alexander Downer, Martin Ferguson, Peter Reith etc....).
24 Apr 2014 6:47:07pm
I wonder why China has upped its defence budget to $132billion for 2014, has 2 million front line personnel, 2 million reserves, 880 attack aircraft, submarines galore etc etc. ?? What are they planning for?? Friendly negotiations?
24 Apr 2014 8:50:20pm
They're doing what all nations (and indeed people) do when they come into money; they go on a spending spree to announce that they've arrived. At present the Chinese Government have large wads of cash to spend and they're busy showing the world that China is a power to be reckoned with. Russia are doing something similar with the money they're getting from Gazprom.
At some stage, China's 'miracle' economy will come to a grinding halt as their property bubble bursts and lots of people find themselves with debts they can't pay and property that can't be given away. If things go particularly badly, the Chinese government may need their military hardware to use on their own people who's lively hoods and new standard of living were dependent upon the continuation of the miracle.
Its probably what they fear the most - several hundred million people getting restless and demanding change.
24 Apr 2014 12:51:18pm
The point we may have missed as a nation is that we have to pay for these expensive war birds. Notice how the PM and treasure built this in the the upcoming budget announcement to take the shock away from pensions and medicare being scrapped at the expense of redundant US weaponry.
Indo's Migs are faster and have a better range and the Chinese birds are going to be about 1% of the price Australia buys its planes of the US military industrial complex for. Effectively meaning for the same bang for buck we get one US bird to the Chinese 100 birds. It is a great deal for the states, we buy there planes off them and then they lend us the money to buy it and if they need the birds they are there's. Is Abbott going to standup and say no?
The ALP and LNP are in it together, they both have the same US war agenda. How easy is it for another country to determine the outcome of decisions our parliament makes in our names with our money?? Are we that stupid? Or is perhaps the best scam in history through media control?
24 Apr 2014 12:59:06pm
With this absurdly extreme spending commitment Mssrs Abbott and Hockey destroy their own argument of "Budget Emergency". It is profligacy at its worst.
Yet report after report prove the lie of the "Budget Emergency" claims. Last nights interview of Mr Hockey at his own "Spectator" speech with it follow-up interview with Tony Jones allowed Mr Hockey to be seen in the true light of his own incompetence.
This is an incompetent Government following caprice and vested interests using fallacious rhetoric as its only support. There is no basis in credible economic reality here.
I wonder if the Liberal drones will have the courage to face the light of day on this topic this morning.
24 Apr 2014 1:00:10pm
Canada has postponed purchase until after 2018. Why is this govt. in such a rush? Is it more about propping up the US military industry?
silver fox:
24 Apr 2014 1:02:07pm
I thought missile technology was the most important thing, the aircraft simply being a platform to launch it from.
If I'm right, I see the future of air warfare to be a thousand cheap drones, each carrying a highly advanced missile or 3. The enemy aircraft might shoot down 10 drones, but the eleventh will get a missile away. And the drones will fearlessly go right into the lions den.
Drones - the way of the future, in so many ways.
24 Apr 2014 2:34:48pm
Yes you are right there sliver... drones are the future.
This only highlights how Mr Abbott is buying recklessly without thought for the consequences.
So much for his carefully considered decision-making.
24 Apr 2014 2:44:15pm
That's not necessarily true....slapping state of the art missiles onto cheap 1960s vintage aircraft will only get you so far but the Indians did have surprising success against the US in exercises fitting modern missiles to 1960s era MiG-21s. But on your point about missiles Russia has unveiled a new type of long range radar homing missile that, in theory, cant miss, as it has a revolutionary seeker system. Australia's tunnel visioned approach to supply of our defence equipment means that we are among the worst nations in the world for getting value for money from our defence purchases.
silver fox:
24 Apr 2014 3:47:27pm
That russian missile sounds fancy, but can it land and be re-launched, or is it a one shot deal.
And long range - the pilots of modern jets will have completed their mission and be home in bed before the missile gets to the conflict zone.
A curtain of drones can hang in the air for ever, armed and waiting.
24 Apr 2014 3:48:58pm
Silver Fox, exactly. Also, the dog fights of the future will depend on who has the best joy stick and satellite link.
25 Apr 2014 7:41:24am
Yes and then hack the drone network and turn those drones against them.
And no system is 100% secure there is always a way in.
Humans can not be hacked, humans know what loyalty is, humans have emotions what can rally them and achieve great things.
Allot of things drones do not have and allot of things that they do have.
Yes to drones and yes to human pilots.
24 Apr 2014 1:04:29pm
Well there is one type of critic you have failed to address,and this argument isn't mine.There are only a very view number of pilots for a very expensive machinery and its maintainance,and as far as I am concerned that is the best argument.So the responsibility of maybe highly intelligent pilot who may know damn well the human destruction they could bring by just losing the jet in flight,by its loss without physical danger from that loss,but the general cost and replacement cost is ,if that pilot survived almost a deadly reality for that pilot.The American peoples are good at technological development,if the expense of keeping this jet as a one trick pony ready to protect something Australian I guess,by attack mode is Australian decency in action,as a Defense posture it is incredibly awkward. Where this jet could be seen by friends and neighbours as a source to modifying earthquake activity or warning,tsunami observation in progress volcanic activity suppression,tornado cyclone modification,requests from in flight scientific analysis and recording communication and a host of non war like easily accessible transfers of information then the purchase may indeed be worth it,as a good will gesture of cooperation,and only threat if all relations of cooperation actually breakdown.This purchase decision comes without that,so being critical of such purchases proves both Lib and Lab are power mad,and want threat to be the preeminent reason for purchase.Because,after all the American's are not presenting that replaceable robots or in flight pilot transfer is a highly consider matter.You wont tell me your superior smart arse refutations of your chosen critics of the purchase,have got all the wonderment of your descriptions of them.In fact you are describing them without knowledge of wether they are self describing of your leacherous descriptions.
24 Apr 2014 2:35:58pm
24 Apr 2014 1:05:56pm
I agree with The Yank. These sort of purchases imply a major war scenario leading to invasion of Australia. I believe there has been a paradigm shift since World War 2 due to
1) The atom bomb. Mutually Assured Destruction has served us well.
2) Free trade. Free trade means that you can access resources in other countries much more cheaply than via invasion. One of the reasons that Japan went to war was that it was discriminated against by trade arrangements such as Imperial Preferences and US protectionism resulting from the depression.
3) It doesn?t work. Witness the biggest power of them all (USA) unable to subdue little countries like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
4) War has become immoral. It used to be noble, but like slavery which was once quite acceptable, has become a dirty word.
5) Modern communications make it harder for a militant group in power to hoodwink the people into following a crazy course.
Major war between states is thus obsolete, but our defence thinking is running on habit without looking at the basics. Nobody can identify a scenario where someone would invade Australia, indeed no one has ever identified any minority group anywhere advocating invading Australia. In fact in all the conflicts we have been in since Korea, the conflict was initiated by our side, or more correctly the USA. In these conflicts defence spending on high tech planes, ships, and submarines was useless. And yet we still spend megabucks on these ?toys for the boys?.
24 Apr 2014 2:14:17pm
Right you are, all our was have been caused by either the US or UK or both. I think that is why people are questioning the national militarization of anzac day. The people have woken up the fact that the Aust. Defense Force is just Americas attack dog.
We have watched the US sent itself broke and siphoning tax payers dollars to NWO corporations. Now that there broke, they want to suck us all down the same hole. Control over the ALPLNPGr's are an essential part of there plan.
Jimmy Necktie:
24 Apr 2014 5:13:52pm
"all our was have been caused by either the US or UK "
Huh? How did the US or UK "cause" WWI, WWII, Korea or Vietnam?
24 Apr 2014 5:48:59pm
WW 1 started in Prussia. US didn't enter war until the end. The UK only joined in because of treaties supporting France.
WW2 started in Poland when Germany invaded. No UK or USA involvement there.
24 Apr 2014 3:44:15pm
1) Problem is we are not a great state and don't have a nuclear deterrent. The UK and US does but it would remain doubtful they'd utilize the threat against a non-nuclear state like Indonesia on our behalf.
People predicted major wars would end after WW1 and WW2, they haven't, they've just moved to different regions.
2) Trade is a good factor against state warfare but it is not a guarantee. Look at Argentina, British investment halted in the nation after a populist government simply stole everything the British had funded. They still haven't learned since they are still using the Falklands as distraction for domestic politics. Less likely today but our neighbors have similar problems keeping their populations happy, the fat white nation of drunken tourist to the south may provide a future diversion if there is political trouble.
3.) The US didn't fail to kill the enemy in any of those conflicts, they simply had no tangible goals to achieve. If they had wanted they could have killed everyone in Iraq in months with conventional weapons, their objective wasn't as clear cut as destroying an enemy nation's war machine.
4.) Immoral to whom? Just because our culture romanticizes war less doesn't mean others don't. This has also never stopped us from using force in recent times.
5.) Modern Communication has made it easier than ever to unite and coordinate crazy groups. Even worse, bad information spreads like wild fire on the internet. Most of us have terrible research skills and bias, a good sounding lie will find a following on the internet easier than on TV or the Papers.
Defense planners do work on invasion scenarios for a living. We preparing ourselves for the unlikely and the worst, if we stop we are exposing ourselves to risk. Nations today don't talk about invading Australia precisely because it is not worth the risk.
24 Apr 2014 3:54:27pm
"4) War has become immoral. It used to be noble"
War has only been noble for those in power, for the majority of war fighters who were on the front lines (roman, barbarian, colonial and WW1 and later conflicts)the priority has been survival.
In WW1 the British forces(us), shot soldiers who refused to go over the top classing them as cowards, the US shot their last deserter in WW2.
prior to that all armies had penal battalions, the first troops to attack and most likely to be killed, Russia still used them in WW2
24 Apr 2014 1:08:11pm
There is no point in buying these planes to protect us as we will all be dead from over work and lack of government support for less important constraints on the budget such as health, welfare, and aged care
24 Apr 2014 1:08:49pm
The F35s look awesome and will be awesome. They will enable us to assist our allies in various theatres as required, and will make would be invaders think twice, think three times, and then think again about setting sail for our northern shores. JSF FTW!!!
24 Apr 2014 2:54:02pm
Dude, you missed the point entirely, asia has got better planes that these. The chineese planes are bout 1% of the price Au buys planes of the US for. So for every one of our planes the Chinese can build another 100 for the same price. Is it still a good buy? Do you expect these planes to blow up wooden boats full of refugee seekers on the high water? When does that become murder?
24 Apr 2014 8:27:23pm
Firstly it's Chinese, not Chineese. And can you please supply the information that states the Chinese J-20 to which I assume your referring, costs 1% of US aircraft? I find it interesting because it's a prototype and not in production.
Seriously now:
24 Apr 2014 11:49:35pm
What better planes does Asia have? The SU-series of planes don't compare in the slightest. They don't even compare to Super Hornets. If JSF is so bad, why is everybody in the world who has access and the money buying it? Chinese "stealth" aircraft are at best prototypes and are years behind the JSF in terms of development. And your claim that Chinese aircraft cost 1% of the price of JSF is ludicrous. That would be $1million. Seriously now.
24 Apr 2014 4:22:05pm
Would be invaders? Tell him he's dreamin'
24 Apr 2014 6:05:47pm
No they won't. Any potential adversaries already have much more capable Russian and Chinese planes.
Michael Gibbs:
24 Apr 2014 1:17:44pm
What a fantastic and well articulated article. Could not have said it better myself. It is sad that this sort of article even needs to be written, are people really that naive?
24 Apr 2014 4:24:13pm
a fantastic article that highlighted all the arguments against the JSF that are used by its critics, and then did nothing to counter them.
after reading this article I know the JSF is slow, unable to obtain air superiority, not particularly stealthy, hugely expensive and less capable than aircraft already (or imminently) in service.
oh and add to that the knee jerk decision to buy a whole heap of them by a Govt telling us all we are in a a budget emergency and all have to make sacrifices.
never mind that they seem to have completely ignored that the future belongs to UAVs and pilotless fighter aircraft. the JSF and other manned aircraft are almost obsolete before they enter service.
finally, can anyone tell me why we signed up to a plane before it was ready for service meaning we had no idea what the plane could do or what it would cost? ie why didnt we wait until we were ready to buy and purchase a known aircraft at a known price, rather than the constantly increasing price of this lemon?
25 Apr 2014 7:24:57am
what do we need them for any way the next world war will be fought by the touch of a button and then there will be nothing,
24 Apr 2014 1:18:39pm
Imagine if, we said to the USA, no we will not buy your planes/tanks/guns. Now imagine if Indonesia wants the Northern Territory (for minerals, resettlement of a few million).
Its not a all out war, just a local conflict.
If I was the USA, I would be saying, f...you, you would not buy our planes in peace time, yet you expect us to help you protect a few hundred buffalos, a national park and a few thousand beer loving aussies.
Would the chinese help us? Would Japan? Would South Korea? No they would not (except talk at the UN saying how bad it is)
It's protection money, buy our planes and we will make sure you are safe.
You may not like paying protection money, but at least I sleep peacefully at night knowing we have a BIG brother on our side.
24 Apr 2014 1:46:50pm
So the US is the mafia and we're buying the planes as protection money.
Hard to believe anyone is enthusiastic about spending $24 billion on planes that don't fly, can't compete with any other nations', and won't even be delivered before another four years, at least, and all over a specualtive and risible "invasion".
Jimmy Necktie:
24 Apr 2014 6:33:05pm
The US does a lot to protect South Korea, what kind of jets are they having?
24 Apr 2014 8:28:49pm
Peter of Melbourne:
24 Apr 2014 1:20:23pm
No they are not worth it, there you go a view just as valid as your own.
The cost blowouts from this project are unbelievable and the claim that Australia will reap the rewards from a percentage of future sales are also unbelievable considering the only nations on the planet who can even partway afford to purchase the JSF Turkey have already signed on the dotted line (and keep reducing their orders as the costs keep rising)
Super Hornets would cover all the bases we need for the foreseeable future. If Grumman, Boeing or one of the other rentseekers who expect taxpayers to take on all the risk gets their act together and produces a platform that works at a reasonable cost then that is when we should look at buying.
24 Apr 2014 1:23:53pm
Critics of the decision to buy new jet fighters say things like "we're spending too much" and "why spend anything at all", but they miss some key points in the debate.
They key point of this debate is that the JSF is a complete dud. Even the USA says they are dud. They are slow. They have short range. They are less capable than current generation Russian and Chinese fighters.
As a replacement for the F/A-18 they are a step backwards. As a replacement for the F-111 they would be a complete joke if it wasn't so serious.
Another issue often lost in history is that after the Mirage the RAAF swore blind they would NEVER buy another single engine fighter. The JSF was forced on them as a political decision.
Seriously now:
24 Apr 2014 11:57:22pm
Aaaarrggghh. Why do people keep saying it is a dud and worse than current Russian and Chinese fighters. That's nuts and not based on evidence. Sure, the US Government Accoutability Office has repeatedly pointed out problems in the program which are being addressed, but that is a completely different issue to the plane being a dud. They will will massacre SU series fighters. I'm not sure how they are step backwards from the F/A-18 when they have hugely superior sensors and stealth. What can an F/A-18 do that JSF can't? Nothing. F-111 had better range but that was essentially irrelevant as it couldn't survive on a modern battlefield without fighter escort (or air dominance achieved by fighters) so its range was limited to that of fighters.
Peter of Melbourne:
25 Apr 2014 8:24:21am
The F111 was designed as a long range attack aircraft. It was designed to rely on its on its own defences as it penetrated Soviet air defence zones to carry out nuclear strikes on the Russian mainland.
seriously now:
25 Apr 2014 1:13:23pm
So it was designed in the 60s for a mission that was relevant in the 60s. It may have been terrifically good at that mission, plus many others it adapted to along the way, but it was not any longer a relevant capability in the 2000s against modern air defences. Not to mention that it was basically impossible to upgrade it to take the precision weapons virtually required by the laws of war now. Essentially it could fly a long way and dump a bunch of dumb bombs on undefended targets. JSF is not a step back.
25 Apr 2014 5:13:20pm
"Why do people keep saying it is a dud and worse than current Russian and Chinese fighters. "
Because they are.
"They will will massacre SU series fighters"
No they won't. The RAAF's own analysis showed they don't stand a chance against Indonesian Su-30s. Angus Houston himself said they were a dud and we shouldn't rely on them.
"What can an F/A-18 do that JSF can't? "
Keep flying with one engine out.
25 Apr 2014 12:30:56pm
Most critics of the F35 are basing their criticism on information that is upto ten years out of date. People forget that the F111 also had heavy criticism in the early days of its development but went on to be the dominant aircraft in our region for decades.
Recent modelling has shown the F35 will win six encounters to one against 4th generation fighters, when a flight of 4 F35s versus 8 4th gen aircraft occurrs (includes all Russian and Chinese aircraft).
Costs are also beginning to reduce and the eventual flyaway cost by 2020 is tracking to $US93m (in 2012 $US).
By all accounts from experienced fighter pilots they are saying it is an oustanding aircraft and will only improve.
For anyone who thinks that this aircraft is a dud ask yourself this question. Why would Russians and Chinese be able to produce a better fighter aircraft than the West yet their commercial aircraft are vastly insupperior to the western commercial aircraft.
24 Apr 2014 1:27:40pm
You missed an obvious point of argument about the JSF - it's rubbish. Less capable than what we have now, let alone anything they could possibly face in combat.
The only possible use we could have for the JSF would be the naval STOVL version to operate off the new LHD ships. The ships were designed specifically with this capability in mind.
24 Apr 2014 1:30:11pm
there seems to be a significant level of commentary from credible sources indicating a substandard craft, or craft unable to achieve its air superiority goal..
..which begs the question - why buy?
obvioulsy there are politics behind the decision. does anyone have any views on what the politics are..? kindly share.
24 Apr 2014 2:59:44pm
The politics of the decision are the ALP and LNP pretty much work for the USA, plain and simple. The Australian public have less influence on the decisions made here by our industry pollies than the CIA.
24 Apr 2014 1:38:55pm
Whether you support this decision or not (and I think most australians are highly skeptical of it), you have to wonder why Abbott would make this announcement the same week his Treasurer has to front up the nation and tell us he is going to raise the pension age etc. He obviously wanted to milk the whole Anzac vibe, but honestly, you'd think he and Hockey are in different universes. What a dill.
Lawn Beetle:
24 Apr 2014 1:40:59pm
"If you believe this, I have a well-priced bridge to sell you"
Too late, we bought that bridge when the gullible majority bought the spin, lies and subterfuge of the previous opposition. Now it is time to reap what has been sown.
Dan from the middle:
24 Apr 2014 1:44:00pm
A far greater threat to our future security here in Australia in the event of all out war will be the loss of our manufacturing and oil refining capabilities. Imports will be difficult to say the least, so flash planes that have no fuel to fight wont help. Tooling up for warfare will be a challenge with our depleted manufacturing industry.
Dont worry though because the open market economy will save us surely.
24 Apr 2014 1:44:45pm
The Sukhoi SU-30 is a proven workhorse that flies faster, further, higher, heavier, more reliably, and it's a LOT cheaper. Flying some overpriced glorified MP3 player ain't gonna do you any good if a '30 Flanker gets eyes on you. That's why our friendly neighbours have swarms of them.
24 Apr 2014 2:55:47pm
While I don't think the F-35 is the right choice for Australia, and the SU-30 is undoubtedly a great aircraft there are clear risks involved for a member of the "5 Eyes" alliance operating Russian or Chinese military jets. If either nation should disagree politically with Australia over issues, such as Chinese relations with Taiwan or India, they could easily choke off access to vital spare parts. They would also know exactly what countermeasures to use, or to advise our adversaries to use, against our air force in operational deployments.
24 Apr 2014 5:12:12pm
Steve, if you checked you would find that our friendly neighbour (Indonesia) has about 12 operational SU-30s and they are the export russian version which lacks much of the avionics that make the russian airforce version so formidable. Our superhornets are much more than a match for anything our neighbours have and the JSF will enhance that capability.
24 Apr 2014 6:57:38pm
China has a 880 attack aircraft. and $132 billion defence budget - you reckon Australia can out do China? Laugh at that one. Don`t measure yourself against the weakest link but the strongest as to how tough you are when it counts.
Seriously now:
25 Apr 2014 12:04:39am
Our friendly neighbours have swarms of them (well Indonesia and Malaysia have a few) because they are cheap, not because they are good. Singapore has money and what did it buy? Not SUs, but F-16s then F-15 and next JSF. Nobody who has the money and access to Western aircraft has gone for SU series aircraft. Nobody. You only buy Russian or Chinese if you can't afford US aircraft or can't get access. And nobody in the world is mad enough to go for SU over JSF.
And a Flanker is not going to get its eyes on JSF.
Greg Smith:
24 Apr 2014 1:45:52pm
To simplify the issue of some 25 Billion dollars of flight fancy, why don't we as a nation provide the Christmas Islands to the Americans at say $1 per year rent for 100 years, they can then as part of their re balancing of the Asia / Pacific region set up the 8th fleet and therefore provide a strong northern defense to Australia. In doing so we would therefore not need these new planes, certainly we could rent a few from them on an as needed basis and to keep in the club. In addition with this new American base at Christmas Island I doubt many boats would drift down the straights to Australia. Another win win and a saving on the expenses with Sovereign Borders and even the Japanese would like it as they seem keen to say goodbye to the protection of the Americans after all these years. Now lets ready for all those that say...it can't be done and WHY NOT ??
Caffettierra Moka:
25 Apr 2014 11:55:14am
"Now lets ready for all those that say...it can't be done and WHY NOT ??"
Because, if they actually WANTED it, they would have had it a decade ago. Heard of a place called Pine Gap, they just waltzed in and took over it in 1970. Sure, we signed a bit of paper that said it was legal, but basically the US required a safe spot out of the way of ships and planes and looked at the maps and went: 'Right here! We move in tomorrow. And that was that".
You may also be interested in checking out a place called 'Diego Garcia' and then you will realise why Christmas Island is less than useless to the US.
24 Apr 2014 2:39:29pm
Its guesswork. No meaningful cost benefit analysis here.
24 Apr 2014 2:42:53pm
The main problem I have with buying the F-35 as Air Superiority fighters is that it isn't. I here report for and against this decision, and each one given by someone I would expect to know anything about this has been against the decision for that reason. This might end up being a very good bomber and ground attack aircraft, but I look up the specs for several alternatives and there are multiple dedicated Air Superiority Fighters that are faster, can fly higher, and further, carry similar weapons and counter measures. I don't know about maneuverability, but the F-35 is a heavy plane I doubt it will be a match for these planes.
The defining feature of the F-35s are also the cost per plane, each one at the moment costing around $150 million dollars, that is why no government is willing to buy enough of these things to protect a continent. If we ever do get into a serious war against a country with the resources to build a modern military with these planes to defend us, can you imagine a sustained war effort possibly lasting years where every time we need to replace our losses in the air, we need to shell out $150 million, I know that sounds heartless, but many wars have been decided by one country going bankrupt and the other not, and this is the primary purpose of this decision to purchase jet fighters.
With a quick overview (so constructive criticism here is welcome to all those with experience or knowledge in this area) of alternatives to the F-35 with prices ($USD), the Eurofighter Tycoon ($125m) is faster, fly's further and higher and is similarly equipped and most importantly, already available, the Sukhoi S-35 ($65m) again faster, higher, further, well equipped, and available with a much higher thrust to weight ratio, Sukhoi PAK FA ($50-100m) again similar, probably an upgrade from the S-35, but lower thrust to weight ratio (but better than the F-35) and two years away, but waiting doesn't seem to be a problem for the Australian government. These are all viable alternatives to the F-35 cheaper and in many respects better air superiority fighters, found with nothing more than wikipedia at a cheaper cost. The second two are Russian or part Russian models and we don't exactly have close relations with them, but we don't bump heads either most of the time unless someone in an oval office asks us to, that said I'd favor the Eurofighter even though the price is still high, because they'll last longer in a fight and the logistical problems aren't as likely, they're available and it might just be possible to build them here under license rather than import them (a major strategic consideration).
Just to be clear I am no opposed to defence spending or the need to increase defence spending, but I am opposed to foolish decisions regarding defence spending taken for political reasons. To avoid those I suggest that each branch of the military is given a budget each year to run the defence force with minimal parliamentary
24 Apr 2014 3:19:52pm
Just looked up the Super Hornet, that was only introduced in 1999, that's way to early to retire them, I mean they won't be the most effective, but generally an update happens every 20-30 years.
Seriously now:
25 Apr 2014 12:15:08am
I like your Freudian (?) slip about the Eurofighter Tycoon! It's the Typhoon. And it's much more expensive than JSF. The only people who have bought them other than the countries that make up the consortium that build them are the Saudis - because the US is not going to sell Arabs the JSF. Not to mention the documented corruption that occurred in that deal. Nobody who has a choice has bought Eurofighter over JSF - even the UK who are part of the Eurofighter consortium are getting some JSF.
Hmm, Wikipedia, eh. If only the RAAF and the Japanese Air Self Defence Force, and the Israeli Air Force and the RAF, etc, etc, had read Wikipedia to get some performance specs on other aircraft they wouldn't have rushed headlong into buying JSF. If only they'd known. Maybe you should send the Wikipedia link to the Chief of Air Force before it's too late.
Brian Deacon:
24 Apr 2014 2:44:25pm
How can spending $90,000,000 for a single aircraft be justified? This government is determined to save a few dollars at the expense of the workers, but blows this sort of money on an aircraft which, by all accounts, is not up to the task. Talk about misplaced priorities!
24 Apr 2014 3:26:08pm
$90 million is on the low end once the production line fully up and running, at the moment it's more like $200 million per plane.
24 Apr 2014 2:57:38pm
I wonder what military experience Andrew Porter has being an 'adviser'. Having worked in the military and defence and being familiar with 'advisers' they are mostly apparatchiks serving in salaried positions waiting their turn for a parliamentary gig. All of Porters arguments are simplistic and wrong.
The current price the US has costed the F-35A at is about $133M. Have a look in Hansard and you will see in the senate estimate Air Marshall Houston quoted as saying the price will be less than $45M. Other partner nations are scaling back orders or considering cancelling their purchase all together. The cost will likely increase.
They will cost much more to maintain than previous generation aircraft and a US ANAO report cited over 300 problems with the F-35, 147 of them classified as major.
As for performance, even test pilots of the F-35 have likened its performance to that of the F-18; so its a generation ahead but only has the kinematic performance of current generation aircraft.
BTW in the comparison of comparable jets in the region the most startling omission was that of India's version of the Russian PAK-FA. It is in development and is designed to defeat the F-22; from what information is available it will be able to do this (it will have a ceiling far in excess of the Raptor and even greater maneuverability for eg). The F-35 will stand *no chance* against the PAK-FA even with mediocre pilots.
24 Apr 2014 3:05:54pm
They should just stick with the F-18 until the F-35 has been vetted by more than promises from LHM. The Pentagon has procured some of the worst weapon systems in the western world for the last 50 years. The Abrams is a terrible tank that guzzles JP-8 at an unbelievably wasteful rate, The Striker was a glorified armored car inferior to virtually any comparable APC at ridiculous operational costs, The Growler is a $150,000 unarmored doorless golf cart and the V-22 Osprey is yet another expensive widow maker. The F-35 will cost the US $400 billion as a current estimate making easily the more expensive weapon system they've invested in, twice the price of putting a man on the moon in the 1960s.
We can't afford US weapon systems, the US barely can. If you look at the operational costs for their forces it is astounding, 2/3s of the service is logistical support for their expensive low performance vehicles. This has been born out of decades of a too big to fail attitude from corrupted structures in Congress, the Military and defense contractors.
We should look to Europe more for future defense purchases.
24 Apr 2014 5:59:16pm
The MA1 a terrible tank. Name a better tank that has a better survivability rating. The one drawback of the M1A1 is its fuel consumption. But when you take its speed capability and its firepower on top of its near unpenetratable frontal armor. I would prefer a tank that may run out of fuel in a fight but be the best fighter in the fight than be a lightweight who wouldn't run out as quickly but was easier to defeat in a battle
Seriously now:
25 Apr 2014 12:24:11am
Yup, the Pentagon has had some disasters, but so has everyone else.
European is not necessarily cheaper or better. Eurofighter is more expensive than JSF and less capable. Our Eurocopter MRH-90 has taken years to come into service when we could have gotten Blackhawks from the US quicker and cheaper. Ditto with Eurocopter Tiger ARH vs. US Apache. We are the only country that had a choice that bought Tiger over Apache (the only other users are Eurocopter consortium members such as France and Germany who had to buy it). It was a bad choice. Everybody else has gone Apache - even Indonesia!
Growler is an aircraft based on Super Hornet. Are you thinking of Hummer?
25 Apr 2014 10:24:44am
Plus we already had the UH60 Blackhawks, even if we didn't go Apache, we could have gone the AH1Z Viper which has been in use by the USMC for years and still gotten value for money. BTW, the British version of the Apache is the better performer due to using Rolls Royce engines with more power and can carry both a full fuel and weapon load with the Longbow Radar fitted unlike the US versions.
Aunty Social:
24 Apr 2014 3:27:03pm
For starters, let no one be fooled into believing that the US would ever allow another country to have the same avionics, weapons systems, etc, that they have in their Raptors, or any other aircraft with US made avionics, weapons systems, etc. To use car analogies that the author is so fond of, the US will allow us to buy a Berlina, maybe even a Calais, but never the HSV's.
The arguments for this aircraft employ the logic of the mid-60's, and its Cold War rhetoric. War is conducted a bit differently these days. The author says that the JSF can multitask. It's an all rounder, eh? Air superiority, and a ground attack capability rolled into one.
As for air superiority I would have to search the last time that an Australian fighter squadron engaged an enemy in aerial combat. Actually, I'd have to search the last time any fighter aircraft engaged in aerial combat, i.e. dogfighting one on one with another fighter. Ground attack aircraft are mostly pilotless these days. Clinical, and highly efficient.
There are other aircraft that would've suited our defence needs better. They would've had a big price tag too. My argument is not against money being spent on defence, rather think of it as buying a Roller when what one really needs to get the job done is a ute. Have our defence chiefs never heard of asymmetric warfare? The Kiwis have. After reviewing the type of engagements and roles their defence forces are likely to be part of they got rid of their fighters and rely on us under ANZUS to provide them with fighter support should they ever need it. Smart move.
Canada was the first partner to exit the "Joint" project. Australia didn't have the brains to know when it should've grabbed the opportunity to run second.
Mental Midget 2014:
24 Apr 2014 4:01:41pm
We don't need to buy, 'raptor's', because our ally has them! Hello.
Peter of Melbourne:
24 Apr 2014 5:39:35pm
It is already on the public record that Australia will receive the best export version of the JSF Turkey... hang on, the best export version which is inferior to the US version and we are paying top dollar.
Oh by the way Hockey I already pay for the few times I visit a GP each year, its called the Medicare Levy moron.
Once again the LNP and Labor have failed this nation criminally and deserve to be strung up.
Seriously now:
25 Apr 2014 12:17:16am
It is on the record that we are getting the exact same version. That is why we jointed the consortium.
Frank L:
24 Apr 2014 9:35:28pm
Of course the US would never sell the F-22, if you made something better then anyone else and better then anything on the market you would not share that with anyone. The A-10 is an example of this, instead of selling it they would rather mothball the entire fleet. The F-22 was made to replace the F-15s, which now that they stopped making F-22s they will keep the F-15s. Funny, if the F-35s are so awesome why don't they order more to replace the F-15s?
I forgot about the ANZUS, will New Zealand help pay the cost of the F-35s since we will provide them with air cover? The government might see that as a good reason to order a few dozen more in the future.
Aunty Social:
25 Apr 2014 8:30:24am
"...if you made something better then anyone else and better then anything on the market you would not share that with anyone."
Not so. That's solely the US position. The US talk a good game on alliances, and "special relationships", but when it comes to its military hardware all bets are off. And that goes both ways.
Many countries export top of the shelf hardware. I dare say the average person doesn't realise that the global arms market dwarfs even the oil and gas trade.
Despite much lauded FTA's the FTA with the US has not seen the Australian Thales Bushmaster, hands down the best PMV available for some time now sold to the US. US defence chiefs wanted it, and an order was pending when the US Congress decided it was better for the US economy to continue having their troops blown to bits by IEDs (another thing you can't fight with fighter aircraft) in American made sub-standard Humvees than to purchase foreign military equipment.
The US has a long history of same. The M-16 rifle is another example. Dog of a weapon, but US made dog of a weapon.
25 Apr 2014 1:06:36am
Asymmetric warfare is more like operations rather than war than a real war. We still need the ability to defend ourselves against other air forces because there are other air forces in existence and their is the possibility (how ever remote) that those air forces will become hostile. If a country orientate it's military just to fight insurgents, then that military will be mauled on the battlefield against real solders with a modern arsenal, but if you flip it and have a military design to face a real army, navy and airforce then when they confront insurgents, sure a lot of equipment and training will never be used and will be expensive, but they win most engagements and win through attrition.
That said these fighters are a bad choice.
Aunty Social:
25 Apr 2014 8:18:11am
Real war? I've just come back from a dawn service. Ben Roberts-Smith speech nicely summed up the type of wars, and the types of enemies we have recently been involved in, and will most likely be involved in in the future.
one thing should be blatantly obvious, but to many it would seem not, i.e. you can't fight an ideology with a squadron of fighter jets.
Mental Midget 2014:
25 Apr 2014 11:15:09am
Agreed, however they form part of it (protection), much as hot-tar did in days of yore.
Pastor Farian:
24 Apr 2014 4:04:27pm
The author says that it is beyond dispute that the F22 is a superior airframe than the F35. The F22 was cancelled well short of the planned numbers because of various failings, and some US Airforce pilots publicly refused to fly it because of safety concerns.
How can the F35 be a prudent spend when it is not even close to operational status, has major flaws and may fall yet further behind schedule, or hopefully get cancelled before destroying US credibility.
The comment about not it's needing to be agile because it will shoot everything down before the enemy see it is pathetically optimistic. When BVR fails I wouldn't want to be strapped into a 'cant turn cant climb cant run' aircraft.
The prudent thing to do would be order the Typhoon or Rafale before its to late. Certainly the Typhoon has shot down the F22 in mock battles and will no doubt dispatch the F35 even more readily - if it ever reaches operational status.
I find it amusing that we get a former priministerial adviser trotted out to defend this thing and not airforce aircraft analysts.
Seriously now:
25 Apr 2014 12:30:10am
Typhoon has shot down F-22 in mock battles? What's your source?
Buying Typhoon or Rafale would not be prudent. If our airforce analysts did not want JSF, we would not be getting it. Why are Singapore, Sth Korea and Japan getting JSF? Are they simply US stooges? Or perhaps they've done a little more research than just Wiki.
F-22 was cancelled because of cost, not performance. USAF desperately wanted more but DoD overruled it.
R Supwood:
24 Apr 2014 4:16:42pm
We do not need these planes for defence. They are part of an supine consortium of defence strategies to support USA aggression. To be of any use, these planes would have to get close (how?) to, say China or Chinese weaponry, whereupon each of the 72 would face a barrage of over a hundred crushing missiles. Each. China has carrier crusher missiles ready to obliterate the Gerald Ford carriers due out next year. This super plane (it is) is already obsolete and has no purpose in a future of missiles, drones, electonics surveillance and espionage. The Char B and Stuart tanks were super, lovely to drive, entirely useless, a waste of time and money, crew killers. This F 35 will be too. Just as the USA built 36,000 warheads of no use, at huge expense, so we are to waste time and money on a little yankee sideshow airplane, to subsidise Lockheed- Martin. The B 2 and F 22, the littoral combat ship, the star wars fantasy weapons, all are farces, crimes, wastes. No USA fighter has been shot down in combat for forty years, because the current planes are numerous and good. Anyway, the intended sofware and weaponries are able to be used on current aircraft at lower cost. But, that wouldn't grease palms, bolster jobs, re-elect congressmen or fund the state supported, unaccountable, superinfluential military system that outspends the rest of the world put together. We need missile technology for defence, not aggression systems to go out amurdering. These planes may be tolerated as insurance, as did the F 111s, which never fired in combat. But, what a sad wasteful spiteful world...
24 Apr 2014 5:07:15pm
Your exact logic can be applied to the funding arguments for the abc. Read them again.
25 Apr 2014 10:30:00am
In response to these carrier crusher missiles, the US are developing the Rail gun to take these multi million dollar missiles out with a $25k metal slug at up to 7000 m/s. much more cost effective than the current RAM CIWS. Possibly even replace the Standard SM-1, SM-2 and SM-3 missiles which are used in conjunction with the AEGIS platform ships designed to counter these threats.
R Supwood:
25 Apr 2014 3:46:46pm
Thanks. You tend to support my instincts that missiles and only missiles is our way forward in defence thinking. That's all the various weapons systems fire, planes, ships, tanks, crews. Rocket science is it, literally.
Alex Greenleaf:
24 Apr 2014 4:49:24pm
What was so good that the initial order was ...... that we just had to have more? Minister Turnbull barked "where's the Cost Benefit Analysis?" for NBN. Is anybody asking likewise with this?? Breathtaking hypocrisy.
The Eggman:
24 Apr 2014 4:53:54pm
So, if I get this right Australian air force pilots will be flying jets that are overpriced, under-gunned, slow, and have less range and maneuverability compared to the new Russian fighter jets that are available on the market.
I guess Australia will be doing a lot of kowtowing in the decades to come, or until we get some proper jets - if we don't get overrun in the interim of course.
So what happened to the Liberals faith in market forces creating 'efficient' and better outcomes and all that? Because I heard the deal for these jets was sealed without a proper tender process.
It's hard to believe that a balls up like this could have happened otherwise.
24 Apr 2014 5:07:37pm
The JSF will be a great stealth fighter. They will be undetectable in the air because for most of their life they will parked on the ground with their bonnets up. They make the Collins class submarines look like paragons of reliability.
Why don't we just get cardboard mock-ups instead ? They would be just as effective and a lot cheaper to maintain.
Live another day.:
24 Apr 2014 5:23:28pm
Great planes, they might, one day, be, but the Chinese government has the plans, and any strategic advantage went missing, when the hacker won entry. We are facing core services such as health and education, enduring savage cuts. I am no fan of hospital ward closures, of people waiting in pain for operations, and I think we can better spend 26 billion, if we are so financially crushed, as our dear leader says we are. Surely now is not the time to spend vast amounts of taxes on another Defence Force gigantic lemon!
Frank L:
24 Apr 2014 5:59:29pm
While you do have some valid points, the questions that you pose that people are asking are not only flawed but deliberately misleading.
?Defence spending is a waste of money. Who?s going to attack us, in, like, ever?? Don?t you mean ?wasting defence spending money?? Spending money on air superiority is a legitimate and necessary expense, however, due to Australia?s geographic size, isolation from allies (real allies), and the rate in which neighboring countries are increasing their military budgets and air forces do you honestly think 72 planes is enough to defend against future threats? The second half of your question should start off with ?how? not ?who?, since Australia is an island and a continent, chances are the threats will most likely arrive by sea and air power should support maritime superiority which is now in jeopardy. ?Ever??, what you really should have said is ?when??
The second question is not only reasonable but justifiable, why acquire an aircraft that is yet to be proven, is extremely costly (even when the price goes down in the future it will still be exorbitantly expensive) and with all the delays and cost blowouts its track record is not good, closer to really bad. Yes, other defence projects have had long delays and a grocery list of problems, one is supposed to learn from their mistakes. This purchase alone will be greater then Spain?s entire military spending (whom we purchased are most recent RAN ships from), and yet when we have this fifth generation fighter several countries in are region will too, for less. Some like South Korea, Japan and China (who we are negotiating free trade agreements) are all building their own indigenous fighters, while India and Pakistan are working with China and Russia, and the rest will mostly like buy the finished products from them. Even Turkey is building its own fighter!?
The third question is nothing new, every new plane developed is essentially meant to replace all the others before it, and multi-role aircraft and multi-mission aircraft are the future. The F/A-18A and F/A-18B are prime examples of successful acquisitions. Your argument would put forward that a fleet of A-10s and F-16s, single role aircraft, is being phased out because the F-35 will do it all. On the contrary, it is driven only by cost savings, not by capability. If the US Congress had allowed Foreign Military Sales (FMS) of the A-10, it would be one of the most highly sought after aircraft in the world due to its proven close air support. In fact, as the USAF phases them out the US Army is trying to find a way to phase them in. The F-16 was supposed to go too, but due to the extensive delays and the US knowing the F-35s will not be ready have extended their life.
Limiting to one ?do it all? aircraft leads to a single point of failure. If the F-35 has any future problems, and we all know they will, the entire fleet would be grounded (Collins? Super Seasp
Frank L:
24 Apr 2014 6:58:57pm
It was cutoff, so here is the rest:
...(Collins? Super Seasprite?) . Purchasing one single aircraft from one single manufacturer also has its own problems. Australia should have a fleet of at least two fighter aircraft, multi-role would be ideal but not a deal breaker. Continuing with the F/A-18 is a good start, moving on to one of the other fourth or fifth or even 4.5 generation aircraft would maintain our RAAF superiority in the region. Even purchasing one of the other F-35 variants might not be a bad idea, not a good one, but definitely not a bad one. I strongly feel, like many others, the F-22 is currently the best aircraft in the world. Even when the F-35 is fielded it will probably fall a bit short. One question you should have asked:
If the F-35 is such an exceptional fighter aircraft, why did the USAF stop phasing out the F-15s?
The F-22 was supposed to replace the fleet of F-15s, but when they shut-down the F-22 production line, the USAF will continue using the F-15 far into the future instead of replacing them with F-35s. If the F-35s are such a hot ticket item, why would they do that? Why don?t they put all their eggs in one basket like us? The USN will most likely replace the F/A-18 with F-35, two types of fighters on an aircraft carrier is very hard to manage, but the USAF seems to be conflicted. Why would they also place considerable time, money, and planning that if needed they can restart the production of F-22s? If they were so confident in the F-35s, that wouldn?t be necessary.
If an additional 58 fighters cost $12 billion, jumping ahead to 100 fighters at an additional cost of around $5.8 billion might be a bit hard to swallow right now. With the governments push for austerity, $12 billon looks a bit two faced, $17.8 billion looks like a sick joke. However, after a second term, it might look more reasonable but that is yet to be determined. Lockheed Martin?s prediction of a price decrease and royalties sounds tempting, but with other countries producing their own and when the ?free market? for fifth generation fighters becomes flooded, no one will buy the F-35 ?white elephant?, accept our production partners and maybe some traditional European partners.
Seriously now:
25 Apr 2014 12:36:11am
South Korea, Japan, and Turkey are all buying JSF. Sth Korea and Turkey are working on indigenous training/light attack jets not a front line fighter. BTW, Spain is also buying JSF.
Frank L:
24 Apr 2014 6:11:24pm
I think the F-35 is more like buying a Tucker 48, then a Holden Commodore. An advanced fighter ahead of its time, with many innovations, but plagued with production and marketing problems. What is a Holden Commodore? Probably the F/A-18, which unlikely the Commodore, will contiune to be produced past 2017.
Pastor Farian:
24 Apr 2014 6:56:09pm
Ahead of it's time you say Frank? It's actually several years behind and is likely to suffer further delays. There will be pilots conceived after the F35 was serving in our airforce before the F35 is.
Frank L:
24 Apr 2014 9:07:48pm
Ahead of its time with technologies, but your right, it should be a "multi-generational" aircraft. Built by one, flown by another.
Big Al:
24 Apr 2014 6:21:07pm
If we want a solid deterrent against attack, we could buy or build a couple of dozen Nukes much cheaper and use the change to buy a few Pacific Island Nations to expand our zone of influence and defense. Conventional war does not last very long nowadays so nukes would work well to deter this. The yanks have plenty of capacity for quick and successful conventional war but despite this they have still not defeated the Taliban.
Zany :
24 Apr 2014 6:22:38pm
Do we really need to spend this money? Even though it's been budgeted for I doubt whether we should commit to these aircraft that seem to be technically challenged to say the least. If we invested the money we could acquire the planes at a moments notice anyway and after others have fully tested them.
24 Apr 2014 6:28:35pm
I would like to begin with the statement I am in favour of an Australia that is able to defend itself.
There are a number of issues that Andrew porter misses. I believe he is just defending a government that deserves only contempt.
The first is the timing, at a time when there are no wars and the elderly and sick (usually both) are asked to pay more and that pollies believe they have a right to claim for attending weddings etc (a small thing which implies contempt) the public are obligated to pay 12 Bil for aircraft that have no proven record and a history of failures.
second the 12 Billion is not the final figure.
Third the maintenance will be double that over the lifetime of the aircraft so the bill has a minimum of another 24 billion.
Forth, why will America not sell us F22 Raptors that do have reputation of reliability and a fixed cost, are we not reliable friends of the USA.
Fifth, can we believe anything Tony Abbott tells us given the deceit he is guilty of ?
Sixth, the days of two (or more) countries confronting each other is over. War are proxy now, so what are we doing?
25 Apr 2014 10:37:58am
The $12.4 billion reported is the whole of life cost of the program and is considered CAPEX, what the operating costs will be would be similar no matter what aircraft is purchased or whether we retain the Hornets/Super Hornets. This comes out of the normal Defence year to year budget line and isn't a big ticket item as it is OPEX.
24 Apr 2014 6:34:27pm
'You never know what's around the corner' says plucky Tony Abbott to justify blowing our dough on the latest shiny toy to be foisted on us by the US war industries.
Shame he can't apply the same logic to the NBN. Oh well.
Jimmy Necktie:
24 Apr 2014 6:48:19pm
So, we're getting a "top of the line" fighter, even though it's very expensive but not actually that hot. But we're *not* getting a "top of the line" NBN even though it's very expensive but *is* in fact top of the line and therefore value for money. And either way we can't afford pensions or medicare.
This country has had what, a 20 year boom? Where is the money? What have they done with it? It's not in medicare, it's not in pensions, it's not in infrastructure, it's not in welfare, it's not in Aboriginal affairs. Unemployment is low, lot's of taxes being paid. Where is it?
24 Apr 2014 7:17:55pm
This article is a fail sorry:
"The first argument is the one you'll find most commonly on social media and among the far left. "
This is an offensive and misinformed generalisation -1, unless of course you mean by 'the far left' those who are educated and know how to think independently, and are not susceptible to official spin.
The rest of your article defies logic in that its obvious to everyone that this is a lemon with wings, and that we should buy it because Washington tells us to?
What this is really about is spreading the cost of making lemonade.
One of the funniest quotes was 'how this project is too big to fail' funny in that it is grounded in the flawed logic of the plane itself. When asked why the plane has only one engine and what would happen of the engine should fail.
The official answer was 'it won't'
Meanwhile Boeing is confident the two engine F18 will be in production until at least 2020. Seems they might be on a safe bet.
24 Apr 2014 7:51:51pm
....."The first argument is the one you'll find most commonly on social media and among the far left. Analogous to the argument that insuring your house is unnecessary because you don't apprehend an immediate risk of fire or theft,".....
I fail to see the relevance of this statement.
I insure my house and its contents against fire and theft because I know that there is a real threat. These things happen all the time, on a daily basis.
But in the broader perspective, what are the dangers to our national sovereignty?
And let's be frank. Our only local cause for concern, if you could call it that, is Indonesia which is in great part reliant on us to keep the greasy wheels of corruption suitably oiled. Occasionally we protest at their regional excesses, then withdraw our heads into the tortoise-like carapace of our protective shell and succumb to Diplomatic censure.
China is the only country in our region that could seriously threaten us and several dozen JSF's and a handful of Collins Class submarines isn't going to stop them.
When he was Defence Minister Kim Beazley used to enjoy riding around in tank turrets and giving salutes as he stepped onto RAN warships. Now Tony Abbott enjoys giving a 'thumbs up' from the cockpit of a hideously expensive aircraft.
Insurance is a gamble and nearly all premium payers and bettors are out of pocket.
If I buy a Lotto ticket I've around a 138 million to 1 chance of winning. It's money down the drain and someone else cleans up.
This 'bet' using our money is so far off the odds it's almost criminal.
24 Apr 2014 7:57:40pm
As China is growing strongly and quickly, I think the Australian should make more communication with China instead of guff with the USA.
24 Apr 2014 8:45:37pm
I like China, they buy our stuff, and we buy theirs.
24 Apr 2014 8:25:43pm
Well I'm just pleased to see that they're spending $12 billion of taxpayers' money on more efficient means of killing people, rather than wasting it on frivolous stuff like hospitals, schools, renewable energy and public transport.
24 Apr 2014 8:28:36pm
I just love it we have to spend billions on an unknown threat to protect Australia, but this government will do bugger all on climate change that that has higher certainty and greater threat to not only Australia but also the whole world.
Major Bob:
24 Apr 2014 8:44:32pm
It's great to see ignorance and bias is alive and well as some of the comments that have been made highlight. A few comments though Yank, where did you get a cost of $24 billion from? The article and government media release clearly states a cost of $12 billion. As for the article itself, not bad except the inept political bias toward the end about only ordering 72 and the order being to also replace 24 F/A-18F and a dozen EA-18G. It is not. The government has stated that the order to replace these (if needed) will follow sometime next decade - it wouldn't be inservice any earlier if ordered now and the price will probably drop and/or an improved version may be available. For my money, the Super Hornets may be be replaced by a yet to fly 6th generation fighter that the US is working on for around a 2030 initial operational capability or even a possible European, Korean or Japanese 5+ Generation that are under study for that time frame as well.
Major Bob:
24 Apr 2014 8:53:15pm
Haven't read all the comments but Yank, get your history right. Your ignorance is appalling and I wonder why the moderator lets them get posted. The RAAF had a fighter squadron operating throughout the Korean War (P-51 then Meteors), Mirage fighters based in Malaysia during the confrontation with Indonesia as a potent detterent, a Squadron of Canberra bombers in Vietnam during that War there and F/A-18 operational during Gulf War 2. In addition we have had pilots flying with US and British squadrons on exchanges going in harms way. PLEASE stop posting inaccurate comments and do some research.
Another Bob:
24 Apr 2014 9:02:00pm
Why bother with any other defence then a stock pile of nukes?
Hit us we hit you.
Cold war stand off
24 Apr 2014 9:02:09pm
Defense Why?
The danger of getting attacked by a new form of aggressive dust, highly volatile and annoying.
You are strong enough, on paper, facts, training and equipment an attack will be less likely.
No one will attack if them losing the war is more likely.
It acts as a deterrent.
The F-35 would and is not my choose of plane, it can drop bombs but it is to fast to act as a CAS fighter.
When fighting a-symmetric warfare air power in the form of CAS is vital.
It also has become way to expensive over time and has way to many bugs and material fatigue.
25 Apr 2014 10:40:41am
lets get the US's mothballed Warthogs, least we know they work well in desert conditions and are pretty indestructable as several have flown home with 2/3rds a wing missing and half their tailplane missing.
25 Apr 2014 5:45:57pm
I don't agree. I think we want ones with two wings. And besides, just what tanks are they going to bust up? They'll be yet another white elephant.
24 Apr 2014 9:02:53pm
yes but it is all crap. the jsf does not have the necessary range. It is nearly 1000km less than the Sukhoi and lacks maneuverability. it has yet to satisfy the USAF requirements. The F-111was controversial, but at least it flew to spec. from the start. The JSF sounds like a lemon.
24 Apr 2014 9:02:59pm
Call me a skeptic if you like...I think the decision to stick with the JSF is more political than being practical, in terms of value for money, and capabilities of the birds.
The author admitted that he was involved in the decision to make this massive purchase. It appears that he is out to make justifications for himself to have had done so.
He insulted us by saying that anyone who took his position #1, are belonging to the far left. Well, he is wrong as many people with good sense can see a white elephant are quite prepared to say so, irrespective of which side of the left/right fence he/she is on.
Then he used house insurance to illustrate the potential dangers for not updating your insurance. There are major differences between the massively expensive birds that may or may not fly as well as expected, and my house insurance policy. For a start, it costs me a hell of a lot less, and I knew, and the insurance companies knew, that those risks are real and tangible. The "perceived" enemies, which I presume it to be China, is actually our "friends" if Tony Abbott's words are to be believed.
One does not have to be a scholar to realize that if you are to boost your fire power, it is more than likely that your counterparts will match you. There is an arms race, if you care to know!
I hope it is not like the Collins Class submarines. Ohh, Andrew Porter, how much do you want for that bridge?
24 Apr 2014 9:04:59pm
The F35 JSF is not a superior 5th generation multi-role fighter compared to its Russian and Chinese competition. It has a number of serious shortcomings (see Air Power Australia - http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html)
We are buying this dud in an attempt to stay chummy with our US cousins in the hope of a shotgun marriage in the event of trouble at the ranch. The only US manufactured fighter that might contest airspace on a somewhat equal footing with the Russian and Chinese aircraft is the F22 Raptor which was off-limits to us while it was in production.
I presume that, as per the FA18 purchase, we will not be allowed to have the top shelf electronics warfare fitout the US will have on its versions of the F35. There are allies and then there are other allies. We fall into the second cousins group.
24 Apr 2014 9:38:21pm
Spending lots of money on defense is wasted money because if a major power wanted to take Australia , Australia would have no hope .
Even if the whole Australian budget was spent on defense , it would make no difference to Australia if it was attacked .
The planes will cost $12 billion plus $12 billion for training and upkeep .
With $24 billion , it would be far better to spend it on new hospitals , new roads and a high speed interstate rail and to help increase the critical under supply of housing in Australia .
Australia would see something major for the $24 billion instead of lots of planes sitting around and being wasted .
Planes like car don't last for ever and it is a costly process having to upkeep the aircraft and then replace them when they get to their use- by- date .
By having only one engine could also cost pilots lives .
Countries like China are more interested in trade than invasions , history shows that invasions don't work ,for example every nation that has occupied Afganistan has been pleased to leave , the same with Iraq , Iraq cost the USA billions and the USA would not achieved very much by staying in Iraq for the long term .
24 Apr 2014 9:47:13pm
Unfortunately we have military minds driven by testosterone rather than intelligence. The Air Force needs fighter jets (not one has seen active service since Korea). The navy has gazillion dollar surface ships that in the absence of air cover are nothing more than floating targets. The Army, the poor cousin that actually does militarily useful stuff, invests in tanks and artillery that we struggle to move in Australia, let alone offshore. All of these shortcomings can be addressed by independent and lateral thought, not by the replacement mindset and keeping up with the regional Joneses.
25 Apr 2014 10:46:46am
Australian F/A18's saw active service in the second Gulf War.
The M1A1 has no issues being moved around Australia. I have been involved with the Heavy Haulage industry for around 6 years and have moved many items all over SA which were larger and heavier than a mere 60 ton tank. It is not uncommon for 100 ton net dump trucks (total gross is over 160 tons) to be moved all over Australia via road on load platform trailers similar to those used by the Army to move the Abrams around. The M777 cannon is regularly seen towed behind standard Unimog or Bushmaster trucks which can basically go anywhere.
24 Apr 2014 9:50:14pm
In my point of view i think that it is not necessary to pay for these expensive war machine.
we buy these plane off them and then they just waste our money and does make no sence,they lend us the money to buy it and if they need the birds they are there's.and it is just like nuclear power,it might damage us most.and hpow can overment to use money in this way, i'd rather to pay for those poor families and people in need of help.
24 Apr 2014 11:00:07pm
How did the US military complex con us again? The JSF is primarily a Fighter...as a former Air Vice Marshall commented ( when the Labour government ordered the Super Hornet...), a fighter is like a racing car....it can never be too fast or have too much range!
The JSF is slower and has less range than the Su30 Flanker as flown by the Indonesian Air Force, and the Su30 is also more agile. Add that to the costs blowout...
As the author noted, pity that the US failed to allow us "closest allies and friends...'' to purchase the much better F-22.
24 Apr 2014 11:22:35pm
Im in general agreement with the author.It should be noted that the F35 can have a life in service of at least 30 years, that the weapons it will be capable of deploying on entry into sevice will in all likelyhood not be the same it will deploy into 10 and 20 years of its service life.As we have seen over the service life of the F111 and the FA/18 there have been several upgrades.The aircraft is a platform for weapons systems that are continually evolving.The actual flying performance of the aircraft itself is only a part of the story of its effectiveness or otherwise.
The issue Id liked to see addressed is the involvement of NZ.New Zealand no longer has a combat element in its airforce, yet its difficult to imagine that our defence assetts would not be readily used to support NZ if the need arises.There is an argument for us having a combined Military force, at least NZ could be making a contribution to the funding and operation of assetts it doesnt have but would need for its defence.
The Eggman:
25 Apr 2014 4:43:28pm
Can the competitors to the JSF also receive upgrades over time? If yes, then why not buy one of the other warplanes on the market that is apparently better than the JSF on every metric including price?
I don't think actual flying performance is as unimportant as you think it is. Instead, it seems to me that if the JSF ever needs to take on its competitors in actual combat that it will have major disadvantages in an environment where even modest advantages in performance, let alone major advantages, have proven decisive in the past.
Sure the JSF might be okay if it can operate unopposed, but why not choose a plane that is more capable of mixing it up when more capable planes are available?
The decision to buy the JSFs is baffling - the JSF looks like an expensive death trap if it is ever forced to stand on its own against its competitors and it doesn't seem to make a very convincing threat or deterrent either.
Indeed, as other have remarked, why are we buying fighters at all over drones? Surely drones can be upgraded as well?
Come to think of it, why aren't we making our own fighter planes and/or drones? I mean the Swedes make their own fighters, and they are a piddling little country compared to Australia.
24 Apr 2014 11:39:30pm
The idea of spending this amount on expensive, high-performance, supersonic strike-fighters is ludicrous. The odds of Australia being involved in a conflict requiring conventional air-superiority and long-range supersonic strike capability is roughly on par with the chances of George Pell converting to Wicca.
We should be spending the money on equipment the ADF is likely to make use of. A few hundred more Bushmaster IDE-resistant vehicles, for example. Or long-loiter-time counter-insurgency/recon aircraft like the South African AHRLAC, or P-3 Orions for over-water security, etc, etc.
70+ F-35s is like buying a solid gold sledgehammer when you'd be better off with a couple of stainless steel scalpels...
24 Apr 2014 11:45:59pm
Surely the only reason we are buying these is to prop up our US alliance. The F22 construction was shut down because there were more (US) jobs in the JSF's construction line. Imagine the impact on the US economy, and thereby our relationship, if we cancelled our order.
Given that the only "invasion" we are likely to face in coming years is by sea, surely this money should be going into surveillance planes and navy and customs vessels, not JSFs?
25 Apr 2014 10:00:39am
You reckon USA economy gonna fall in a heap if Australia doesn`t buy. Laugh at that one. Obviously your idea of defence and border security for Australia is the sitting duck of Asia policy. The only losers would be Australia if continued humming and hahing, wringing hands never making a decision like lame ducks is the only Australian defence action. Must be real frustrating for ADF to listen to so many in favour of a sitting duck policy for Australia.
John in Brisbane:
24 Apr 2014 11:47:26pm
The aircraft might be the best of a bad bunch in some ways but reasonable people are still questioning it utility and value. Your article ignores or dismisses in an offhand manner significant issues and concerns.
That important ally you mentioned chooses to militarily outspend the next 4 countries combined. Their concern about our military spend is primarily aimed at getting us to buy more of their military products.
Criticisms of an expensive aircraft during it's development phase aren't new but the ones directed at this airframe are very different. Aerodynamically it is inferior to the aircraft it would replace. It has a poorer power to weight ratio as well which further affects agility. The F111 experienced significant developmental issues but they were the result of it being a radical step forward in capability. The F35 is a step backwards in capability, in all but stealthiness and in the kinds of avionics upgrades that can be bolted onto any airframe. Your dismissal of these key points is educative. And on that stealthiness front, you have ignored a major criticism of the F35 - that it may be able to approach a target with some stealth but then it presents a good target for modern radar once it turns away and then can not outrun current or future opposing aircraft. You have also ignored the simple fact that the F35 was designed to be a second tier aircraft working with the first tier F22, in the same way that the cheap F16 was designed to operate with the dominant F15. Without the F22, which we can't buy and of which only 187 were ever made, we're left with an aircraft that was designed to work in an environment in which F22s had either established air superiority of were essentially providing it by escorting F35s on sorties. The F111 became a fearsome capability that remains unmatched. I am sure you've seen the diagrams that show how many fighters and tankers are needed to deliver the same payload to the same distance as one F111.
The process of converting the winner of the design competition into a fully capable JSF isn't just annoyingly slow or disappointing. It is a scandal and Lockheed Martin should rightly fail as an entity over it. They're a big part of the US industrial sector that is hurting them more than any other. They're institutionally corrupt and unable to adhere to even basic principles of commerce. These are the people who extracted from the the US government more money for each spy satellite than a whole nuclear aircraft carrier costs. Think about that. And despite 40 years of development in a range of fields, they can not deliver a relatively simple single engine aircraft at a reasonable price in a reasonable time frame. There has been the concern expressed at times that if enough countries like Australia cancel or delay their orders, the price per unit could rise the point at which they become completely uneconomic. Despite the problems it would caus
25 Apr 2014 12:45:35am
As many respondents to this article have hinted, the Government of the Day has done a terrible job in selling the merits of the F35 to the public. Informed readers who avail themselves of the numerous research resources available on the internet can attest to the difficulty in finding concrete advantages as to why Australia should stick with the F35 when the number of Countries staying with the Project is shrinking. It is curious as to why authors of such articles do not mention unimportant matters like extent of performance degradation in export versions (which is what Australia will be getting) compared to All-American version, degree of vulnerability of the complex software to being degraded by external command (a point causing Turkey to pull out), expected attrition rate in combat especially when opposing forces fire say 3 missiles at a time at the plane (why do you think modern single shot military rifles fire three rounds?), poor value for money (http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20140415/189237858/Russian-Air-Force-to-Receive-16-New-MiG-Fighters.html refers to $450m spend for 16 advanced fighters), extraordinarily poor ratio of maintenance hours to flying hours, no mention of life cycle cost per plane (using yard stick of 2.5 times purchase cost then $30 Billion might be a truer cost of the F35s), and even the US Congress's General Accounting Office has serious concerns about the F35 Project.
What ever happened to the requirement for Australian Government officals mandating value for the Australian Taxpayer dollar?
25 Apr 2014 1:28:38am
I'll pay a few bucks more for an F18 when they do their trade-ins for JSF.
I liked the article but would like to see some commmentary on the logistic tail that having such aircraft will require.
At the moment the focus is on purely purchase price but I see nothing on the rest of the obvious logistical costs or issues of implementing an entirely new weapon system.
Further I though the JSF was a system meant to work in concert with other aircraft as missle trucks...or are we contemplating drones for that role?
I'd be investing in drone tech for that.
25 Apr 2014 3:08:58am
The fear that Australia will somehow be particularly vulnerable if we don't participate in the emerging Asian arms race is irrational and stupid.
Building attack submarines is stupid, buying the amphibious ships was stupid, buying the JSF is stupid.
The F-15 was arguably the best aircraft for the job for decades...Australia bought superhornets...and that pretty well articulates the case of 'why bother then?'.
We're obviously not buying for self defence, we are buying for the sake of buying.
Realistically, Australia should send a message to China saying: "Are you willing to create another Cuban missile crisis, are you willing to start nuclear Armageddon, are you willing to go to war with Australia, America and nato? If the answer is no, then why bother with the arms race?"
Everyone knows this of course, but its politically incorrect to confront other nations with it directly.
Even in Afghanistan, the Australian Army was so secretive, no one knows wtf happened there, except a bunch of diggers died. Did we use f-18s there, we didn't deploy armour there, how exactly did our vehicles and weapons perform, what tactics and strategies were used, how effective were our doctrines and how well did our leaders perform? Don't ask me, I have never seen anything on tv about it or read anything online about it.
The army wants our support, but they don't communicate properly. They want big ticket items, but fail to show how any of our weaponry performed in the war on terror, which really is the biggest challenge our country has faced since Imperial Japan.
Besides, the case for the JSF has been weak. Even the case for the raptor is somewhat weak...due to its ridiculous operating costs. Our closest neighbour is still using F-16s...anyone whos anyone recognizes that the F-35 is just macnamara part 2 and people didn't learn from the F-111. Its possibly cheaper and definitely more effective to build a striker, multirole/lightweight and air superiority separately.
Total program cost of the JSF is estimated at $500 billion, its ridiculous. And we are subsidizing it for something we frankly don't need. Its debatable whether in real world combat a silent eagle would just die to a JSF...the silent eagle would definitely have a good utility in continental defence against south east Asian fighters. Why buy Super hornets as well, carrier multirole fighter...questionable decisions ladies and gentlemen...procurement for the sake of procurement...maybe a bit of old boys network tossed in for fun. Very bad investments.
25 Apr 2014 5:13:38am
Thank you Andrew,
Remember all those Australian car industry workers facing the Abbott scythe ?
There is no need for all that engineering skill to be flushed down the S bend. Those fine people could design and produce military aircraft far superior to the F35, then sell them to the Americans and others for (say) M$90 each.
Imagine that.
No. Sorry. Unthinkable. It's just a flight of fancy.
25 Apr 2014 6:29:12am
By all accounts you may as well put wings on a bus. The only reason they are proceeding with this ludicrous acquisition is because it is beyond them to think of something else - the Coalition doesn't 'do' ideas... or promise keeping or human rights or competence for that matter!
25 Apr 2014 7:24:07am
As the child of parents who both lived through WW2 in the United Kingdom and the grandson of people who lost a son who flew with an RAAF aircrew I fully support current Australian service personnel being given the best possible support to carry out their assigned tasks.
This is a totally different question to the current debate about "ending the age of entitlement". The Federal Government is embarking on a campaign of reducing or destroying entire sections of the social structures of Australia to fend off a "budget crisis".
Placing so much faith and money in an aircraft which is the subject of so many questions regarding its forward facing capability is rightfully being questioned. More so when "everybody will need to assist with the heavy lifting" as requested by the Treasurer.
Important as Defence obviously is, other areas of expenditure such as Health and Education are equally as vital to the future of Australia. Indeed in the short term these two areas are MORE important as they are needed to support any improvment in Australia's financial system.
A leading edge military capability is of little consequence if Australia cannot compete in the world unless it is to sell minerals and energy (coal and LNG) to other productive nations and for which this country will receive the minimal possible return. (The mining companies have done great job of ensuring this)
Can this country currently afford to spend $12.5 Billion dollars on a defence element which is questionable both in its capability and unit costs if you listen to critics including some senior members of the American armed forces.
Requiring answers to these questions is neither left-leaning in its emphasis nor an unreasonable stance. Flying and supporting these aircraft will require a greal deal of money and personnel who have excellent health and very high levels of education
don't believe the media:
25 Apr 2014 7:26:14am
Well, after reading these comments i have to say that if so many had as much knowledge of economic practice and of history as they do of war machines we may be a lot better off.
I wonder when the FOX cable network is going to make a series on the ways and means of creating and maintaining peace in the world.
25 Apr 2014 7:53:30am
spend the money means , but not on a compromise, over complex bit of US one size fits all fantasy.
25 Apr 2014 9:28:58am
If the USA is our allie They would lease the planes to us when they are needed. I would not allow my daughter to buy a home that she can,t afford. That what a good parent would do. USA is not acting as a Allie. NZ don,t have airforce hardware. They have Pilots capable of flying these planes and lease them when needed. Why are we buying a BMW when we can only afford and rental car when the need arises
Bob Partridge:
25 Apr 2014 10:01:56am
The F-35 program has always been about pork, not a defense system as it's multiple cost over runs, incompetent management and near endless delays clearly illustrate. They couldn't even keep the costs down enough to avoid triggering the deliberately very lax provision in the US Act. That's real staggering incompetence. That it has resulted in an actual useful enough aircraft system with reasonable stealth capabilities is a little unexpected.
The role of US defense contracts including the now infamous F-35 'Joint Strike Fighter' program is to bolster the profits of US Defense Contractors which come back to US Congressional and Senate candidates in the form of campaign contributions.
This is not an efficient way to produce defense hardware but then it was never designed for that.
However, all that said the aircraft system could still be useful to us. The F-35 program came at a time when the US economy was flailing. It was ambitious, perhaps overly so as it has turned out. That the yanks have managed to produce a useful aircraft system out of it at a time when their economy and technological capabilities were failing is remarkable but then so are the problems and multiple mismanagements and stupendous cost blowouts that accompanied it. This is probably the last manned fighter before the drones take over so I suppose we had better enjoy it.
Our people can gain a lot of expertise working on and maintaining such a modern system as this. I would worry a little about the plane's range in the Australian context and we had better hope that the stealth capabilities stay ahead of any possible opponents if it is ever has to be used in anger.
Is it a bargain? Probably not. Is it ever going to be worth the price? No. Is it ever a good idea to help prop up an utterly corrupt and inefficient Yank weapons industry? Probably not.
Would we be better off taking a look at the Russian planes, or in time the possible Zhong Guo equivalent? Probably.
We could probably afford a lot more airframes for far less and have the major benefit of shaking up these wanky yankees into the bargain.
25 Apr 2014 11:58:59am
The discussion reminds me of the Lockheed Starfighter affairs back in West Germany.
916 planes were purchased. Machines lost: 300, including 269 crashed. 108 German pilots died, plaus 8 Americans makes 116 losses of pilots.
Isn't it nice that we can look up things from the distant past on wikipedia.
25 Apr 2014 12:28:20pm
Given the fact that virtually the only country that carries out invasions and occupations these days is the United States, our so-called "Ally" , and given that the US Government will be charging the american taxpayers $1.3 trillion to purchase 1000 of these overpriced poorly performing flying turkeys, we can assume that the only real threat of invasion would be from the US (who, incidentally, are in the midst of setting up more and more permanent bases in the NT, oh-so-near to their oil, uranium and gas interests).
Perhaps we should urge our government to look at investments in truly defensive equipment, such as Coast Guard ships, and perhaps we, the australian People, should start to learn and teach diplomacy and work for global justice, which is a much better forger of world peace. Finally, we should seek to project a more balanced, independent foreign policy, not to become ever more a lapdog of the United States' Empire, which uses militarism as a curmudgeon to control oil wells and big business interests.
War is a racket and Lockheed Martin is the king of war profiteering. Let's stop this madness now!
mick white:
25 Apr 2014 4:08:35pm
There's some confusion about the price. Abbott said we are getting them for slightly over $200M each, but the vendor spokesman said we are getting them for $100M each, and that the price is "coming down" (coming down from what?). Abbott and the vendor can't both be right as their advice conflicts with each other.
Jean Apollo:
25 Apr 2014 5:22:59pm
No doubt,Spending Billion of $$$$$$$ for the defence of the country is necessary.But it's the timing/period.At present, there's no threat or at war with other nations at present.The Treasurer is cutting other essential/necessary items from the
citizens/public to meet the BUDGET deficit is it more appropriate?At present it's people welfare is more important than other unnecessary spending.
Anasatsios Manolakis:
25 Apr 2014 5:46:27pm
The only point being missed is that, Australia is buying the wrong big boy toys to stop a non existent threat and are wasting of taxpayers monies.
In Australia's region who has the capacity to attack Australia? India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Philippines, North Korea? They do not have the capacity to launch any major attack.
It leaves two countries China and Japan which MAY have the resources and capability but why would they, they can buy Australia, so why would they invade.
No one seriously thinks Russia would launch an attack on Australia and why would Russia do so it has far more mining resources than Australia anyway it has nothing Russia needs.
That leaves one country of concern, USA the only country with the capacity to attack Australia and what would having 75 or 100 F35 going to achieve to stop them.
All countries need a defence force but why buy Ferrari's to drive on unsealed potholed roads when the top speed is 45km/hour.
25 Apr 2014 5:57:03pm
After all is said and done, what a waste of money.
25 Apr 2014 6:15:55pm
It's not value for money if it doesn't work. And the JSF doesn't work.
Andrew Porter doesn't address this. He tries a bait switch by pointing out that other aircraft (he names the F-111) had problems in development. This doesn't negate the myriad problems of the JSF that he lists; such as its poor handling.
Not just some integrated system doesn't click - its airframe - its basic design is flawed.
25 Apr 2014 6:41:12pm
The main point here is that the F-35 is not the smartest nor most capable fighter in the skies, they are only being bought because of their origin. This will prove to be the greatest waste of taxpayer dollars in history. Do your research F-35 vs Su-35 and PAK-FA. It is a lose-lose for Australia, lose the $ and lose the fight.
25 Apr 2014 6:50:28pm
Crikey Andrew, what a strangely written article.
If you were trying to support the purchase it was an odd way to go about it.
With 'advisers' like this, no wonder the federal ALP were never understood.
Comments for this story are closed.