Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Kevin Rudd signs off on purchase of 14 F-35 joint strike fighters
Volkodav    11/26/2009 2:45:38 AM
Patrick Walters, National security editor From: The Australian November 25, 2009 4:15PM THE Rudd government has given the green light to Australia's largest ever defence purchase, approving a buy of 14 F-35 joint strike fighters at a cost of $3.2 billion. Cabinet's national security committee has backed the RAAF's plan to buy at least 72 of the fifth generation fighters at a projected cost of at least $12bn but Australia's F-35's will be bought in batches with the first aircraft expected to be delivered in 2014. Defence minister, John Faulkner, announced yesterday government approval for the the first batch of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft as foreshadowed in the 2009 Defence White Paper with approval for further acquisitions to be considered in 2012. "Approval of the next batch of aircraft and all necessary support and enabling capabilities, sufficient to establish three operational squadrons and a training squadron of CTOL JSFs, will be considered in 2012. This will fulfil our White Paper commitment to acquire three operational squadrons comprising not fewer than 72 aircraft,'' Senator Faulkner said. By 2012 Defence would have much firmer cost estimates for the remaining aircraft and necessary support and enabling capabilities as part of the planned first multi-year buy that is expected to comprise over 1000 aircraft for the US, Australia and other partners. "This will allow for much more effective planning of the final JSF acquisition in the context of the overall Defence Capability Plan," Senator Faulkner said. He said the government had examined the F-35's capabilities very carefully in the context of the Air Combat Capability Review and 2009 Defence White Paper deliberations, and remained confident that the F-35's combination of stealth, advanced sensors, networking and data fusion capabilities would ensure Australia maintained its strategic capability advantage out to 2030. "Defence has done more analysis on this platform than any other platform in the acquisition history of the ADF" Senator Faulkner said. Senator Faulkner said the government had approved acquisition of the first 14 Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL) Joint Strike Fighters and infrastructure and support required for initial training and testing. Acquisition of an additional operational squadron – bringing the total number of F-35's to around 100 – will be considered at a later date in conjunction with a decision on the withdrawal of the F/A-18F Super Hornet expected early in the 2020's. Australia's first JSF aircraft will be delivered in the United States in 2014 to commence initial training and test activities. The first operational squadron will be based at Royal Australian Air Force Base Williamtown, and is planned to initial operations in 2018-19. Air force chief , Mark Binskin said the F-35 acquisition would allow Australia to maintain its regional air combat superiority. "It will also enable Australia to effectively contribute to regional security and enhances opportunities for interoperability and commonality to support future coalition operations," Air Marshal Binskin said.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
Aussiegunneragain       11/29/2009 7:53:37 AM
Acquisition of an additional operational squadron ? bringing the total number of F-35's to around 100 ? will be considered at a later date in conjunction with a decision on the withdrawal of the F/A-18F Super Hornet expected early in the 2020's.
 
Credit due to Brendan Nelson, by pushing for the SH purchase he really improved the ability of the Government to take its time to purchase later block JSF's. I'd say that it would have to rate as one of the more significantly positive cabinet decisions that was pushed by one Defence Minister for a very long time.
 
Quote    Reply

akryu       11/29/2009 5:41:41 PM
Is Australia only buying the F-35A's or are you going to have a mix of A and B models? 
 
I read some gf comments saying that the S. Hornet's would be returned?  So the U.S. Navy will be taking these aircraft back when you are done with them?
 
Also, Australia had some wired so that they could be transformed into EA-18 Growlers.  Do any of you Aussie's know if the RAAF plan to keep any EA-18's in service?  I think it's a good idea to have dedicated electronic attack a/c in service.  I'm wondering if Lockheed will design an EA-35.  Since the F-35 is somewhat stealthy, I think it would be advantageous to have an EA-35 part of any strike package.  Does the RAAF have any other EA aircraft in service that could perform the role that an EA-18 can? 
 
One more question.  Why isn't the RAAF interested in keeping the S. Hornets?  I know that having several types of aircraft can be a logistics nightmare.  ( I think the RAF might have a nightmare when they have low numbers of C-130J's, C-17's, and A-400M's in the future.)  I don't think it would be as bad having 72 JSF's and 24 F-18F's.  What would happen if, in the future, your JSF's have to be grounded for a structural problem and you have no other a/c in service?  
 
Thanks in advance for your replies.
 
 
Quote    Reply

hairy man       11/29/2009 6:09:54 PM
"What would happen if, in the future, your JSF's have to be grounded for a structural problem and you have no other a/c in service? "
This is a question that worries me as well.
Also I wonder if there is a fixed price that the US is going to buy the SH at when we are finished with them?  If it is a fair price maybe we should buy a second squadron to start replaceing the most worn out F.18's. 
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       11/29/2009 6:46:16 PM
So the U.S. Navy will be taking these aircraft back when you are done with them?
 
From what I have been told, the RAAF SH have "lightened" undercarriage that amounts to nearly 800lbs of weight savings.
 
Some other wheel well and bulkhead tweaks have apparently taken place as well as the usual Oztralizing such as adding HF etc.
 
I'm not sure USN would even have much value in CQ training, let alone as operational seaborne mounts on their possible return.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    Future Target Drones   11/29/2009 8:00:19 PM
by somebody - Oz else US perhaps
 
use 'em up
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       11/29/2009 9:31:21 PM

Is Australia only buying the F-35A's or are you going to have a mix of A and B models? 

only A's at this point, there is certainly no intention of getting stumpys 

I read some gf comments saying that the S. Hornet's would be returned?  So the U.S. Navy will be taking these aircraft back when you are done with them?

 they go back to the State Dept as they are an FMS article.  The intention was never to keep them, hence why they are referred to as "bridging" assets

Also, Australia had some wired so that they could be transformed into EA-18 Growlers.  Do any of you Aussie's know if the RAAF plan to keep any EA-18's in service?  I think it's a good idea to have dedicated electronic attack a/c in service.  I'm wondering if Lockheed will design an EA-35.  Since the F-35 is somewhat stealthy, I think it would be advantageous to have an EA-35 part of any strike package.  Does the RAAF have any other EA aircraft in service that could perform the role that an EA-18 can? 

we're wiring for growlers,  there is no commitment to actually have growlers.  its an insurance policy to deal with any changes to procurement slips and to accomodate any ewarfare/NCW events that evolve towards 2020..  There are no other fixed wing combat aircraft in RAAF wired or tasked for a growler/weasel role.
there has been word that a twin tub JSF could be scoped, if thats the case then that would indicate a weasel or enhanced strike role.  its early days yet
 
One more question.  Why isn't the RAAF interested in keeping the S. Hornets?  I know that having several types of aircraft can be a logistics nightmare.  ( I think the RAF might have a nightmare when they have low numbers of C-130J's, C-17's, and A-400M's in the future.)  I don't think it would be as bad having 72 JSF's and 24 F-18F's.  What would happen if, in the future, your JSF's have to be grounded for a structural problem and you have no other a/c in service?  

 we're not keeping them at this stage because they're bridging assets only.  It was made very clear in Apr at Avalon that they would be temp assets.  That of course can change as its always the Govts privilege to do so.  The govt is more interested in UCAVs at 2025 than they are in keeping Shornets.  The cost to maintain a short squadron of shornets at the other end of the platforms utility life is of dubious merit.
the days of the RAAF having multiple platforms for combat roles are on the high side of unlikely.  both side of Govt don't want it and the head shed in RAAF made the point to both sides of Govt that the JSF could do all roles.  We've had single type fleets before, we can do it again.  You don't need different platforms to deliver specialist weapons anymore (like we did with Lincolns, Canberras, F-111's, etc...).  Common weapons bus means that we can impress a number of different aircraft into strike roles or mounted EWarfare roles if certified.  In a wartime footing certification is less of an issue with a common bus, it then gets down to flight dynamics, wing loading issues etc..  

unless there is an overwhelming change in regional circumstances, and a significant change in threat matrix type issues, tactical issues, strategic issues, maint issues, through life issues, the impact upon other programs in 2025 which are far more important (esp satellite, NCW etc... ), political issues etc.. then I can't see any political side of aust politics going for multi type fleets.  We're not the US. we don't have the same demands and its highly indefensible from the cost perspective to maintain both assets when defence has been told to pull the belt in.

all of that can change at the direction of the govt, but both sides of politics have been pretty clear on their expe
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       11/29/2009 9:38:39 PM

So the U.S. Navy will be taking these aircraft back when you are done with them?
 

From what I have been told, the RAAF SH have "lightened" undercarriage that amounts to nearly 800lbs of weight savings.
Some other wheel well and bulkhead tweaks have apparently taken place as well as the usual Oztralizing such as adding HF etc.


I'd find that unsual as RAAF were specifically told to get out of the "australianising" process.  They were USN production lots and were taken mid USN production because we wouldn't impact on the delivery cycle of the USN by taking relatively vanilla assets.
The reason why some of RAAFs projects have c0cked up was because they couldn't leave things alone and the vendors were able to chomp the govt on scope creep.

considering how badly the Govt reacted to RAAF dicking around with Vigilaire, Wedgetail, Army dicking around with Tiger, and RAN dicking around with Seasprite, then any service trying scope creep on design mods would be up for a beating.  All projects have been pointedly told that mods to capability won't be accepted if they've been signed up for already.  Managers are now personally accountable, so no one is going to bite that bullet unless they've got a pretty kevlar proof defence.

 

 

 


 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       11/29/2009 10:19:12 PM



So the U.S. Navy will be taking these aircraft back when you are done with them?


 





From what I have been told, the RAAF SH have "lightened" undercarriage that amounts to nearly 800lbs of weight savings.

Some other wheel well and bulkhead tweaks have apparently taken place as well as the usual Oztralizing such as adding HF etc.









I'd find that unsual as RAAF were specifically told to get out of the "australianising" process.  They were USN production lots and were taken mid USN production because we wouldn't impact on the delivery cycle of the USN by taking relatively vanilla assets.

The reason why some of RAAFs projects have c0cked up was because they couldn't leave things alone and the vendors were able to chomp the govt on scope creep.




considering how badly the Govt reacted to RAAF dicking around with Vigilaire, Wedgetail, Army dicking around with Tiger, and RAN dicking around with Seasprite, then any service trying scope creep on design mods would be up for a beating.  All projects have been pointedly told that mods to capability won't be accepted if they've been signed up for already.  Managers are now personally accountable, so no one is going to bite that bullet unless they've got a pretty kevlar proof defence.



 



 



 







Was talking to an expat bloke on another forum. He works for a group involved with the Wedgetail project and said a Boeing colleague made that claim.
Considering the mods done to the legacy RAAF Bugs by removing launch bridles and other cat equipment prior to their introduction, I'm not surprised there would be a weight saving or two found in the SH. Not like it requires any additional engineering if you are merely removing components that are easily accessible.

 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       11/30/2009 2:04:53 AM
Was talking to an expat bloke on another forum. He works for a group involved with the Wedgetail project and said a Boeing colleague made that claim.

They have to do some things for compliance, but they aren't rodding them up by any means.  Boeing is right royally on the nose, so I would imagine that the only changes would be compliance changes.  

their gravy days are over.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       11/30/2009 2:13:38 AM

IIRC from the BACC briefing in Apr I attended there was bugger all (negligible) being changed from a stock USN bird.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics