RAAF JSF Update

[gf0012-aust]

22jun04

AUSTRALIA will not get "top of the range" stealth fighters in the $15 billion deal for the new generation US-built aircraft.

The Australian version of the Joint Strike Fighter will not be equipped with the best weapons systems and will be missing other crucial war fighting sensors.

Michael Cosentino, international programs director for Lockheed Martin's JSF project, yesterday confirmed the RAAF would be sold so-called Block 2 aircraft and not the Block 3 type provided to the US Air Force.

Mr Cosentino rejected claims Australia would get a "dumbed down" version of the JSF when it signs up for the nation's biggest ever defence contract.

The $15 billion will buy the RAAF 60 fighters which are due to be delivered in three instalments from 2012 to 2020.

They will replace the RAAF's 24 F-111 strike aircraft and 77 F/A-18 fighters.

Mr Cosentino said the Block 2 version would be a war-ready fighter but would not be fitted with more sophisticated weapons, software and other systems available in Block 3 planes.

"Block 2 is a go-to-war, stealthy, survivable, lethal aircraft," he said.

Mr Cosentino is in Canberra for a major defence industry conference and to update the Government and RAAF on the project.

He said the aircraft was "about 80 per cent designed and tracking to all of its performance requirements".

The US Government and Lockheed were acutely aware of the "strategic gap" between when the F-111s were retired in 2010 and the JSF delivery.

US Ambassador to Australia Tom Schieffer told a Parliamentary Inquiry yesterday Australia would get as much technology as any country outside the US could get.

"We have given assurances to Australia that we will give you the absolute maximum that we can with regard to that technology," he said.

"Having said the airplane will not be exactly the same airplane as the US . . . it will be a stealth fighter, it will have stealth capabilities."


Internal doc - not yet avail AFAIK

[highsea]

I wonder if that means the UK will get block 2 also? I see no reason why Australia shouldn't get the same level of technology that the UK gets, if they want it.

BTW, I think you are getting ripped off, 60 AC for $15Bn. is $250 Mil. each! I thought the F-35A was supposed to come in at $30 Mil.

-CM

[gf0012-aust]

Originally Posted by highsea

I wonder if that means the UK will get block 2 also? I see no reason why Australia shouldn't get the same level of technology that the UK gets, if they want it.

-CM

AFAIK Australia and the UK have a similar access level. Unofficially the US has made it clear that if there is a requirement for us due to local events (eg problems in Indonesia) then we would be fasttracked on provision etc...

Australia has recently started to provide the US with access to some of our acoustic warfare technology and OTH radar technology, so there is an issue of reciprocity at play as well.

Certainly the access is higher than some other nations and the US has been consistent in assuring Aust of the level of regard. I would argue that the UK is the only one that could get Block 3 access earlier than everyone else (ie, within 5 years of general induction)

The $15 Billion refers to the total program, it doesn't refer to the actual purchase price of the aircraft. Maintenance, support, logistics and weapons doesn't come free... 60 aircraft are not going to be able to replace 107 aircraft adequately, particularly when said aircraft is a marginal improvement in capability over one aircraft (F/A-18) and a considerable reduction in capability over your other aircraft (F-111). The RAAF should be pushing to acquire 60 JSF's and 40 or so F-22A's to round out it's force structure. 60 JSF's are not going to allow us to maintain a significant advantage qualitatively and quantitatively over our likely adversaries. At best it represents a capability to deploy a modest force package to participate in US led coalitions, give us a minor strike capability, and an ability to defend ourselves from a minor air attack. It will not provide Australia with a robust force structure that adequately provides for the defence of Australia.

[gf0012-aust]

BTW, I think you are getting ripped off, 60 AC for $15Bn. is $250 Mil. each! I thought the F-35A was supposed to come in at $30 Mil.

Good grief. I didn't even see this bit. Did you do an edit after your initial post highsea??

which also means I concur with aussie-dig. Post support, training etc is a significant eroder. In some projects it can be as high as 70% of initial costs

[highsea]

Originally Posted by gf0012-aust

Good grief. I didn't even see this bit. Did you do an edit after your initial post highsea??

Lol, I was editing my post to add that when you were answering. haha.

I knew that the price was for the whole program, but I was kind of wondering just how much more was being added besides just the cost of the AC. Figure you guys are paying 6 times the price of the AC (if the 15Bn is in AUD), so that should involve a hell of a lot of support.

BTW, I can't get to my PM, not enough posts yet.

-CM

[gf0012-aust]

I'm glad we are getting the JSF, but I also think that we should be going for a hi-lo mix. The nature of our environment is that we need to:

interdict at both short and long range
prosecute long range strike
prosecute long range anti-shipping

I'd rather see some F-22's in the mix. Interestingly enough the F-22B has been thrown into the conversation mix at a few conferences I've been to. Mainly to pick up the gap left by the pulling of the F-111's. An F-22B seems to be a far more useful platform to have than an F-22.

I don't see any point in getting interim fighters like F-15E's or SuperHornets as they will be at the high end of their usefullness curve. The gap is long range punching, and we might as well have an aircraft that overlaps and is a long term solution.

That gets back to the issue that an F22B will leave us with an operational capability gap anyway. The lead time is way way too long.