RAAF Stopgap air plan is 'dumb'
- Thread starter gf0012-aust
- Start date
- Status
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Big-E said:
It's a funny thing. I see Americans bemoaning about certain elements of their military forces. Most nations can't even afford the capabilities that American's are whinging about. Most militaries would give "their right arms" for the capabilities the American's possess, yet to many it's not enough.
There was a guy here a few months back who was obsessed about America's "lack" of Naval gunnery support. He was convinced that the DD(X) program was a waste of money and didn't provide enough firepower with it's 155mm guns.
He was also extremely upset about the Arleigh Burke classes 5 inch gun and it's "limited" capability, according to him. The only plausible solution to this conundrum was the re-introduction of Iowa class battleships.
What he didn't for 1 second consider, is that the 60 odd vessels of the Arleigh Burke class alone provides almost more firepower than the rest of the world's navies put together.
Britain which is probably the second most powerful "Western" Navy is currently building 6 type 45 Destroyers. These destroyers, apart from lacking Tomahawk cruise missiles, will be roughly equivalent in capability to the AB's.
It's the second most powerful navy of the US's allies, yet it's future destroyer force will possess LESS THAN 10% of the capability that the USN does RIGHT NOW with it's existing force. Once the DD(X) becomes operational, it will be less than 10%.
To many nations Australia including, we have to carefully manage our defence acquisitions. We try to gain "overlapping" capabilities, to the best our circumstances allow.
To us and MANY others, our $16 Billion budget for JSF's seems enormous. It will be the single biggest defence acquisition we have ever made. (The Collins class submarines is the current biggest and our new Air Warfare Destroyers will equal that). In saying that, it is still a "drop in the ocean" compared to America.
Despite appearing like a lot of money, that $16 billion is required to provide our air combat capability for the next 30 years. Given it's responsibility, it's not something we can afford to squander. An interim fighter will do just that. If it can be avoided, relying on our Hornets until JSF is available, is at least the most cost effective thing we can do.
However the JSF WILL be acquired as soon as it is available as the airframe life is rapidly wearing out on our Hornets and the increased workload they will get is not going to help this...
Anyone who advocates reinstituting BBs is suspect in my book. DDG-51s are are quite powerful. DDG-1000 isn't really going to add to fleet capability, it is more of the electric drive system is going to be the wave of future weapons platforms. . . ie EM-rail gun, point defense lasers which will be added once the technologies permit. Once AU has JSF they will have by far the best air services in the region, I just think a carrier would be a good idea when you can't get your tankers to a point of conflict. If Brazil can get the Foch for 12million, I think AU can fork out that much for a light carrier.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Big-E said:
We could find the money for a carrier, the strategic need just isn't there. We donated $1 Billion in aid to Thailand in the early 90's, just before she bought the CHAKRI NARUEBET light carrier (for less than $1 billion).
If necessary we could fund (and build) our own light carrier or carriers, however we consider ourselves to be in a very low risk strategic area. Thus we maintain capable but minimal forces. We currently devote 1.9% of our GDP (around $16 billion a year at present) to defence and operate a regular land force of 25,000, 12x major surface combatants, 6x submarines and (soon) 71x Hornets.
In the early 90's we had a regular army of 75,000 troops, our Navy had 6x subs and 15x major surface combatants and our airforce operated 24x F-111's and 71 F/A-18 Hornets. We did this with a GDP percentage of 2.4%.
If our strategic outlook deteriorated, it would be simple to re-instate national service (during WW2 we had a land army of greater than 500,000 troops with an entire population of 7 million) to boost troop numbers and we could massively boost defence funding. A half per cent GDP boost would return comparitive defence spending to early 90's levels and provide roughly an additional $8 billion a year to defence spending.
Such an increase would easily allow us to by 1 or 2 "light to medium" carriers AND the air group to go with it. Such carriers could be of the level of capability as that planned by Britain (with their upcoming CVF project), expand our AWD purchase to 6x destroyers and purchase around 120 JSF's on top of those needed for the carriers. A land force of 100,000 would not be out of the question, if the need were there, given our population increases (around 20 million now) and the warstock we possess and the funding we could divert to defence if necessary.
This of course, all presumes the need is there. It isn't and as such our forces will remain small. They are of course, rapidly progressing in quality...
Howard claims to have protected defence spending but the reality of the situation does not bear this out. It has stabilised from 1.8% as you say but a lot has been siphoned off on counter terrorism measures, the only real growth area. This has all the hallmarks of "turning a blind eye" yet they have managed to sell the idea to we, the great unwashed as responsible defence spending. Most other Western countries, which have nowhere near the same amount of area to defend, spend an average of 3% of GDP on defence.
What could we do with that?
What could we do with that?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
J.D. said:
People can say what they like about Howard etc. He HAS turned around ADF capability and related defence spending. Who when Labour was in power would have thought in less than 10 years, we'd have a fleet of upgraded Hornets, with long range standoff weapons, and a project to acquire and equal number of JSF's? Who'd have thought we would have a new fleet of AWD's and 22-27,000 ton Amphibious "helicopter" carriers on the way? A new fleet of Abrams MBT's, new fleets of C-17 Globemasters, Wedgetail AWACS, A330 aerial refuelling tankers, etc, etc
The list goes on and on. The truth is, Labour ran down ADF capability unbelievably. The fitted for but not with ANZAC frigates? Thanks labour, great idea. An army so ill-equipped it was not even truly capable of deploying a Brigade (minus) on a PEACE-KEEPING operation to the Country nearest us? We managed it, but came so close to failing, it is NOT funny.
What about the great so-called Air and Sea capabilities that were the corner-stone of their strategy? Submarines with combat systems that never worked. DDG's that were retired without planned replacement. ANZAC frigates that were designed to be equipped properly IF a war ever happened and ACTUALLy equipped with weapons that are obsolete before the last of class is even delivered. Aircraft that do not have the necesarry weapons to defend our air-sea gap, OR the EWSP kit needed to operate in a modern warfare environment.
An army that was PURPOSEFULLY runned down to the point it was only designed to defend against "limited incursions" on Australian territory from forces that "leaded through" the punishment the RAAF/RAN delivered to invading hordes. This of course led to the situation where Army was incapable of deploying a SINGLE infantry company to Fiji in 1987, when they needed help.
Did you know that all the Harpoon missiles that were supposed to be used to defend our air sea gap were deployed with the fleet? We had NONE in warstock. If RAAF wanted to use a Harpoon missile on an exercise, let alone an actual operation it had to be taken off an FFG frigate and transported to the RAAF base in question.
Did you know that Bob Hawke authorised the deployment of Clearance Diving Team 3 to the Gulf in 90/91, but REFUSED to allow them to take personal weapons for self-defence, so that he could justifiably uphold his stupid "no boots in the sand" mantra? They were still required to go on land though, they had to clear the beaches of course... Eventually the Government "relented" (after they equipped themselves with M-16's borrowed from Canadian forces in-Country) and "allowed" them to carry SLR's, despite this weapon having been removed from service approx 3 years earlier...
The list of problems goes on and on. Labour's handling of our defence has been (and will be if current policies are anything to go by) absolutely shameful. It's recent cries for JSF to be abandoned and F-22 to be bought and the Amhibs to be replaced by "numeorus" smaller vessels instead are no less shameful. For some reason it LOVES to listen to defence "kooks". Once upon a time it was Paul DIBB. Now it is Carlo KOPP and Peter GOON. Why they can't actually listen to Defence is beyond me?
Anyway, rant over.
As to what we could do with 3% of GDP spent on defence? Well the list is virtually endless. Every acquisition project could be effectively doubled, some even more so. We'd be able to pay the best wages in the land and probably wouldn't have the recruiting issues we have now...
AU-digger. . . I think with India and China becoming naval powers Australia is going to be in an awkward position. Once India starts steaming Gorshkov around Perth and China puts a Kuznetzov class off Brisbane the people will have a different opinion of their strategic position. Australia is going to be in the middle of pincher as China and India flex their muscles. I think they should be prepared. If they spend 3% GDP on defense they should be fine.
Aussie Digger said:
75K looks bit off AD. IIRC Regular Army was 26K.
Aussie Digger said:
To be fair, you don't know what Labor would have done with the Hornets. With Dibbs doctrine the cornerstone of Labour policy, I doubt they'd had have let them slide into irrelevancy. We don't know if Labor (still under Paul?) would have opted for JSF - what the current opp leader wants is irrelevant. He's out of the loop. IIRC AWACS and refuellers were programmes instituted under Labor. We don't know what the final count would have been there either.
I suspect you'd be on the money when it came to Army capability though. The question is, would 11th Sept have redefined Labor's vision for defence had they been in power? Would Labor govt gone to East Timor? Answer yes to both and I'd bet money on Army getting some dollars. IF no, forget the tanks/upgrade artillery. Ditto LHD's and C-17's. As to the AWD's - could they be fitted for but not fitted? (kidding)Labor's legacy endures in shambolic Project Management for big ticket defence items and legacy projects that haunt the current Gov.
I have to say, I love that Hawke story. Sending folks out in harms way without ability to protect themselves. (disgraceful) Where's the F-111 story though? ;-) Is there a credible source supporting these Hawke moments?
Well, I didn't intend to turn this into a political bunfight but there are a few points I think I should make. Howard's decision to buy the JSF without an evaluation process was IMHO reckless in the extreme, verging on dictatorial. I don't believe the man is sufficiently well-versed in airpower to be in a position to make that decision. Had the AIR 6000 committee come to the same conclusion after 5 years of in-depth analysis, I might have accepted it but not this way. As I have also said, I think we need to look further afield because I don't believe the JSF is the way to go on its own. The Federal Government have also been unclear as to whether it's a AU $12bn or AU $16bn project. The figures have been getting very rubbery lately.
As for the Abrams, most of the tankies in the Army didn't want it. They wanted the Leopard 2 and in fact, Robert Hill actually announced the deal to buy it before Howard scuttled that one a few weeks later with the current plan. Apparently Cosgrove wanted the Abrams and Howard wants Cosgrove in the Parliament if he can get him there. Strategists in the Army don't like the Abrams much because it is intended to be used in a high-intensity environment and requires higher levels of more specialised maintainence. It is also too wide to put on a train. BTW, perhaps you can help me here: is our version of the Abrams fitted with a 120mm gun or are we getting the original 105mm rejects?
I can't imagine that the Labor Party would have let the Hornets decline too much: the Air Force was always Bomber Beazley's favourite arm and it was they who proposed the upgrades in the first place, especially to the F-111. I sat in on the Boeing discussions at the Australian International Airshow in 1995 by which time they had already been funded, including the F/A-18. They were also responsible for the "bargain of the century" with the purchase of the F-111G, though they didn't do anything much with them once they got them here. By then Big Kimbo was no longer in charge. Meanwhile, the Labor administration had actually put the resources in the North where they were most likely to be needed after years of staring the bleeding obvious in the face.
I think the Collins debate has been greatly exaggerated and they were always going to be good ships but we in Australia are not used to having to do the development ourselves. In fact, we usually complain like crazy if we buy something new and there are fingermarks on it. It also doesn't help when our prime contractors try to shoot us in the foot by selling us out-of-date equipment.
I saw Harpoons on the ground at Amberly in 1995.
I knew about the diving teams problems: my cousin trained them.
Speaking of ships, who did that deal to buy those old rust buckets from the US without even doing a survey?
I don't believe the ADF has been too badly dealt with by either party (I'm not absolutely sold on either) but I have strong reservations about Prime Ministers who make decisions like that on acquisitions of that magnitude. I think he should have stayed out of it and let the committee do its thing.
Given that I'm a newbie around here, I think I'd better stop before I start annoying people...
As for the Abrams, most of the tankies in the Army didn't want it. They wanted the Leopard 2 and in fact, Robert Hill actually announced the deal to buy it before Howard scuttled that one a few weeks later with the current plan. Apparently Cosgrove wanted the Abrams and Howard wants Cosgrove in the Parliament if he can get him there. Strategists in the Army don't like the Abrams much because it is intended to be used in a high-intensity environment and requires higher levels of more specialised maintainence. It is also too wide to put on a train. BTW, perhaps you can help me here: is our version of the Abrams fitted with a 120mm gun or are we getting the original 105mm rejects?
I can't imagine that the Labor Party would have let the Hornets decline too much: the Air Force was always Bomber Beazley's favourite arm and it was they who proposed the upgrades in the first place, especially to the F-111. I sat in on the Boeing discussions at the Australian International Airshow in 1995 by which time they had already been funded, including the F/A-18. They were also responsible for the "bargain of the century" with the purchase of the F-111G, though they didn't do anything much with them once they got them here. By then Big Kimbo was no longer in charge. Meanwhile, the Labor administration had actually put the resources in the North where they were most likely to be needed after years of staring the bleeding obvious in the face.
I think the Collins debate has been greatly exaggerated and they were always going to be good ships but we in Australia are not used to having to do the development ourselves. In fact, we usually complain like crazy if we buy something new and there are fingermarks on it. It also doesn't help when our prime contractors try to shoot us in the foot by selling us out-of-date equipment.
I saw Harpoons on the ground at Amberly in 1995.
I knew about the diving teams problems: my cousin trained them.
Speaking of ships, who did that deal to buy those old rust buckets from the US without even doing a survey?
I don't believe the ADF has been too badly dealt with by either party (I'm not absolutely sold on either) but I have strong reservations about Prime Ministers who make decisions like that on acquisitions of that magnitude. I think he should have stayed out of it and let the committee do its thing.
Given that I'm a newbie around here, I think I'd better stop before I start annoying people...
Last edited:
J.D. said:
Ah yes. It was long overdue. Robertson barracks is quite nice bit of real estate actually. We finally have rail that goes connects Darwin to Adelaide - also long overdue.
J.D. said:
Again the rumour of the Leo 2 instead of the Abrams. Anyway - here are the facts on the Australian M1A1:
http://www.defence.gov.au/minister/Hilltpl.cfm?CurrentId=3643
Affirmative on the 120mm. Google is your friend.
J.D. said:
I'd be interested in your source here. I have it from a friend who was deeply involved in the AIR6000 process, that it was they, not the government, who came to the conclusion that JSF was the only way to go, and they made the recommendation to government based on this. Five years of analysis would have yielded the same result.
J.D. said:
AIR5376 (HUG) was initiated under Labor, again on Defence's recommendation. Only phase 3.2 (centre-barrels) came about under the Coalition.
J.D. said:
Labor had planned to put the Gs through a mini-AUP to make them more compatible with the Cs, however this was cancelled by the Howard government.
J.D. said:
I'd be interested in gf's assessment of this, but I can't see how a dud combat system can really be blamed on the government of the day. Government does not have the experts to know whether a system is good or otherwise, and so must rely on its advisors, in this case from Defence and industry, as to a systems' capability and worth.
At the end of the day, this is not a political forum, so we're probably crossing the line somehat. It's probably safe to say both sides of politics have stuffed projects up over the years, and they probably even out over the long run. Let's just focus on the present and the future, without apportioning blame.
Magoo
J.D. said:
They are excellent subs, they are probably the best conventional diesel blue water fleet sub in the world. The only other large fleet sub with similar performance variables are the Oyashios.
J.D. said:
I had some involvement with Collins and I'd have to say that this is an oversimplification - it would also require a couple of pages to clear up. But in compressed terms:
- opinion was divided on what we should get. Some in RAN didn't want subs, some in RAN wanted HDW's design, some in RAN wanted Kockums. Some in Army and Airforce thought that subs would pull budget monies from them.
- The contract was made more difficult by the Govt making it fixed price. That was just moronic and was clearly unsupportable as any number of examples were available that showed that it was not a realistic procurement model
- Because the contract was fixed, then future development issues had to be done within the body of that contract - so we were looking at having what was essentially a 286 powered data system and expected the vendor to upgrade at their cost. This was in a period when computing was undergoing huge transition - so the Govt made a rod for their own back. Its also why the contract had to be redefined.
- Kockums made an awful mess of number 1. in fact it was such a basket case that we had to rebuild the nose as it was so shoddily welded (this was done in Sweden). Personally, I wouldn't buy any vessel from the Swedes after this event - it was appalling work and there was no excuse for them signing off on it.
- At the design level we made a monumental step by extrapolating fleet dimensions into a smaller sub - you just can't extrapolate dimensions and expect it to work - but what was getting done had never been tried before (except in reverse with the Upholders - and in real terms they've suffered more and still continuing problems)
- The Prime naturally objected to picking up development bills for future unspecificed changes, but we were just as determined that we wouldn't pay for their initial manufacturing negligence. Every sub built in Australia didn't suffer any structural build problems,
- The project in real terms was regarded as technically more demanding than the entire Snowy Mountain Project - the fact that we managed to do this and come up with what many Class 1 Navies regard as the best conventional fleet SSK in the world is some testament to the combined willingness of everyone to resolve it in the end.
- Some of the technology developed for Collins has been made available to allies - and in a twist of irony, when Visby was trying to sell their stealth corvette, we were contacted and asked to apply the signature management tech to the vessel so that the swedes could trial it for the americans as part of the prelim LCS journey.
- A twist of irony is that the Libs were the harshest public critics, but if it wan't for the Libs then the subs potential probably never would have been realised. eg the fact that we now have the same legacy combat system as the Seawolf/Virginia is testament to their relationship with the US and their committment to fixing things
J.D. said:Given that I'm a newbie around here, I think I'd better stop before I start annoying people...
Just make sure you stick your queries into the right sections. ships/boats=navy, planes=airforce etc... If you get political the you'll get a cold shower pretty quickly from one of the mods.
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I won't say anymore about my thoughts on either political party ion Aust, I've had my rant. I will say, I'm aware that the RAAC wanted the Leo II instead of Abrams, but I think such arguments miss the point. RAAC is lucky to have ANY MBT in my opinion, and if the biggest argument against it is that "it's designed for high intensity warfare" than that's all the more reason to choose in in the first place. It is armed with the 120mm gun and Australia is getting an infantry support (canister) round with this tank.
As to the specialised maintenance, it's only significant difference to the Leo II is it's gas turbine engine. From my limited knowledge and a brief conversation with my father a while back (a retired Hastings Deerings and Telstra diesel fitter), turbines aren't significantly more difficult to maintain than modern diesel engines anyway. As to RAAC not wanting it? When has it ever mattered what the troops want? Do you think anyone REALLY wants M113AS3/4? I have it on good authority that RRAA wanted AS-90 for Land 17. Does anyone think it likely they'll get it? I doubt it.
As to Abram;s width, generic spec's available on the web show the leo II is 3.7m's wide and 7.7m's long, and the Abrams 3.65m's wide and 9m's long (including length of gun, protruding past hull). With the ADF variant of Abrams within 1000kg's of the leo II, I can't really see how there will be any problems with the choice of Abrams over Leo II or Leo 1, at least as far as basic dimensions are concerned. Leo 1 for instance has a length of 9.65m's (gun forward) and a width of 3.37m's.
Anyway, getting back on topic, you have a problem with th AIR-6000 process and so do I. I think an extensive comparison of JSF capabilities compared to other available platforms should have been conducted. I am confident however, that RAAF believes the JSF is the best choice, rather than simply THE choice. I doubt AM Angus Houston was ORDERED to write that ASPI article...
Labour might have decided to upgrade the Hornet's as part of their future plans, but they hardly ever actually decided to do it. They definitely didn't provide the budget for it. Most of the decisions have been made since the Liberals were voted in. Litening AT pods, BOL chaff/flare launchers and ALR-2001, for instance, didn't even exist back then. They've been developed since.
It seems to be an unfortunate truism that planned defence capabilities are nothing until such time as they are actually in the hands of the warfighter...
As to the specialised maintenance, it's only significant difference to the Leo II is it's gas turbine engine. From my limited knowledge and a brief conversation with my father a while back (a retired Hastings Deerings and Telstra diesel fitter), turbines aren't significantly more difficult to maintain than modern diesel engines anyway. As to RAAC not wanting it? When has it ever mattered what the troops want? Do you think anyone REALLY wants M113AS3/4? I have it on good authority that RRAA wanted AS-90 for Land 17. Does anyone think it likely they'll get it? I doubt it.
As to Abram;s width, generic spec's available on the web show the leo II is 3.7m's wide and 7.7m's long, and the Abrams 3.65m's wide and 9m's long (including length of gun, protruding past hull). With the ADF variant of Abrams within 1000kg's of the leo II, I can't really see how there will be any problems with the choice of Abrams over Leo II or Leo 1, at least as far as basic dimensions are concerned. Leo 1 for instance has a length of 9.65m's (gun forward) and a width of 3.37m's.
Anyway, getting back on topic, you have a problem with th AIR-6000 process and so do I. I think an extensive comparison of JSF capabilities compared to other available platforms should have been conducted. I am confident however, that RAAF believes the JSF is the best choice, rather than simply THE choice. I doubt AM Angus Houston was ORDERED to write that ASPI article...
Labour might have decided to upgrade the Hornet's as part of their future plans, but they hardly ever actually decided to do it. They definitely didn't provide the budget for it. Most of the decisions have been made since the Liberals were voted in. Litening AT pods, BOL chaff/flare launchers and ALR-2001, for instance, didn't even exist back then. They've been developed since.
It seems to be an unfortunate truism that planned defence capabilities are nothing until such time as they are actually in the hands of the warfighter...
Aussie Digger said:
Yes and No, but this shouldn't be a reflection on the government who made the decision to perform the HUG. Actually, ALR-2001 WAS around then (iin fact, it seems like it's been around for ever) as it was under development originally for the Pig and later for the Army's helos, but it wasn't selected for Hornet until late 04. Interestingly, every Hornet driver I've spoken to who was involved in the EWSP evaluation says the ALR-67 was far superior, not to mention already being in production and fully sorted, and common to the systems used in USN F/A-18A+/C/D/E/F.
You're right; BOL and Litening AT weren't around in 94/95, but they weren't scheduled to be downselected until they were, so I don't quite understand your reasoning/argument there.
The choice of the systems to fulfil the various phases of HUG may have been made under Liberal, but the program was started, and the various timetables and budgets were set under Labor. And, apart from Phases 3.1 & 3.2A/B being added (1999?), the project has stuck pretty close to that original budget.
Aussie Digger said:
I couldn't agree more!
On an unrelated note, I notice our friend Kurt is posting on another (and much less credible) forum as 'CH1446'.
Cheers
Magoo
Interesting your comment re alr-2001/2 vs alr-67Magoo said:Yes and No, but this shouldn't be a reflection on the government who made the decision to perform the HUG. Actually, ALR-2001 WAS around then (iin fact, it seems like it's been around for ever) as it was under development originally for the Pig and later for the Army's helos, but it wasn't selected for Hornet until late 04. Interestingly, every Hornet driver I've spoken to who was involved in the EWSP evaluation says the ALR-67 was far superior, not to mention already being in production and fully sorted, and common to the systems used in USN F/A-18A+/C/D/E/F.
{snip}
Magoo
Prior to its selection for project echidna, what was available on the net regards alr-2001 performance was quite positive. I have never read anything bad about it.
The argument was also made that the selection of an indigenous product was also going to be a big positive for local industry, as well as for ease of future upgrades and support.
On a totally different note, I'll also tack on this smh article
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/fighter-jet-costs-are-set-to-soar-to-18bn/2006/04/15/1144521542912.html
A word of warning for AD - if you are on anti-hypertensives, better take some before reading
"Fighter jet costs are set to soar to $18bn
By Jason Koutsoukis
April 16, 2006
AdvertisementAdvertisement
THE most expensive government purchase ever - the planned acquisition of 100 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) jets - faces another cost blow-out as the US Defence Department prepares to complete another review.
Already estimated to cost taxpayers $16 billion - up from $12 billion when the deal was announced in 2002 - the jets could end up costing more than $18 billion by the time of delivery......"
cheers
rb
rossfrb_1 said:
I never said there was anything bad about it, just that the evaluation pilots preferred the ALR-67. There is still an element of risk with the ALR-2002 program, and we should be building a smuch risk out of the Hornets as possible rather than putting more in.
rossfrb_1 said:
I agree and this was no doubt a major factor in its selection. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that BAESA told Defence that if they didn't get enough orders for the ALR-2002 (i.e, get it on the Hornet), it was not worth proceeding with its development which would have affected Black Hawk, Chinook etc.
rossfrb_1 said:On a totally different note, I'll also tack on this smh article
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/fighter-jet-costs-are-set-to-soar-to-18bn/2006/04/15/1144521542912.html . A word of warning for AD - if you are on anti-hypertensives, better take some before reading
"Fighter jet costs are set to soar to $18bn
By Jason Koutsoukis
April 16, 2006
THE most expensive government purchase ever - the planned acquisition of 100 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) jets - faces another cost blow-out as the US Defence Department prepares to complete another review.
Already estimated to cost taxpayers $16 billion - up from $12 billion when the deal was announced in 2002 - the jets could end up costing more than $18 billion by the time of delivery......"
AD has every right to be hypersensitive about this. Goon has obviously got in the reporter's ear. The LockMartspokesman referred to in the article spent the best part of an hour trying to explain the facts surrounding the program costs to the reporter, and did not say what he was quoted as saying.
An article also appeared in News Ltd press over Easter about the F-111s being retired in 2008, not 2010. I personally spoke with the Minister's office on Monday and was told that was "off the mark" and that the aircraft is still scheduled to be withdrawn "from 2010". I have been told by program insiders as recently as 2 weeks ago that June 30 2010 is the programmed withdrawal date. Perhaps the reporter was mixed up with 6SQN's F-111Gs which ARE planned for withdrawal from 2008.
Must've been a slow news weekend...
Cheers
Magoo
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
rossfrb_1 said:A word of warning for AD - if you are on anti-hypertensives, better take some before reading
rb
I'm not "on" anything mate, so don't worry about me. I don't really believe in medication and refuse to take anything until I'm practically at death's door...
As to Peter Goon's "predictions", I'm with the RAAF on this. There (GOON and KOPP's) strategic rationale is based on the total loss of American military superiority in the Asia-Pacific region and RAAF effectively having to "go it alone" in any future conflicts at vast distances from continental Australia, against advanced military forces that massively outnumber us. This scenario is simply totally un-realistic.
They can't (or won't) see that and neither will SMH, the Australian or any other rag, that sees an opportunity to boost sales by printing this ill-informed rubbish.
The only thing GOON seems expert in is getting headlines. He'll have Peter Beattie ringing him for tips soon...
Costings
Post from another forum relating to article that appeared in the SMH yesterday that had the JSF costing more than the F-22.
Have downloaded the links. There is plenty of information on the US Dept of Defence budgeting in the public domain, particularly reports to the US Congress.
This being the case, how is it that people in our Defence Department (and others), have got the costs so wrong?
Last thing seen from Defence on costs was Air Commodore John Harvey saying the price for the JSF was still US$45m in 2002 dollars.
For him and the price from this GAO report to both be true, the average inflation rate would have to be something like 13% per year.
Don't think so!
Someone is not telling the truth here or, maybe, just doesn't know.
Anyone got a handle on this or can shed some light on why there is this massive difference?
:mad3
Post from another forum relating to article that appeared in the SMH yesterday that had the JSF costing more than the F-22.
Have downloaded the links. There is plenty of information on the US Dept of Defence budgeting in the public domain, particularly reports to the US Congress.
This being the case, how is it that people in our Defence Department (and others), have got the costs so wrong?
Last thing seen from Defence on costs was Air Commodore John Harvey saying the price for the JSF was still US$45m in 2002 dollars.
For him and the price from this GAO report to both be true, the average inflation rate would have to be something like 13% per year.
Don't think so!
Someone is not telling the truth here or, maybe, just doesn't know.
Anyone got a handle on this or can shed some light on why there is this massive difference?
:mad3
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
This paragraph is pertintent from this report: "The total program cost estimates provided in the SAR include research and development, procurement, military construction, and acquisition-related operation and maintenance".
If you add up the ENTIRE project cost and divide by the number of platforms to be bought, you will end up with a VERY high cost. That is what Messirs Goon and Kopp, (and hence SMH) are doing.
FMS sales are NOT charged development costs. They charge only what the individual platform and maintenance, support and training charges cost.
WHY do people continue to believe this rubbish? And un-informed rag that sensationalises EVERYTHING and demonstrates on a regular basis it's almost complete lack of knowledge on ANYTHING defence related, when the very well informed customer has already testified to a Parliamentary enquiry (only a matter of weeks ago) as to what it expects to pay for this platform, based on it's discussions with the US Government and the manufacturer???
If you add up the ENTIRE project cost and divide by the number of platforms to be bought, you will end up with a VERY high cost. That is what Messirs Goon and Kopp, (and hence SMH) are doing.
FMS sales are NOT charged development costs. They charge only what the individual platform and maintenance, support and training charges cost.
WHY do people continue to believe this rubbish? And un-informed rag that sensationalises EVERYTHING and demonstrates on a regular basis it's almost complete lack of knowledge on ANYTHING defence related, when the very well informed customer has already testified to a Parliamentary enquiry (only a matter of weeks ago) as to what it expects to pay for this platform, based on it's discussions with the US Government and the manufacturer???
- Status