F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - Abbott agrees to buy more, more, more.

[Admiral Byng]

This shouldn't be a political issue.

The program has been delayed through technical difficulties. These were ordered under Howard and were supposed to be in the process of delivery by now. Rudd/Gillard deferred the actual payment for these aircraft because of the the delays, they didn't cancel the project as such. As the project comes to fruition and we start getting deliveries we will have obviously to pay for them.

Whether you think the fighter is any good or not, it's the only thing that's available to a smallish country like Australia. There aren't any alternatives to look at buying.

As for numbers, they are replacing 70-odd early model F/A-18 Hornets, so this announcement today brings the total to 71, which sounds about right. To be effective we need to operate these aircraft in significant numbers, having only a handful of them makes no sense.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

God our approach to the military is arsed backwards.

Just buy a *load of used yank planes like the assume F-22. Right now we have ******* 12 combat ready fighters and still waiting on these F35's.

 

[midorigreenwood]

Its a waste of time getting worked up about it.

Its obvious that the JSF decision is based more on the US alliance than the needs of the australian military.

I dare say Labor would do the same if they were in power.

 

[telsor]

This shouldn't be a political issue.

The program has been delayed through technical difficulties. These were ordered under Howard and were supposed to be in the process of delivery by now. Rudd/Gillard deferred the actual payment for these aircraft because of the the delays, they didn't cancel the project as such. As the project comes to fruition and we start getting deliveries we will have obviously to pay for them.

Whether you think the fighter is any good or not, it's the only thing that's available to a smallish country like Australia. There aren't any alternatives to look at buying.

As for numbers, they are replacing 70-odd early model F/A-18 Hornets, so this announcement today brings the total to 71, which sounds about right. To be effective we need to operate these aircraft in significant numbers, having only a handful of them makes no sense.

It's also a hell of a lot better for support and maintenance to have 1 type of plane per role.

Indonesian airforce for example has...
5 su-27
11 su-30
10 F-16 (+14 more on order)
23 Hawk 209
11 F-5E
4 super tucano (+12 more on order)
and 50 KF-X on order ( Korean, built partly in Indonesia)

so 7 types, sourced from 5 countries. Of course, that's 'just' the fighter/ground attack craft. It'd be a nightmare for for logistics and command/control.

 

[yibbida]

 

[telsor]

Its a waste of time getting worked up about it.

Its obvious that the JSF decision is based more on the US alliance than the needs of the australian military.

I dare say Labor would do the same if they were in power.

It'd certainly be a factor (and quite a rational one, being able to work with your allies is a good thing after all), and the ALP has supported it so far.

 

[noddy]

If it's value for money then fair enough i have no problem with it.

 

[stormee]

A few points:

• Most new military technology will have teething problems/cost blowouts. This is nothing new. By the time the 'build' models get to Australia I'm sure most of them will have been worked out.
  
• The value of this plane lies as much in its ability to operate with other capabilities and work as a 'network' as it does in stealth, speed, etc. This plus Growler plus AWACS = see the enemy and destroy them before they even know you're there or can target you.
  
• Yes, it's expensive. But take the cost over the life of the platform and it will appear cheaper.
  
• We need to invest in this capability NOW. Our Classic hornets will last until the F-35s start arriving, but they're on the verge of being outclassed by recent regional acquisitions. The only reason we can afford to field so few jets is firstly because we buy capability to stay one step ahead in the region, and secondly because we have the support of the Alliance.
  
• The biggest issue here is - who knows what the world is going to look like in 15 years? In 15 years the F-35 will be a mature capability, more capable than most in the region. If we don't have them and China is threatening regional stability, we're in a lot of trouble. Defence procurement is at its heart, management of risk.

Also pay no heed to 'Air Power Australia'. They are complete buffoons.

 

[Contra Mundum]

A few points:

• Most new military technology will have teething problems/cost blowouts. This is nothing new. By the time the 'build' models get to Australia I'm sure most of them will have been worked out.
  
• The value of this plane lies as much in its ability to operate with other capabilities and work as a 'network' as it does in stealth, speed, etc. This plus Growler plus AWACS = see the enemy and destroy them before they even know you're there or can target you.
  
• Yes, it's expensive. But take the cost over the life of the platform and it will appear cheaper.
  
• We need to invest in this capability NOW. Our Classic hornets will last until the F-35s start arriving, but they're on the verge of being outclassed by recent regional acquisitions. The only reason we can afford to field so few jets is firstly because we buy capability to stay one step ahead in the region, and secondly because we have the support of the Alliance.
  
• The biggest issue here is - who knows what the world is going to look like in 15 years? In 15 years the F-35 will be a mature capability, more capable than most in the region. If we don't have them and China is threatening regional stability, we're in a lot of trouble. Defence procurement is at its heart, management of risk.

Also pay no heed to 'Air Power Australia'. They are complete buffoons.

That was the guy I heard this morning - What is their problem - weirdly narrow focus for a think tank

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I assume all the rightwingers saying that the cost blow-outs are just the way it is, have similarly applied such reasonable expectations of large projects when looking at Labor proposals like the NBN?

 

[stormee]

That was the guy I heard this morning - What is their problem - weirdly narrow focus for a think tank

I'm not too sure. All I know is Dr Carlo Kopp, the guy who is the main writer for it, is a massive fan of Russian jets, and everything he writes inevitably leads to examining their superiority over US product.

He manipulates figures (especially regarding the lethality of Russian planes) to suit his argument, and if I was going to give a key indicator of why he shouldn't be believed/trusted, it's the fact that NONE of Australia's reputable defence/strategy think tanks (such as ASPI and the Kokoda Foundation) even deign to mention his work in any of their articles or debates. It's a small thinktank community - if you were writing anything with credibility you'd be noticed.

 

[telsor]

If it's value for money then fair enough i have no problem with it.

That's the problem...Hopefully, we'll never know.

The F-18's have never been used in anger (that I can recall), is that a waste, or have they contributed through deterrence/threat to maintaining regional stability and/or achieving our goals? (e.g. East Timor is free, in part, because Indonesia decided it didn't want to risk taking on our military).

Is backing up computers value for money if you never seem to use them?

 

[stormee]

I assume all the rightwingers saying that the cost blow-outs are just the way it is, have similarly applied such reasonable expectations of large projects when looking at Labor proposals like the NBN?

I don't really mind the NBN to be honest. I've got a family member who works for them, and she's swayed me on its necessity.

I have NO forgiveness for defence cost blowouts when they're managed by DMO - and I think DMO needs to be slashed staff wise by more than half, and its inability to deliver projects on time and on budget needs to be examined. It has almost 6000 employees. That's like... 2 BRIGADES worth of personnel... doing procurement. And when it can't deliver MATURE systems on time and on budget something is wrong.

But the F-35 is cutting edge and it's not a mature system. I'd give it some leniency, the same way I'd give our future submarine some leniency.

 

[Contra Mundum]

I'm not too sure. All I know is Dr Carlo Kopp, the guy who is the main writer for it, is a massive fan of Russian jets, and everything he writes inevitably leads to examining their superiority over US product.

He manipulates figures (especially regarding the lethality of Russian planes) to suit his argument, and if I was going to give a key indicator of why he shouldn't be believed/trusted, it's the fact that NONE of Australia's reputable defence/strategy think tanks (such as ASPI and the Kokoda Foundation) even deign to mention his work in any of their articles or debates. It's a small thinktank community - if you were writing anything with credibility you'd be noticed.

OK that makes sense

 

[telsor]

I really wish government procurement (defense and elsewhere) was simpler ...Set the price and require the contractor to deliver as per spec.

100 miles of highway including <bunch of technical requirements> for $200M. Done. Contractor comes back and complains of cost overruns..Bad luck to them, they should have considered that when making the bid. They fail to deliver, sue them, and they're banned from bidding on anything else for, say, 10 years.

Seems contractors calculate the best case cost, win the bid as the 'cheapest' on that basis, then just increase it to the 'real' price as circumstances allow.

 

[Admiral Byng]

I'm not too sure. All I know is Dr Carlo Kopp, the guy who is the main writer for it, is a massive fan of Russian jets, and everything he writes inevitably leads to examining their superiority over US product.

He manipulates figures (especially regarding the lethality of Russian planes) to suit his argument, and if I was going to give a key indicator of why he shouldn't be believed/trusted, it's the fact that NONE of Australia's reputable defence/strategy think tanks (such as ASPI and the Kokoda Foundation) even deign to mention his work in any of their articles or debates. It's a small thinktank community - if you were writing anything with credibility you'd be noticed.

The sensible strategic money is on purchasing such a major asset only from countries we trust and with whom with have a long history of friendly relations, pretty much the USA or UK. It's not only the upfront purchase, it's also long term support from the manufacturer. Say we bought Russian fighters 5 years ago and next month we vote against the Russians in the UN over the Crimea/Ukraine crisis. If the Russians decide they don't like us anymore it means added difficulties in maintaining and incrementally upgrading the prime front line asset of our air force.

 

[Oscarman]

Isn't the ongoing maintenance contract a bit shithouse too? Thought I heard it is basically a goldmine for Lockheed Martin with no ability to maintain it elsewhere.

 

[jim boy]

Just seems the sort of decision that may have been right 15 years ago.

Reality is that air power is going to shift significantly towards UAV's. And given the operational roles we tend to perform, that is an aircraft that is much better suited to our needs. Granted it is probably worth holding for three or four years on large scale purchases of UAV's due to the rapid improvements in technology now taking place in that field. Their will always be a requirement for a manned fighter, a force of 25 fighter planes with a 100 UAV's would seem like the sort of mix that is forward looking rather than backward looking.

 

[telsor]

I assume all the rightwingers saying that the cost blow-outs are just the way it is, have similarly applied such reasonable expectations of large projects when looking at Labor proposals like the NBN?

I would if it had gone through proper consideration and costing. Instead we had Conroy sketching it out on a napkin during a flight, an exceedingly expedited process of costing and how it could be done followed the the announcement.

 

[stormee]

Just seems the sort of decision that may have been right 15 years ago.

Reality is that air power is going to shift significantly towards UAV's. And given the operational roles we tend to perform, that is an aircraft that is much better suited to our needs. Granted it is probably worth holding for three or four years on large scale purchases of UAV's due to the rapid improvements in technology now taking place in that field. Their will always be a requirement for a manned fighter, a force of 25 fighter planes with a 100 UAV's would seem like the sort of mix that is forward looking rather than backward looking.

I'd suggest that's the next generation. Right now we're doing that for some purchases - see P-8 teamed with Triton UAV for Maritime Surveillance and Strike.

But for the purposes the F-35 is being developed for, nobody is yet moving into solely, or primarily using UAVs. We don't have the capability to develop those platforms indigenously, and none are available on the market at this point. I do take your point about holding off for 3-4 years, but even then I doubt the capability would be mature enough to stand alone or as part of a high/low mix with manned aircraft.

 

[telsor]

Isn't the ongoing maintenance contract a bit shithouse too? Thought I heard it is basically a goldmine for Lockheed Martin with no ability to maintain it elsewhere.

As I understand it, there is, at least, a significant potential for us to be the regional hub for maintenance. Not sure anything solid has been worked out here though.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

He manipulates figures (especially regarding the lethality of Russian planes) to suit his argument, and if I was going to give a key indicator of why he shouldn't be believed/trusted, it's the fact that NONE of Australia's reputable defence/strategy think tanks (such as ASPI and the Kokoda Foundation) even deign to mention his work in any of their articles or debates. It's a small thinktank community - if you were writing anything with credibility you'd be noticed.

You may well be right, but thinktanks ignoring experts who have views that disagree with them is absolutely par for the course. Especially if they are heavily linked to large industries/public service sectors.

The F-18's have never been used in anger (that I can recall), is that a waste, or have they contributed through deterrence/threat to maintaining regional stability and/or achieving our goals? (e.g. East Timor is free, in part, because Indonesia decided it didn't want to risk taking on our military).

Do you know that's why? Could our turning a blind eye to West Papua be even more relevant? There are a lot of theories that economics can be more persuasive in diplomacy than military threat.

I would if it had gone through proper consideration and costing. Instead we had Conroy sketching it out on a napkin during a flight, an exceedingly expedited process of costing and how it could be done followed the the announcement.

While I don't agree with this characterisation, can you explain how that approach is different to the JSF money-drain?

I really wish government procurement (defense and elsewhere) was simpler ...Set the price and require the contractor to deliver as per spec.

100 miles of highway including <bunch of technical requirements> for $200M. Done. Contractor comes back and complains of cost overruns..Bad luck to them, they should have considered that when making the bid. They fail to deliver, sue them, and they're banned from bidding on anything else for, say, 10 years.

Seems contractors calculate the best case cost, win the bid as the 'cheapest' on that basis, then just increase it to the 'real' price as circumstances allow.

It isn't as simple as you say since a contracter is going to operate with a contract that suits both parties, and that means putting in conditions. However, what you say is effectively what happens. The problem with your scenario is that the when the contractor stuffs up (like with the JSF which has been a long-term massive stuff-up we just keep pouring money into and which many people said we shouldn't have got involved in from the get-go) the government has to spend more money. A job has to be finished. A govt may not want to use a company again, but when it comes to the next tender they are going to look mostly at the bottom line (or whether they can line their own pockets like with AWH) and no doubt hesitate to use foreign companies that won't employ as many Australians or insist Aussies are employed and the foreign company goes and employs half the people who worked on the last failed project because they have the experience/resources. Govt has gotten a lot better at how they formulate Private-Public Partnerships, but inevitably Private business wants fat profits more than a good result for voters (shareholder laws even argue that their responsibility is shareholders first and a long-term target of reliability and gradual profit is rarely considered a plus when they have to report every year - we already complain the 3-4 years a political party is in power encourages short-term temporary gain over long-term sustainable gain).

 

[clogged]

Its a waste of time getting worked up about it.

Its obvious that the JSF decision is based more on the US alliance than the needs of the australian military.

I dare say Labor would do the same if they were in power.

Yep, it's an "alliance tax". Australia hands a few billion to the US military companies as a kind of tribute.

I recall reading the US defence force saying they no longer had operational needs for tanks, yet lobbying by private defence manufacturers meant they were forced to keep buying them. This is somewhat similar.

 

[stormee]

Yep, it's an "alliance tax". Australia hands a few billion to the US military companies as a kind of tribute.

I recall reading the US defence force saying they no longer had operational needs for tanks, yet lobbying by private defence manufacturers meant they were forced to keep buying them. This is somewhat similar.

I don't necessarily agree with this, but if it was an alliance tax, I wouldn't particularly be against it.

If we didn't have the alliance, we would have to spend volumes and volumes more on defence than we currently do.

 

[jim boy]

But for the purposes the F-35 is being developed for, nobody is yet moving into solely, or primarily using UAVs.

Maybe not, but those "purposes" for which manned is required is becoming increasingly narrow, we seem to buying for yesterday's needs, not tomorrow's. Meanwhile development on UAV's is favourable as the US military becomes increasingly risk adverse and arms manufacturers are more than happy to exploit this. The cost of the UAV's can be about a third of JSF - and that doesn't inlclude the smaller varieties.

Rather than lock us into a expensive procurement exercise in a technology that probably wont suit our needs to 15 years time, we can take a more measured approach with UAV's, where the cost of upgrading and rejuvenating is far less prohibitive.

It does remind me of the same head in the sand approach the computer world, where the reign of desktops and laptops as ubiquitous ended with the introduction of the ipad and the smart phone or in this case, the UAV.