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

[Jakko]

Great troll Tony.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

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.

Great idea in theory, but as stormee made a huge point in that post - where does one currently buy these UAV's?

A lot of posters are saying this is a bad purchase but never respond with an alternative. Nevermind Canada, Israel, Italy, US, UK, Japan etc are all doing the same thing we are. Interesting.

 

[telsor]

Great idea in theory, but as stormee made a huge point in that post - where does one currently buy these UAV's?

A lot of posters are saying this is a bad purchase but never respond with an alternative. Nevermind Canada, Israel, Italy, US, UK, Japan etc are all doing the same thing we are. Interesting.

Why was I (mis)quoted there?

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

Why was I (mis)quoted there?

I made a joke, but decided it wasn't funny, the formatting got mucked up during the edit. Please ignore!

 

[telsor]

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'm sure a number of factors might have been considered, but the military one was clearly an issue considering at some points the 2 forces were looking each other in the eye.

Economics is doubtless persuasive...a combination is probably most effective however.

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

JSF was assessed and options considered *before* they decided to go ahead with it.

 

[clogged]

Great idea in theory, but as stormee made a huge point in that post - where does one currently buy these UAV's?

A lot of posters are saying this is a bad purchase but never respond with an alternative. Nevermind Canada, Israel, Italy, US, UK, Japan etc are all doing the same thing we are. Interesting.

They're a bad purchase regardless of who else buys them.

 

[Gough]

A lot of posters are saying this is a bad purchase but never respond with an alternative. Nevermind Canada, Israel, Italy, US, UK, Japan etc are all doing the same thing we are. Interesting.

One look at the other countries buying these and the idea of an alliance tax doesn't seem so far fetched.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Great idea in theory, but as stormee made a huge point in that post - where does one currently buy these UAV's?

A lot of posters are saying this is a bad purchase but never respond with an alternative. Nevermind Canada, Israel, Italy, US, UK, Japan etc are all doing the same thing we are. Interesting.

Canada has stopped funding the purchase of 65 Joint Strike Fighters, in a serious blow to the US’s most costly military programme, led by Lockheed Martin, the world’s biggest defence contractor by revenue. The decision means JSF is no longer Canada’s chosen jetfighter to replace its aging Boeing F-18s. Instead the F-35 will now have to compete with others such Boeing’s F-18 Super Hornet and perhaps even Eurofighter Typhoon, built by BAE, EADS and Finmeccanica. It is a setback for the other eight nation partners whose own JSF purchases are likely to become even more expensive, ... Canada’s purchase would cost C$45bn over 42 years. Canada’s conservative government initially sold the F-35 as a C$9bn purchase and had come under increasing pressure to reconsider following last spring’s damning report by the auditor general who concluded that the F-35 had been selected without properly weighing price and availability. The overall programme now carries a price tag of more than US$1 trillion over 50 years following years of price escalation and delays caused by technical and design problems.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/820a1384-453a-11e2-858f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2zgq2abZ1

^ That's from Dec 2012. Norway threatened to pull out if the US didn't back their Joint Strike Missile. A newer article suggests Canada still hasn't fully pulled out, but I'm sure the posters who are in or around Defense will know better.

Italy, Turkey and Canada have indicated they could pull out of the JSF program, greatly increasing the cost of each aircraft for Australia and the US.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/22861330/canberra-to-spend-12-4b-on-joint-strike-fighters/

JSF was assessed and options considered *before* they decided to go ahead with it.

So was the NBN. If someone is telling you otherwise, they are lying. There had been lots of chat about the various technologies before Labor went (mostly) with FTTH.

 

[RUNVS]

"Progressives" are so childish. Australia needs a defence force and an appropriate defence capability. Wars, human agression happens - history proves that. Rudd/Gillard/Rudd decimated defence so badly that it had its lowest expenditure to GDP since the 1930s. This was all to get an out of control budget and spending program back under control (which was never achieved). The US were so alarmed that Gillard and Smith had to be warned that they shouldn't simply rely on the US to come to Australia's aid should we require assistance.

The future of air warfare is drones. Buying the JSF in 2014 would be like buying a audio cassette player a year after CD's came out.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

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.

Could you expand on this for me? In what circumstances do you see a fleet of 70-odd JSFs being useful to us wrt China 'threatening regional stability'? What, are we going to send them over to defend the Senkaku Islands for Japan? Or to fight the Chinese should they ever get nasty with Taiwan?

I'm no military strategist - few of us are - but I would still like to read some logical arguments from people who do claim to be military strategists as to why this is a good purchase for the country.

From what I have read, it would be suicide for any nation to attempt to invade this country. Our much-maligned submarines could choke supply lines by sea and good luck to anybody trying to cross the continent by land. What's more, we've already begun the process of building more subs.

So these planes aren't about defence. At 'best', they are about attack (or 'force projection'). And what idiot thinks we ought to be spending our money on planes to attack China? If the US empire wants to go down swinging as China regains its historical position as world power then let them, but how many Australians want to hand over their tax money (and potentially their lives) to help the US in this futile exercise?

 

[telsor]

The future of air warfare is drones. Buying the JSF in 2014 would be like buying a audio cassette player a year after CD's came out.

And what year did air superiority drones come out?

 

[RUNVS]

And what year did air superiority drones come out?

Do you honestly believe there won't be one very soon (as in the next 5 or so years)?

Drones are the future and fighter jets with a pilot is the past when it comes to warfare.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

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?

Why do you have to turn every thread into a partisan hackery NTTAWWTight?

Labor and Liberal both support this wanton expenditure of money. So long as fools like you see these decisions through your narrow partisan paradigm, these decisions will continue unabated.

While it is amusing that you don't see just how easily you are being played by the puppeteers, it also distracts from conversations like the one taking place in this thread. Take your partisan nonsense elsewhere please.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Do you honestly believe there won't be one very soon (as in the next 5 or so years)?

JSFs aren't supposed to be ready until 2020 and have missed heaps of previous deadlines.

Why do you have to turn every thread into a partisan hackery NTTAWWTight?

I don't. This is just a particular topic that exposes rightwingers who frequently malign government waste. e.g. Meds's desire for govt spending on defence to go to 3% of GDP when he otherwise says govt is about varying degrees of incompetence and small govt is best.

Labor and Liberal both support this wanton expenditure of money. So long as fools like you see these decisions through your narrow partisan paradigm, these decisions will continue unabated.

I am not a fool. I am pointing out hypocrisy where it is relevant. JSF has been hugely maligned for a long time and we keep throwing money after it. How is that fact changed by me pointing out hypocrisy? Howard originally wanted 100, Labor ordered 12 and the Liberals are now ordering more (53 I believe, to make a total of 71). Pointing out rightwing hypocrisy is not even slightly a reason for these orders.

While it is amusing that you don't see just how easily you are being played by the puppeteers, it also distracts from conversations like the one taking place in this thread. Take your partisan nonsense elsewhere please.

Who are the puppeteers, oh paranoid one?

 

[RUNVS]

JSFs aren't supposed to be ready until 2020 and have missed heaps of previous deadlines.

Another reason to wait for the drones as that technology is progressing really quickly.

 

[telsor]

Could you expand on this for me? In what circumstances do you see a fleet of 70-odd JSFs being useful to us wrt China 'threatening regional stability'? What, are we going to send them over to defend the Senkaku Islands for Japan? Or to fight the Chinese should they ever get nasty with Taiwan?

I'm no military strategist - few of us are - but I would still like to read some logical arguments from people who do claim to be military strategists as to why this is a good purchase for the country.

From what I have read, it would be suicide for any nation to attempt to invade this country. Our much-maligned submarines could choke supply lines by sea and good luck to anybody trying to cross the continent by land. What's more, we've already begun the process of building more subs.

So these planes aren't about defence. At 'best', they are about attack (or 'force projection'). And what idiot thinks we ought to be spending our money on planes to attack China? If the US empire wants to go down swinging as China regains its historical position as world power then let them, but how many Australians want to hand over their tax money (and potentially their lives) to help the US in this futile exercise?

Basically, Australia's strategic position for decades has revolved around 2 points.

1. Defend the sea/air gap to the north. Yes, controlling the seas with Subs is a big part of that, but if we concede air control, then crossing the oceans (and land) wouldn't be all that hard, so we need to control both (actually, air matters more because it has more power to influence what happens at sea than the reverse). We can't match the rest of the region for quantities, so we aim to have/be the best when it comes to quality.

2. Support the US alliance...Yeah, we push forward and help them where we can, and while that isn't always a good thing, it (hopefully) means if we ever need their help, we'll get it.

So buying a top line fighter is important for point 1, and that it's a US plane helps with point 2 as they can cooperate more easily (some might call it alliance tax, but if we send planes to a US base, we can assume they'll have parts and qualified mechanics, making the logistical situation far easier). We can reasonably expect we'll still be allies if things go bad, meaning we can rely on them for ongoing support (parts resupply once stockpiles run out, etc).

 

[Gough]

Do you honestly believe there won't be one very soon (as in the next 5 or so years)?

Drones are the future and fighter jets with a pilot is the past when it comes to warfare.

Vale Top Gun.

 

[telsor]

I am not a fool. I am pointing out hypocrisy where it is relevant. JSF has been hugely maligned for a long time and we keep throwing money after it. How is that fact changed by me pointing out hypocrisy? Howard originally wanted 100, Labor ordered 12 and the Liberals are now ordering more (53 I believe, to make a total of 71). Pointing out rightwing hypocrisy is not even slightly a reason for these orders.

Labor bought 12, with an option for more which it was always highly likely to be taken up, whoever was in power (a smaller quantitiy are usually ordered/delivered first for training and 'evaluation' purposes). I dare say the contracted decision dates for orders were pretty much the days both orders were made (to maintain your place in the delivery queue, you must commit by XX/YY/ZZZZ, or face further delays by going to the end of the queue), and would have been handled more or less the same way whichever party was in power when those dates rolled by.

I really don't see this as a partisan decision.

 

[clogged]

Why do you have to turn every thread into a partisan hackery NTTAWWTight?

LOL.

Let's be honest, you would have been better posting this thread on SRP than this waste of time of a board.

 

[Jakko]

These single winged contraptions will never work.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

1. Defend the sea/air gap to the north. Yes, controlling the seas with Subs is a big part of that, but if we concede air control, then crossing the oceans (and land) wouldn't be all that hard, so we need to control both (actually, air matters more because it has more power to influence what happens at sea than the reverse). We can't match the rest of the region for quantities, so we aim to have/be the best when it comes to quality.

'Concede air control'. Who is going to control the air, and how? In defending the country we have strategically invaluable territorial advantage. Is the theory that Indonesia might send waves of planes down to Brisbane? Or that China might send a few aircraft carriers down to Sydney? Or that [insert enemy here] will knock out our subs and then transport the necessary materials by water to build new bases in our top end?

To gain air control they need both bases and supply lines - where and how are these going to be imposed?

 

[telsor]

Do you honestly believe there won't be one very soon (as in the next 5 or so years)?

Drones are the future and fighter jets with a pilot is the past when it comes to warfare.

I think it'll happen during the life of the F-35s, but I doubt a high quality one will be out before they're delivered.

Arguably we could go for something available now, knowing that in 20-30 years we'll be replacing them anyway (although probably the first generation(s) will work in tandem, rightly or wrongly), but considering the delays for delivery, if we wanted Eurofighters (for example), the first ones we'd get would be years off anyway.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Do you honestly believe there won't be one very soon (as in the next 5 or so years)?

Drones are the future and fighter jets with a pilot is the past when it comes to warfare.

They may be the future, but they are not the present. In 5 years time our F/A-18s will be turning 40. What if air fighter drones are slow in development and are still 5-10 years away in 2020? We'll have nothing. We must replace the F/A-18s within the next 5 years., which means we have to decide today, on what is on the market today. I reckon it will still be 10-15 years before we have a fighter drone capable of what a manned fighter is capable of, when they do become available they will be a handy complement to the manned fighters. But we need something to cover the gap, we can't just put it off and hope the technology will come to fruition.

 

[telsor]

'Concede air control'. Who is going to control the air, and how? In defending the country we have strategically invaluable territorial advantage. Is the theory that Indonesia might send waves of planes down to Brisbane? Or that China might send a few aircraft carriers down to Sydney? Or that [insert enemy here] will knock out our subs and then transport the necessary materials by water to build new bases in our top end?

To gain air control they need both bases and supply lines - where and how are these going to be imposed?

The sea/air gap is basically the Timor sea, and yes, any potential attack on us is likely to come from (through) Indonesia attacking Darwin and/or the on and off shore mining/drilling on the WA coast (which would stuff us up somewhat).

Is this likely? Not as things currently stand, but as the delays here show, you can't really build your military after the threat has developed, so we plan for the potential risks.

Yes, we have a definite advantage with our position...but that doesn't mean we can shut down the military and rebuild it when things look iffy.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

Yes, we have a definite advantage with our position...but that doesn't mean we can shut down the military and rebuild it when things look iffy.

That is just strawman nonsense.

Nobody is talking about 'shutting down the military'.

I am simply asking how it is of worthwhile strategic benefit to this country to have 70-odd very expensive jets.

And I am yet to hear a convincing argument - especially on defence grounds, which is what that ministry is supposed to be about.

We might as well change the name to Ministry for Attack or Ministry for American Imperialism and be done with it.