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

[Nuggs Bunny]

That kind of assumes the threat environment a bit, doesn't it? That we will up against a major power like Russia or China as part of a wider international (presumably US-lead) force as part of some wider geo-political conflict.

We would still have some F-35s of course, we have ordered a batch of them so we should honour that contract. They would be our contribution to any major international crisis. But I still like the idea of having a number of cheaper but still very capable aircraft to fill a niche role specifically about protecting the air-sea gap around Australia. Rather than buy another 25-30 or so extra F-35s like they are talking about, we could get about 50 Grippens for the same price. I don't see China, Russia or India developing a naval capacity with big fleet carriers deploying an air arm of stealth aircraft in the same timeframe as the useful service life of such a purchase.

I think it is rather absurd for us to be thinking that we are a major world player.

The most likely adversary that the RAAF was assuming the F-35 would face would still have been Indonesia. Buying the F-35 makes even more sense in this circumstance because the the Australian technology advantage, which we've long depended on, is able to be exploited even further. Gripens, on the otherhand, are one such air craft the Indonesians are considering buying themselves so we'd lose the advantage by the end of the decade. We're probably twice as likely to lose a Gripen in combat than an F-35, if not more, so I don't see a circumstance where the Gripen is a better option than the F-35 unless we just couldn't afford the F-35. Even putting aside that the Gripen is significantly inferior to the F-35, adding more complexity to the RAAF by adding a third type of strike fighter isn't likely to work in our favour.

However, China is definitely aiming to develop a naval capacity with carriers and carrier-borne 5th-gen aircraft in the next few decades. Russia would too, if they weren't so poor. Hence why Australia is scrambling to invest in new land-based and air-launched anti-ship missiles.

 

[Admiral Byng]

The most likely adversary that the RAAF was assuming the F-35 would face would still have been Indonesia. Buying the F-35 makes even more sense in this circumstance because the the Australian technology advantage, which we've long depended on, is able to be exploited even further. Gripens, on the otherhand, are one such air craft the Indonesians are considering buying themselves so we'd lose the advantage by the end of the decade. We're probably twice as likely to lose a Gripen in combat than an F-35, if not more, so I don't see a circumstance where the Gripen is a better option than the F-35 unless we just couldn't afford the F-35. Even putting aside that the Gripen is significantly inferior to the F-35, adding more complexity to the RAAF by adding a third type of strike fighter isn't likely to work in our favour.

However, China is definitely aiming to develop a naval capacity with carriers and carrier-borne 5th-gen aircraft in the next few decades. Russia would too, if they weren't so poor. Hence why Australia is scrambling to invest in new land-based and air-launched anti-ship missiles.

I don't see Indonesia being an existential threat to Australia. They won't have the resources to build up sufficient numbers to attack us.
I also see no reason why we would ever need to attack them, unless we are specifically after a few million uneducated peasants, but they are so plentiful we could import them from any country.

I only see a major blue water navy with fleet carriers and extensive logistical support as an existential threat to Australia. One that can operate in the open ocean. Only the US has that capability today. I know China want it but they are still a good 20 years away, and we have time to observe and react accordingly. It is not like they can build up that capacity in secret. Also the Russians are getting pissed off with them copying their stuff and restricting technical assistance or sales of their latest high tech gear, so increasingly China will need to develop it alone.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

In 20 years time (2035 at the absolute earliest) the Tempest (6th generation Typhoon) might be available, with the UK about to commit to building it

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

I don't see Indonesia being an existential threat to Australia. They won't have the resources to build up sufficient numbers to attack us.
I also see no reason why we would ever need to attack them, unless we are specifically after a few million uneducated peasants, but they are so plentiful we could import them from any country.

I only see a major blue water navy with fleet carriers and extensive logistical support as an existential threat to Australia. One that can operate in the open ocean. Only the US has that capability today. I know China want it but they are still a good 20 years away, and we have time to observe and react accordingly. It is not like they can build up that capacity in secret. Also the Russians are getting pissed off with them copying their stuff and restricting technical assistance or sales of their latest high tech gear, so increasingly China will need to develop it alone.

They aren't, but they're still a greater existential threat to Australia than anybody else mostly due to geography.

20 years away is very pessimistic, or optimistic perhaps. Their first indigenous carrier is floating now. With their shipbuilding capabilities, they'll have several more in service soon. If they manage to secure a base in the pacific, they'll be far more capable of power projecting into our region than what we've planned for. IMO, it's not a 20 year time frame, things could change very quickly in as little as 5.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

All we need is good diesel subs to cover any carrier force

Don't need no seppo s**t

 

[madmug]

I don't see Indonesia being an existential threat to Australia. They won't have the resources to build up sufficient numbers to attack us.
I also see no reason why we would ever need to attack them, unless we are specifically after a few million uneducated peasants, but they are so plentiful we could import them from any country.

I only see a major blue water navy with fleet carriers and extensive logistical support as an existential threat to Australia. One that can operate in the open ocean. Only the US has that capability today. I know China want it but they are still a good 20 years away, and we have time to observe and react accordingly. It is not like they can build up that capacity in secret. Also the Russians are getting pissed off with them copying their stuff and restricting technical assistance or sales of their latest high tech gear, so increasingly China will need to develop it alone.

The F35s here wouldn't make the distance to & back from anywhere meaningful in Indonesia. Unless you want to bomb a few trees in West Timor. Spending time over the 'battle' area would reduce what flight time they do have.

No, really, the F35 may as well be part of the USAF for all the value they are to the Australian taxpayer.

 

[Admiral Byng]

The F35s here wouldn't make the distance to & back from anywhere meaningful in Indonesia. Unless you want to bomb a few trees in West Timor. Spending time over the 'battle' area would reduce what flight time they do have.

No, really, the F35 may as well be part of the USAF for all the value they are to the Australian taxpayer.

Unless we had some of the carrier S/VTOL versions.

.. and a small aircraft carrier capable of operating them. I understand that our fancy new LHD ships (the ones I mentioned earlier that can't carry our main battle tanks) can't operate the F-35 B because the decks are not built strong enough or with sufficient heat protection from the hot jet exhaust.

 

[Present Not Past]

Do we still want that to be the main focus of our military?

The RAAF is not the main focus of our military. That belongs to our amphibious task group. Just look at the money that the government is pouring into this area.
However, having a modern Air Force capable of defending our major military assets is still an important part of our overall military strategy.

 

[Present Not Past]

The RAAF act merely as squadron or so within the USAF. That how we seem to use the pointy end of RAAF. It really is a WOT. Its a waste of huge amounts of our treasure.

There's nothing wrong with our aircraft acting as a squadron alongside our major ally.
Can you imagine Australians turning up for the Battle of Britain and flying Sopwith Camels?

 

[madmug]

There's nothing wrong with our aircraft acting as a squadron alongside our major ally.
Can you imagine Australians turning up for the Battle of Britain and flying Sopwith Camels?

My point was, surely we've had enough costly adventurism with the US? Our joint efforts like Pine Gap is enough. Out navy can be easily integrated & can also defend our shores. The F 35s are of little use except in off shore adventures, & making money for the US.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

The F35s here wouldn't make the distance to & back from anywhere meaningful in Indonesia. Unless you want to bomb a few trees in West Timor. Spending time over the 'battle' area would reduce what flight time they do have.

No, really, the F35 may as well be part of the USAF for all the value they are to the Australian taxpayer.

The F-35s are perfectly suited to defending our airspace just like the Hornets were. We have no ambitions bombing Jakarta and even if we did, we do actually have other aircraft for that.

 

[madmug]

The F-35s are perfectly suited to defending our airspace just like the Hornets were. We have no ambitions bombing Jakarta and even if we did, we do actually have other aircraft for that.

If we can't fly off to attack Indonesia, I'm damn sure they couldn't fly far enough to bother us either.

So who/what are we defending our airspace from again?

Also considering the size of Australia, which little bit are we defending from who/whatever?

 

[NSWCROW]

If we can't fly off to attack Indonesia, I'm damn sure they couldn't fly far enough to bother us either.

So who/what are we defending our airspace from again?

Also considering the size of Australia, which little bit are we defending from who/whatever?

Those filthy dirty mooselem boaties

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

If we can't fly off to attack Indonesia, I'm damn sure they couldn't fly far enough to bother us either.

So who/what are we defending our airspace from again?

Also considering the size of Australia, which little bit are we defending from who/whatever?

We can fly off to attack Indonesia and they're certainly capable of doing the same. Our shipping routes and some very important national defense assets are easily within their range.

I mean, you can pretend that the last 70 years of uneasy peace between major powers will continue but history suggests it won't.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

The most likely adversary that the RAAF was assuming the F-35 would face would still have been Indonesia. Buying the F-35 makes even more sense in this circumstance because the the Australian technology advantage, which we've long depended on, is able to be exploited even further. Gripens, on the otherhand, are one such air craft the Indonesians are considering buying themselves so we'd lose the advantage by the end of the decade. We're probably twice as likely to lose a Gripen in combat than an F-35, if not more, so I don't see a circumstance where the Gripen is a better option than the F-35 unless we just couldn't afford the F-35. Even putting aside that the Gripen is significantly inferior to the F-35, adding more complexity to the RAAF by adding a third type of strike fighter isn't likely to work in our favour.

However, China is definitely aiming to develop a naval capacity with carriers and carrier-borne 5th-gen aircraft in the next few decades. Russia would too, if they weren't so poor. Hence why Australia is scrambling to invest in new land-based and air-launched anti-ship missiles.

The reason we knocked back the Gripen back when we were looking at an interim option for the F-35, outside lack of interoperability, is that the RAAF felt that it was too small for the the multipurpose fighter role and that it couldn't carry enough EW gear and standard RAAF ordinance. We ended up going with the Super Hornet in the end for the interim option instead of the Gripen, Typhoon and Rafalae.

TBH, if logistics, interoperability and C4isr are ignored for a moment, I would have gone with the French Rafalae over a few options, including the SH.

China is focusing on its area denial capabilities, so I assume the aircraft carriers is line with their sea lane control strategy as they would want to secure the Malacca straits pretty quick if they were to have any hope against the US/Indonesian/Australian forces maintaining an effective distant blockade of China in the future.

Russia has a few issues. Some of their aircraft are quite good, like the SU/27 Flankers, but the electronics and C4isr capabilities are nowhere near the USA's. Same with their new 5th generation jet, brillant dogfighter, but is considered 'dirty technology'.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

The F-35s are perfectly suited to defending our airspace just like the Hornets were. We have no ambitions bombing Jakarta and even if we did, we do actually have other aircraft for that.

A lack of payload, an average range (refuelling aircraft are really vulnerable and cumbersome) and fairly average dogfighting capability limits the F-35's value in Australian operational conditions, despite it's current stealth prowess putting it ahead of all current fourth generation jets. I'm more worried about the development and proliferation of the J-31 in the region.

Depends on the strategy you want for Australia, but seem we haven't replaced the F-111's range and delivery system as well as lack a long-range cruise missile option, I would say we aren't too concerned about having a long-range sovereign strategic strike capability or bombing Jakarta any time soon. It makes sense to make an ally of Indonesia tbh, I know the USA hopes that.

If we truly want continental defence, then we should be investing in shore-based anti-shipping missiles, better air defence, lighter tanks and more transport aircraft. The F-35 is all well and good, but it needs to complemented by a decent dogfighter tbh, in particular a long-ranged fighter due to Australia's operational conditions. I know the USA has attempted to integrate their F-35's and their remaining F-22 Raptors with good results. I'm not too keen on the Super Hornet, but its interoperability and their C4isr capabilities make them decent aircraft, but I just don't rate it's jack of all trades, master of none status.

At the moment, our defence strategy is continental defence, regional stabilisation (including the Indian Ocean now) and protecting the global rules-based order. We don't have the money to develop capabilities and equipment for all three objectives, despite the three strategic defence objectives having equal weight for designing force structure.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

In 20 years time (2035 at the absolute earliest) the Tempest (6th generation Typhoon) might be available, with the UK about to commit to building it

Hopefully won't be like the TSR-2.

We don't buy British combat jets, the last British jet we bought for the RAAF was the Canberra bomber and Gloster Meteor, notwithstanding the old Sea Venom for the RAN.

 

[Present Not Past]

If we can't fly off to attack Indonesia, I'm damn sure they couldn't fly far enough to bother us either.

So who/what are we defending our airspace from again?

Also considering the size of Australia, which little bit are we defending from who/whatever?

Our aircraft, crews and ground staff are more than capable of deploying overseas when and where they are needed.

 

[Admiral Byng]

If we truly want continental defence, then we should be investing in shore-based anti-shipping missiles, better air defence, lighter tanks and more transport aircraft. The F-35 is all well and good, but it needs to complemented by a decent dogfighter tbh, in particular a long-ranged fighter due to Australia's operational conditions. I know the USA has attempted to integrate their F-35's and their remaining F-22 Raptors with good results. I'm not too keen on the Super Hornet, but its interoperability and their C4isr capabilities make them decent aircraft, but I just don't rate it's jack of all trades, master of none status.

Just out of curiosity - what sort of missile would this be? Long range and superfast, with targets identified by some other aircraft or ship and coordinated by datalink and so on? What about more and better air-launched anti-ship missiles?

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Just out of curiosity - what sort of missile would this be? Long range and superfast, with targets identified by some other aircraft or ship and coordinated by datalink and so on? What about more and better air-launched anti-ship missiles?

If Australia were to be invaded by a conventional power (only China and the USA have that capacity atm), we would need to defend our air-sea approaches, so at least intermediate range and definitely super fast as the enemy would come in strength. Taking a utilitarian approach as well by targeting their higher value ships if we can.

Depends on the enemies counter-c4isr technology. We have the Poseidon and tactical data link (data link 11, provided by the USA), linking both up is fundamental.

Our air launched missiles are generally short range and we mainly rely on the harpoon and torpedoes from the ran. The posieden has anti-ship capabilities, but is very vulnerable. Ideally, our strategy should be quick counter attack in our local air-sea approaches as not only do we lack wartime fuel reserves, but our war stocks are shockingly average. We rely on just in time supply arrangements and logistics treaties with the USA, particularly for missiles as we lack the capacity to mass produce missiles. The USA is having its own industrial issues with precision guided missile production and would currently struggle to meet the wartime demand of the USA, let alone its allies, not even counting the shipping issues as we don’t have a merchant marine anymore.

Until we bother to invest in advanced missile production or stockpile a lot more, we would be embarrassed by a Chinese invasion atm. I personally wouldn’t a sovereign long-range cruise missile option for counterattacking, at least hitting key staging areas and logistics bases as any invasion would most likely come through enemy controlled Indonesian islands and water.

 

[Present Not Past]

China has already shown an interest in the mineral wealth that lays underneath Antarctica.
You have to move past this idea that Australia only has to defend it's coastline.
The next big war is going to fought over natural resources, and these resources may be hundreds of kilometres away from our shores.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

China has already shown an interest in the mineral wealth that lays underneath Antarctica.
You have to move past this idea that Australia only has to defend it's coastline.
The next big war is going to fought over natural resources, and these resources may be hundreds of kilometres away from our shores.

Range, range and range. I agree about the resources, that was the long-term aim of the Iraq invasion.

That’s all well and good, but they would need to ship said resources through key shipping lanes near Australia and Indonesia. Trade interdiction will return with a vengeance during the next big war.

The US airsea battle strategy itself notes the importance of key American allies maintaining a major distant blockade, while the USA penetrates deep into China to destroy their area denial capabilities in total.

 

[Admiral Byng]

If Australia were to be invaded by a conventional power (only China and the USA have that capacity atm), we would need to defend our air-sea approaches, so at least intermediate range and definitely super fast as the enemy would come in strength. Taking a utilitarian approach as well by targeting their higher value ships if we can.

Depends on the enemies counter-c4isr technology. We have the Poseidon and tactical data link (data link 11, provided by the USA), linking both up is fundamental.

Our air launched missiles are generally short range and we mainly rely on the harpoon and torpedoes from the ran. The posieden has anti-ship capabilities, but is very vulnerable. Ideally, our strategy should be quick counter attack in our local air-sea approaches as not only do we lack wartime fuel reserves, but our war stocks are shockingly average. We rely on just in time supply arrangements and logistics treaties with the USA, particularly for missiles as we lack the capacity to mass produce missiles. The USA is having its own industrial issues with precision guided missile production and would currently struggle to meet the wartime demand of the USA, let alone its allies, not even counting the shipping issues as we don’t have a merchant marine anymore.

Until we bother to invest in advanced missile production or stockpile a lot more, we would be embarrassed by a Chinese invasion atm. I personally wouldn’t a sovereign long-range cruise missile option for counterattacking, at least hitting key staging areas and logistics bases as any invasion would most likely come through enemy controlled Indonesian islands and water.

Do you think we have the domestic capacity to develop a suitable anti-ship missile system?

 

[Sainteric]

Besides which, the Abrams are too heavy to fit on the landing craft which the Canberaa Class LHDs carry. they are just a bit too heavy and can only be used on an absolutely calm sea state.

Another great bit of planning and foresight went into that decision.

The reason we bought old Abraham's supposedly so we can send tank crews and the yanks bring the tanks

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Do you think we have the domestic capacity to develop a suitable anti-ship missile system?

In collaboration with the USA, quite possibly, although times have changed since we developed the Ikara anti-submarine missile. Currently, Australia lacks the scientific and industrial capacity to produce precision-guided munitions for the ADF, which means we are reliant on far-away US sources as we don't maintain large stockpiles as it is expensive and our munitions tend to become unusable the longer they sit in storage. Seem Australia is investing so much R&D and other resources into the ship and submarine building programs, Australia will do what it has always done, look for a cheaper foreign option, usually a Military-Off-The-Shelf Option (MOTS) or from the Future Military Sales (FMS) program.


Proportionally speaking, our public R&D for developing weapon systems is quite capability specific (i.e. JORN, collaborative projects with the USA, software integration and adapting foreign weaponry for Australian purposes.) and funding is rather sporadic and limited in comparison to other middle powers, let alone the massive R&D budget of the USA. We lack major privately driven military R&D, so we rely on government investment.


Current status:
Maritime Anti-Ship Missiles & Deployable Land-based Capability ($4bn-$5bn) for some point in the 2020s, which is great.

http://www.defence.gov.au/WhitePaper/Docs/2016-Defence-Integrated-Investment-Program.pdf (Page 87)
"Defence will acquire a new deployable land-based anti-ship missile system from the mid-2020s. This new capability to engage ships from land will enhance sea control and force protection for ADF deployments. It could also contribute to protecting vital offshore assets such as oil and natural gas platforms."

Judging by the defence jargon (acquire instead of develop/produce), looks like we are buying a foreign weapons system to defend our North-Western approaches, where our oil and natural gas platforms are, so lucky WA. The system would need to also fit into our C4isr network, which contains American tactical data links, so it looks like we are buying American again, which isn't necessarily a bad thing as they produce good stuff, but it limits us even further in terms of extracting ourselves from any situation involving a Chinese-US conflict and our dependency on American advanced logistics and munitions.