A few follow-up questions on the statements below would have pulled the rug out from under Duncan Lewis proving that whoever is advising him is either an idiot or dishonest.
He's equally confident the RAAF will eventually fly the Joint Strike Fighter, despite delays and increasing costs. "The project is running reasonably well," Lewis says. "We are watching this issue very, very closely."Emphasis mine.
The RAAF's Super Hornets mean there won't be an air capability gap even if the JSFs are delayed. "This is a global enterprise and it's not going to fold. There's no question of that, in my view."
Great "copy-paste" reporting. Too bad the Duncan Lewis comments have little basis in fact.
4 comments:
It is a great pity that serious debate in Australia about this major strategic purchase seems to be limited to those outside government and the mainstream media.
The the well documented problems with the F-35, including the latest revelations by Venlet himself, indicate that Australia needs to re-think it approach to purchasing its next fighter.
The RAAF should replace its Classic Hornets via a proprer competitive process open to all comers, including: F/A-18E/F, Typhoon, Rafale, Gipen NG, F-16+, F-15-SG, F-15SE - and the F-35. (I'm sure others can add to the list)
The selection criteria should not only include a comprehensive set of performace KPI's, but also purchase price, life-cycle cost and a reliable delivery schedule.
If other countries such as India, Japan and South Korea can run competitive processes, why not Australia?
Let the best fighter win.
Formerly regular Army followed by senior Public Service appointments before becoming the inaugural National Security Advisor to the Labor government; Duncan Lewis is now Secretary of the Department of Defence, so to be expected he would peddle much of the 'group think' that prevails within that institution.
They are wasting our money.
Perhaps one major problem with Australia's commitment to the F-35 was that it seems to have been seduced by the "early buy in" argument. The notion was that an international consortia, by pooling costs and expertise, would be able to develop a superior fighter at a realtively 'cheap' price per copy (in so far as fighters are ever describable as 'cheap'!)Those that signed on early would be offered the cheapest copies. But the project has blown out radically, due to a whole raft of issues.
Among them:
- Critics have argued that the project was too ambitious in attempting to deliver three major variants (particlarly the troubled V-STOL variant).
- In the face of delays, certain buyers have scaled back purchase orders, driving up the per copy price
- Apart from anything else, the sheer range of new and radical capabilities to which F-35 planners aspired have proven more technically complex to integrate than was intially expected.
I agree that we should at least contemplate reassessing our commitment in light of these costs. However, my question is - will anything else cut it? We still don't know how the F-35 will ultimately perform - but if it does finally deliver on many of its promises, should we make do with anything less? Is there really another viable 5th gen option for us? Just wondering? Also, were we to back out (and I don't have a clue as to contractual penalties that might be entailed in that) and go back to competitive tender, would this further drive up the price, supposing we still opted for the F-35? Perhaps we are a bit locked? I have no strong views, as not an air expert - merely musing.
Post a Comment