Back in 2004, the new air combat capability office (NACC), stated that if the F-35 didn't pan out that we would start over.
So much for that idea because the word on the street is that there could be a commitment to purchase more Super Hornets. Sad because intellectual laziness can't replace logical considerations based in a tender process.
Time is short. It takes years to field a fighter aircraft into real squadrons. Fighters arriving in 2012 would have allowed the old legacy F-18s to retire with some kind of dignity.
The F-35 program will probably fail. If it does not, it is doubtful that an intelligent purchaser of military hardware can evaluate the design until 2020 at the earliest. This assumes initial operating capability for the F-35 in United States Air Force (USAF) does not slip further. IOC for the USAF is supposed to happen in 2018. Given another 2 years or so for tribal knowledge of real operators to grow and that is the time when you can really consider the worth of the F-35. Anything else is gross stupidity with the taxpayers money.
Australia no longer has a budget surplus like it did from the previous administration. There are also large budget commitments for Navy ships and subs. Any refresh of fighter technology will now have to be done over a longer time period. That is, unless someone can come up with an extra 200-plus billion to assuage the federal budget.
Below is a graphic I made up of one possible fighter replacement scenario. It does not fix the true problem of regional air domination. It only allows for Australia to have some serviceable second-tier strike fighter aircraft to use in conjunction with the US and other allies. It assumes short thinking on the part of Defence leadership with the fall-back being the Super Hornet.
It is possible that after an evaluation of the F-35, Australia may go in that direction. Because of all the problems, I doubt it.
So, about 2020 or so we do an evaluation of the F-35 program and either commit to it if it is mature and shows value, or move on to something else. What ever that is, I do not know.
Australia needs to start replacing legacy Hornets now. Australia can pay for the first batch of new single-seat Super Hornets and needed infrastructure by pulling the money from Faulkner's Folly.
Someone will probably trot out the comment that, "we have $16B committed to the New Air Combat Capability". Good luck with that idea in this budget climate.
It is sad that we have gotten to this point. It could have all been avoided; if only we had real air power leaders instead of useless bureaucrats. Until then, expect more misleading statements from Defence for 2012 about what a great job they are doing.
(click on image to make it larger)
9 comments:
I think if we go for more supers they should be F models but flown single seat by a classic squadron. This gives more flexibility in the management of the fleet in transition to
JSF.
Something to consider as well is a new super hornet only buys you LO, AESA and fatigue life over a classic.
The classic is still faster and has better E-M.
Whether more sips are required is going to be a very careful decision that old easily go either way.
With billions going to Navy for destroyer and new subs (I am not Australian but you can see overrun written all over that project from the USA!), going for proven and AFFORDABLE Supers seems reasonable.Just replace the Hornets with SHs, I am with ANON, just buy more F models.
Mix of E/F will be of course what ever RAAF thinks is best when they have a gun to their head.
My consideration is that we have 24 two-seats already. Under the weak idea that the Super is a solution, we need inexpensive solutions. It is cheaper to run an E model and that will be mostly status-quo with the least upset to the non-initial training efforts.
I wouldn't get much for the first E's except some buddy tank kits, and hybrid centerline IRST/drop tanks (to be fielded by USN), as a few of the must-haves. There is the potential to mission creep this out with all kinds of evolved Super ideas. I think that has to be avoided for now--big time.
Replace the Classic Hornets via a genuine competitive process with clear KPI's including performance, cost and delivery schedule. Obvious ompetitors would include: F/A-18E/F, F-16+, F-15E, F-15-SE, Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen NG ....and F-35.
Make an infomred choice and let the best fighter win.
ELP, I understand that a Super Hornet fleet based on a common airframe has appeal because of easier logistics and maintenance and interoperabilility with the USN.
However, until recently Australia has not tried to cover all its air combat needs with a single type (or family). The combination of F/A-18A and F-111 covered a broad spectrum of operational requirements. Moreover, it avoided the problem of a potential adversary being able to develop counter measures based on a single type.
A replacement example could be 50/50 combination of Typhoons with AESA and F/A-18F's. The Typhoons primary role would be A2A with a secondary strike role. The F/A-18F's would have a primary strike role with a secondary A2A role. (I'm not wedded to the Typhoon - this is simply one possible scenario.)
As you propose, around 2020 the RAAF should reconsider the F-35. If it works as advertised, it could be phased in by first replacing the F/A-18F's, and then take it from there. (BTW, the RAF is aiming at a Typhoon/F-35 mix.)
Perhaps it could better read: "The Australian Fighter-gap roadmap?"
Seems to me the issue is largely dependent upon just what cuts the US Government will make to their defence expenditure and how existing force structures planning might be massaged. At this stage, nobody can foresee how politics will affect the survival of the JSF program.
World demand for replacement/enhanced platforms is a factor. Upwards of 4,400 F-16 were manufactured but hitherto only around 500 Super Hornets; ergo lots of Fighting Falcons to be optimised or shed towards 2020. Lockheed Martin might be told to get more focused on F-16 enhancement.
Enhanced teen series aircraft will play an increasingly larger role in 2012 and forward. The simple reality is all governments are financially stressed and purchasing a high priced F-35 aircraft will not be possible. That is assuming it works, which it clearly is not even close to. Airframes will be upgraded to extend the hours, some straight replacements will take place such as an old hornet for new. The F-15 will see a mini revival thanks to the Saudis and ROKAF.
The world has reached an inflection point. Twenty years after the end of the cold war the cheap credit bubble which finally infected the real estate market has caused trillions of dollars of debt. All countries wiil not be able to de-leverage at the same time which = NO MONEY.
The idea of thousands of F35 is a cold war pipe dream. While the F-35 may eventually work out the bugs as all other aircraft have it will be fated to a niche aircraft at best if not killed off by massive budget cuts world wide.
UAV's will rise in popularity because they are cheaper. Until the next real war comes, actually war technologies that work are hard to predict, especially when planning cycles are 10-20 years. Peace time planning historically has been mostly fool hardy and most interested in perpetuating employment and contracts. The best technologies have always been created during real war because you either get it done, FAST, or you die.
It's a shame the state of fighter development has reached this point. But it's due to the excess and shallow thinking of the last decade. The F-35 and maybe even F-22 should never have been sole source contracts. Competition is a necessary component to all success. So in peace time where you do not have war, on must have competition.
Post a Comment