The Defence project to equip 12 of the 24 RAAF Block II Super Hornets with jamming gear that the U.S. Navy has stated is obsolete against emerging threats has blown out by almost 6-times or $1.4B dollars The Australian has learned.
Back in the Joel Fitzgibbon regime as Defence Minister, the project was supposed to cost $300M. Recently, a U.S. Government Defence proposal has stated this work would cost up to $1.7B.
This conversion which turns a two-seat F-18F Super Hornet into an electronic jamming F-18G would cost Defence and you the tax-payer $142M per jet. This is almost twice the cost of a new F-18F Super Hornet. A new F-18G costs the U.S. Government around $90-100M each.
Defence, uses the argument that the jamming capability of the F-18G was used successfully in last years fight against Libya. This is a crock. Libya's air defence capability was a joke and will be nothing close to the emerging threat picture in the Pacific Rim. Also, the F-18G is draggy, short-ranged and highly dependent on air-refueling resources.
While the F-18G may be fine to electronically jam older (or "legacy") air defence systems from the Soviet-era, the single-seat F-18E Super Hornet and the two-seat F-18F Super Hornet, in their Block II configuration, can already detect, pin-point and destroy this kind of threat. This includes the fact that the on-board jamming system and towed-decoy of the E and F Super Hornet provide outstanding self-defence capability against older threats.
Defence does not seem to be acting in a responsible manner with our tax dollars in the current budget environment.
A few days after the federal budget announcement, Defence spent $1.4B for 10 C-27J light airlift aircraft stating they were a Caribou replacement when they were not. The other reason Defence used justify this purchase was that the C-27J gets into more airfields than a C-130. True, but the C-130J's purchased by Defence were justified as "strategic air-lifters". And, while a variety of aircraft can get into more airfields than a C-130J, there was no formal tender for the C-27J against its world-wide competitor, the Airbus C-295.
Using the justification that they have to make ends meet under the new federal budget, Defence has cut funds used to get single enlisted soldiers fighting in Afghanistan home on leave. These troops in a combat theatre will have to pay for their own flights. The general that helped make this decision, can easily afford such flights.
50 comments:
If they had any brains, contract Elta for instance, and get an up to date relevant and far less costly system.On time as well Perhaps fund it and involve local companies, and get to co own the IP, and able to update and further develop it.
Get something for your buck, and think long term
Speculation on the ALQ-99's highly classified upgraded capabilities based on cherry-picked inferences from lines in open-source presentations is not a valid argument for claiming they are obsolete for the purpose Australia is buying them for.
Re the comments regarding the Caribou replacement with something that is not a replacement.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/blackwater-subsidiarystransport-contract-for-central-asian-front-03073/#more-3073
Really Flasheart?
And exactly what purpose are they to be used for then, at $142 million per jet which is roughly 40%+ greater than what the USN is paying for them brand new?
Lets not forget these aircraft where supposedly wired up on the production line with a "fitted for, not with" capability to be retrofitted into Growlers down the track. So why the massive spike in the cost of the conversion from what we were told only a handful of years ago? And of course there is the slightly uncomfortable fact that USN senior officers have admitted publicly that the ALQ-99 is becoming rapidly obsolete, hence the clamor for the NGJ.
No, Im afraid no matter what way you try and dress up this piece of mutton it is in theory a good idea that is being incredibly badly executed. And at a ridiculous and unjustifiable price. Why not simply buy 12 brand new G's for 90-100 million instead of converting half our purchased F's at 140 million a pop? Do these idiots know how to count past the fingers and toes they were born with?
Far better to push for more Super's in Block III form and look at various other pod solutions, given we will probably never go head to head with a first rate IADS and even if we do it will be part of some coalition effort using USN/USAF jamming ability.
To suggest it is not a valid argument to question the capability of the ALQ-99 given statements by senior military officers over its approaching obsolescence and limited further scope for future upgrade. As well as a complete lack of valid data showing it IS capable against modern high end threats, let alone the price of this program is simply not a credible statement. Unless of course you know something we all dont.
Goldeel 1, going by history, anything DMO gets its's hands on either;
1) Does not work, eg Tigre and MRH90
or
2)Costs several times what it really should, eg $1.4 billion for 10 C27J.
Eric, you've missed the mark about flights home from Afghanistan. Go read a source document E.G. ADF PACMAN to make sure you know what you're blogging about.
Goldeel, when it comes to price, make sure you're comparing apples with apples.
When the GOA announcement is made, look through the source documents and break down the costs. There is a lot more involved than the internal conversion from F models to Growlers which is in the 1.7B figure.
For an example, consider the $6billion media figure for super hornets.
Definitely didn't cost $250million per jet.
Do consider guys that not every single line item or the full details of the TLS package is contained within DSCA announcements before getting bent out of shape guys. A classic example of this is the JHMCS system that Singapore is using on it's F-15SG fleet. These weren't contained within any of the DSCA announcements about the F-15 purchase, so how did they get them?
Answer: not everything being acquired IS listed in there. These announcements are legislatively required to be released publicly, but the exact particulars often aren't released for national security, commercial in confidence and a myriad of other reasons.
This DSCA request includes options on AGM-88 HARM and AGM-88E AARGM that haven't been revealed yet, as well as an (as yet) unspecified through life support package, just like the $6.6b package did.
Getting all bent out of shape over this, when you don't know the particulars of what has been requested beyond generics, is a little silly.
Flat out, the Super Hornet E/F (new build), while not the prettiest or optimal recapitalization solution, is indeed a cost-effective and relatively cheap next-gen, baseline platform for any customer with a GDP within say, the top 30 ranking.
Sure, they're not cheap to operate, especially when compared to older, simpler (and obsolete) legacy hornets for example. But very little on the next-gen market of baseline capability is. One has to 'pay to play'.
That being said, I'd agree with those arguing that AUS would be a helluva lot better of cost-effective wise and budget-sense wise, if RAAF took those same 12 designated F-18F platforms (minus the unnecessary Growler wiring to begin with) and instead updated them with the next-gen Type 4 'Advanced Mission Computer' and further integrated them with an all-in-one, automated EL/L-8251 Escort jammer!
For about half the currently listed Growler upgrade price, RAAF could probably buy and integrate 12 jammers for each of 12 platforms, as well as acquire 12 of the IRST centerline Tanks (and updated Type 4 computers) for the other 12 Supers!
Bonza that may well be correct regarding SH etc .
But can anyone please explain how the purchase of 10 C27J at a list price of between $30 and $ 40 million gets to $1.4 billion including everything.
There are no infrastructure costs, as it uses the same bits and pieces the C130H used.
Add in 10 years of maintenence, spares.
It still does not add up.
"When the GOA announcement is made, look through the source documents and break down the costs. There is a lot more involved than the internal conversion from F models to Growlers which is in the 1.7B figure."
But that isn't what previous Defence leadership has led us to believe. "Hey look, its only $300M. Then later we find out what they really want to spend.
Dishonest.
Again.
"Speculation on the ALQ-99's highly classified upgraded capabilities based on cherry-picked inferences from lines in open-source presentations is not a valid argument for claiming they are obsolete for the purpose Australia is buying them for."
Except that those comments come from NAVAIR who state only the NJG will do for emerging threats.
Using Libya to sell the G is also dishonest.
Eric,
That's right, the media reported the jets will be $300 million each to upgrade. Only a naive twit would think you can buy a new capability without weapons, training, support etc. For example, who the hell is going to write all the threat libraries for all the ES systems or the programs for the EA systems?
For sure, only NGJ will do for emerging threats. But what about all the theats RIGHT NOW? Emerging threats will be countered by the emerging NGJ.
As well, you still need to go readress your claim of Afghanistan troops paying for visits home. You're misleading and being dishonest.
If the threat is legacy, and what you have is a Super-Block II E/F, you don't need a G. You just go ahead and kill it with J-series weapons or HARM and that is the end of it. Done. I can touch you, but you can't touch me.
The Super by its very design in the G can only be an escort jammer and not a stand off jammer. The distinction is important. Thinking that the Super-Slow can drive into emerging threats and expect to survive with the current G configuration is dumb. G with NGJ only a little less dumb.
But hey, it was useful in Libya. Snort-guffaw.
As for the $300M, and the soft-sell, I wonder who told Fitzgibbon it would be so, so easy and low cost? More retarded advice from senior leadership to ministers.
There is a lot of that going around. Consistent even.
Really Perplexed says,
• 34 AN/ALQ-99F-V Tactical Jamming System Pods, 2 per operational aircraft, plus spares. These are known to have serviceability issues.
• 22 CN-1717/A Interference Cancellation Systems (INCANS), which prevent the plane from jamming itself.
• 22 R-2674C/A Joint Tactical Terminal Receiver (JTTR) Systems
• 30 LAU-118 Guided Missile Launcher pylons, for AGM-88 HARM/AARGM anti-radar missiles
• A Command Launch Computer (CLC) for HARM/AARGM missiles
• Plus support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, spare and repair parts, and other forms of U.S. Government and contractor support
Retail price somewhere between $300 and $400 Million.
How do we get to $1.7 Billion.
Lt Colonel Bonza says that there may be Harm/AARG or other Missiles.
Say 100 at $2 million each, say $300 million including support.
Initial Technical support, buildings, equipment, tools, training?
Public Service Bloat.
$100 million?
Ten years support? Tens of millions?
Software support from US, say some tens of millions over then years?
The aircraft are already wired, so what cost could there be there.
I do not understand how we get to $1.7 billion?
And of course Flasheart, nothing could possibly change tomorrow.
Study history.
The rest of the world stands still?
Eric,
I think you're in Newcastle. That gives you the unique opportunity of living next to 80% of the countries current and up-to-date fighter pilots.
Go have a chat to one one day.
Spotter, Ah, I think the whole point is about accounting.
--"Eric,
I think you're in Newcastle. That gives you the unique opportunity of living next to 80% of the countries current and up-to-date fighter pilots.
Go have a chat to one one day"--
Why bother? Some of those people think the F-35 is a "fifth-generation fighter" and believe all of the associated propaganda. Besides, I have been up close to several fast-jet communities (F-15C, and of course Aggressor Squadron curriculum to name but just a few). That and most of the wiring diagram of the USAF. With the RAAF roadmap as-is, the fighter-jet effort is well on the way to being an overly expensive flying club.
What "breakdowns" are these Eric? Are you claiming you've actually got the letter of request the Australian Government sent the US Government in relation to the Growler capability?
If so, can we see it?
As to it's capability, the USN may have thrown out a single line somewhere, but don't we want hard data on this? Perhaps we should look at the USN's 2011 IOE&T report as that seems to be used as a credible document in relation to some discussions here. Here is what it said about the EA-18G:
"Emerging 2011 FOT&E results suggest the EA-18G remains operationally effective while operational suitability has notably improved." (p.122 DOT&E FY2011 Annual Report).
Perplexed, check out the costings for the EA-18G in the USN FY12 request. It's $2.66B for 28x Growlers, covering R&D and initial spares. No TLS, no weapons, no training, tools, publications or infrastructure, no software development, no future modification, no related items like HARM/AARGM launch rails, HAMR/AARGM launch computers etc and so on. Your "guesstimations" are a long way off the cost of these things.
Again, show me what exactly we've requested rather than the generic and perhaps we can talk about apples and apples eh?
Which still does not explain the fact that when Defence decided to pull the strings on the Defence Minister of the day they stated that modifications to wire up 12 Supers for this capability was inexpensive and had value:
--
"Wiring 12 of the Super Hornets as Growlers will give us the opportunity to provide taxpayers with better value for money,” says defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon. “If finally pursued, the relatively small investment will significantly enhance the Super Hornet’s capability by giving electronic attack capacity and therefore the ability to nullify the systems of opposing aircraft."--
-
http://goo.gl/5WyZu
-
Now. He didn't just make that up. Someone gave him that bad advice.
Pretty sad. Considering that at the time, the following information already existed:
-
http://goo.gl/wth1K
http://goo.gl/UWAKc
--
And of course this:
http://goo.gl/liMRC
Note: An SA-22 is not a long range threat.
---
So yet again, poor thinking by those that advise Defence Ministers. The result: we end up sinking money into useless weapons systems.
Again.
As a habit. Almost like a substance-abuse habit. Give the drunk uncle more money.
Great plan.
"The wiring will add A$35 million ($23 million) to the A$6.6 billion that Canberra agreed to pay for 24 Super Hornets in early 2007. If all 12 aircraft were eventually converted into Growlers, it would cost an additional A$300 million."
But there is more: the additional con goes to sell the kit as permissive air "anti-terrorism". (Which btw was shown to be over-kill in Libya with the G).
"The modifications will give Australia the option to “significantly enhance” its aircraft, Fitzgibbon says. “It will also provide the Super Hornets with counter-terrorism capability through the ability to shut down the ground-based communications and bomb triggering devices of terrorists,” he adds."
Again, he didn't make that up. Advisors told him that. Amusing and sad at the same time when other permissive air aircraft with more persistence can be setup for anti-terror-COIN/ECM/COMINT/ELINT. The G consumes $23,000 per flying hour. The G needs many sips from a tanker and would be doing a job more suited to having 2 or 3 or 4 operators in the back of the aircraft.
Real smart there Defence.
Spotter,
Its quite obvious that Eric, despite not having any clearance, has a far deeper knowledge of the capabilities of current and emerging threat systems than any current serving FP's
Whatever might emerge in other regional military capabilities, much of it is still pretty futuristic; therefore, what Australia needs to consider foremost are the deficiencies in present day military capacity instead of focusing on some mythical Force 2030 structure. Nobody can predict what capabilities will be appropriate that far downstream.
As I see it, operating costs of too much complex hardware will likely be an economic killer for the ADF and inevitably force contraction of roles. Add to that, whole of life maintenance support contracts for hardware that might be proved deficient or inappropriate nearer term (Wedgetail for example) and there could be some enduring contract legacies inhibiting future spending.
The obvious bottom line is need for DWP2009 to be immediately dumped and the DCP frozen pending prompt updated strategic assessment by the national intelligence agencies (not a couple of years downstream). The primary focus needs to be modest cost optimisation/enhancement of proven platforms to maintain continual adequate and credible military capacity. See this brilliant Stratfor article regarding where the priorities ought to lay: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Australia-economy-military-strategy-iron-ore-pd20120523-UK6S5?OpenDocument
Anon,
Obviously I missed that bit.
Eric,
I guess because you took some photos of Aggressors back in the day that you know more about threat systems than the pilots who are briefed by and fight with them today.
Lt Colonel Bonza. As far as I can ascertain we have already paid for 12 SH already wired.
So how does it take $1.7 billon to purchase the following and install.
• 34 AN/ALQ-99F-V Tactical Jamming System Pods, 2 per operational aircraft, plus spares. These are known to have serviceability issues.
• 22 CN-1717/A Interference Cancellation Systems (INCANS), which prevent the plane from jamming itself.
• 22 R-2674C/A Joint Tactical Terminal Receiver (JTTR) Systems
• 30 LAU-118 Guided Missile Launcher pylons, for AGM-88 HARM/AARGM anti-radar missiles
• A Command Launch Computer (CLC) for HARM/AARGM missiles
• Plus support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, spare and repair parts, and other forms of U.S. Government and contractor support
Add in the Harm/AARGM missiles. Notice support is mentioned.
It does not add up.
It is a pity that there is not more critical analysis instead of blind faith in DMO and Defence which have made monumental blunders worth billions. For failed projects and equipment not maintained and other that does not worked you really want me to list them again?
You defend the indefensible.
Going on a previous post, I agree, I would trust the Israelis to deliver something up to date and at a reasonable price. Who cares who it upsets.For that sort of money you could become an equity partner and share in the IP, which would enrich local industry.
Also can anyone explain how we get to $1.4 billion for 10 C27J.
Sticker price ,say $40 million each.
No infrastructure needed, it already exists.
I can hardly comprehend the remainder being for spares, tools and support.
Perhaps it is being used to upgrade airstrips,once used by the Caribou, in the region to become useable?
Interesting too Spotter: One would think that someone who flunked out of fast-movers (Houston) would have actually contributed something useful to the improvement of the RAAF and Defence instead of being an oxygen thief and saying things such like the F-35 would be affordable and there are already 3000 on the order books. A very poor faith-based theory on his part. Or, just a lack of interest in doing anything accept collecting a paycheck with all the perks.Funny how all those with the alleged special access get things so badly wrong and some of the critics that actually take time to look at all the issues are consistently more accurate. Special access also does not mean one is allowed to ignore the laws of aerodynamics, such as... aircraft weight. But continue on with your faith-based appeal-to-authority position. And, continue on with the nameless internet troll, process.
That the ALQ-99 systems are less than optimal is well knonw in the EW community.
However, they are not the weakest link.
A platform constrained to grossly limited sub sonic manoeuvres at a lot less than 40kft ain't much chop let alone a credible capability against the current reference threats, not to mention those that will be in Australia's regions of interest post 2015.
Converting Super Hornets to Growlers is false economics and just throwing good money after bad.
..
Hee! Hee! Eric - speaking of fast movers, the not so fast Super Hornets have to slow down to escort the Growlers.
Sorry Horde and Eric, but the USN IOE&T community disagrees with you there. Feel free to check the reports that are so credible in relation to F-35 and referenced by yourself so frequently as how they rate the EA-18G in relation to it's operational capability and operational suitability.
As to the ALQ-99 pods, agree they are getting old. That doesn't mean they are capable enough to "tie us over" until NGJ is ready.
Perplexed, I'm sorry you can't figure these things out. Unless you start looking at contract prices, I guess you'll never understand why these things cost what they do. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps it's all graft and corruption and someone's pockets are getting lined...
Lt Colonel Bonza/AD, you are unable to exhibit anything but blind faith in a failed organisation.
I undertstand completly.
You are unable to explain how the figures are arrived at. On your own admission they are non transparent, leave it to national security etc.
You really show your intellectual dishonesty once again.
Why would you spend/waste $1.7 billio to "tide us over".
The world does not stand still.Perhaps you should study History, as all wisdom does not flow out of the USA.
The figures do not add up, no matter what you read regarding contracts.
Not graft but incompetence.
Perhaps some critical assessment for once.
Kind regards
Going faster than a Hornet just wastes gas.
Tactics. Tactics. Tactics.
Eric is just hot air I'm afraid.
To Bushranger 71,
RAAF should require a competitive combat aviation platform in relation to the world, not merely the 'region'. So whether or not the immediate 'region' is caught up with the expected 'rest-of-world' capability, is really irrelevant. The requirement should clearly be competitive with world with respect to emerging capabilities and not just based on some artificial sub-set. Only then will RAAF has her bases covered, so to speak.
And for Horde,
After reading your analysis and input on the ALQ-99 system deficiencies, I would personally wish and ask to know which particular alternative superior EW and AEA pod system you would propose for the F-18F platform in the interim?
Thanks in advance.
Here it is Anon,regarding ALQ99, something that works against the emerging threats.
Very hard to work out.
LegacyDriver:
Obviously the Russians, Chinese, Indians, French and Swedes (to name just a few) didn't get that memo. ;>)
..
Eric,
Soldiers in Afghanistan are not being asked to pay for their own flights home to take leave.
Oh dear Perplexed, and here I was thinking you could produce one single source to support your ridiculous assertions, something like a contract announcement, or a request list of what we've actually ordered or just something.
Oh dear. Producing one single credible source supporting your opinion once again is too much to ask.
Says it all folks...
BTW Horde, do you have a comment on the USN IOT&E community rating the EA-18G as "operationally effective" in FY12? Or indeed the excellent GAO report on US EW efforts released in March 2012 which confirms the retirement date for the low band ALQ-99 pod is expected to be 2024, the mid-wave pod is to be 2026 and the high band pod in 2028?
Defend the Indefensible
Defending the Indefensible:
DMO and Defence.
“AS many as half of the 3000 small and medium-sized local companies that provide equipment for the Australian Defence Force are at risk of collapse because of budget cuts and delays to projects.
The warning is contained in a confidential business intelligence report to Industry Minister Greg Combet from his own department's "enterprise connect" group, which was set up to help companies "transform and reach their full potential".
“Drafted EVEN BEFORE the Gillard government cut an additional $5.5 billion from Defence in the latest budget, the report warns: "The most significant and immediate issue facing defence SMEs is a lack of predictable and continual work flow."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/budget-axe-risks-survival-of-defence-contractors-and-threatens-innovation/story-e6frg8yo-1226368776152
How surprising, and we rely on these dills to run programs such as the introduction of the Growler.
What more can anyone say?
Defense Security Cooperation Agency
NEWS RELEASE
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2012/Australia_12-27.pdf
More questions regarding the nonsense regarding the costs of the C27J.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/c27j-airframes-make-up-just-a-5th-of-total-cost-20120523-1z5sh.html
Thanks. Re-read the Growler one. It doesn't look like it includes HARM war-shots?
Not that I can see.
I did provide this information for the benefit of Bonza on two previous posts, but he has chosen to ignore same.
Obviously you can't read either Perplexed. It was pointless responding to your cut and paste job on the DSCA announcement as both posts were a waste of everyone's including yours, time as the specifics of the announcement were already being discussed, hence my post dated 26 May 2012, relating to the generic nature of such announcements and my example of the Singaporean acquisition of JHMCS for use on their F-15SG fighters, which was NOT included in their DSCA announcements I believe.
Everyone here I'd suggest is aware of what is contained within the Growler DSCA announcement. What is not contained in it is however of greater relevance considering the potential cost.
Again because you are clearly having trouble comprehending these things, there ARE always items purchased in these contracts that don't make it into the DSCA announcement yet go toward the overall cost, hence the relevance of the Singaporean example.
If you can't understand that, then you should give up trying to comprehend these things and venturing such poorly informed opinions on them. They are clearly beyond you.
Eric, that's the point. Word is the request does include a request for HARM and eventually AARGM, but the details aren't being released publicly. That's why Perplexed's sums don't add up. He doesn't understand the full scope of the request.
Or you can believe they've request HARM/AARGM launch rails and command launch computers but not the weapons themselves...
More from the DMO.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-29/army-boots-fall-apart-in-hot-weather/4038572?section=qld
Not only are the clowns buying from China, they can not even get the quality correct.
Budget of $1.3 billion and 7,500 employees and they can not even purchase boots.
Add in the problems with the M113as posted by Eric.Classic stuff.
And Lt Col Bonza/AD no amount of garbage sprouted by you can defend the indefensible.
There has been no major project in ten years they got right or on cost.Nor are many ongoing projects such as M113, Collins, helicopters etc are viable.
SH and C17 apart as they were left out of the loop.
Total and utter incompetence.Proven again and again.
Must be lot of Missiles included?
Note how they carefully mentioned HARM and AARGM in this? I would not be at all surprised if this price tag includes HARM and ALQ-99 now and options on AARGM and NGJ in future when those systems are proven and in-service.
So yes, you could say there are likely a fair number of weapons in this order. Just as there was in the $6.6b Super Hornet order.
As for M113AS4, funny I've seen them on exercise plenty of times. They're performing on Ex. Hamel as I type this, doing everything Army expects of it's APC's.
If you compare this vehicle to a CV-90 or a Puma, yes it is deficient in a number of areas, however it has a number of advantages too. For instance we were able to get 431 vehicles for under $500m which would not be the case for any IFV in-service today and this vehicle can carry 11 digs inside it, again something no IFV in-service today can do.
However it's interesting that you guys are pooh-poohing the cost-effective M113 upgrade but champion Caribou, F-111, C-130H and Iroquois upgrades to the cows come home...
Not pooh-poohing the idea of a cost effective M-113 upgrade; just the morons that are managing the effort. We could have fought WWII.
Twice.
Lt Col Bonza, read the Audit.
You said:
"For instance we were able to get 431 vehicles for under $500m "
The Audit said:
It is $1 Billion dollars, and there are no spare parts, even after that expenditure.
And.
Must be a sh...t load of missiles to make it to $1.7 billion re Growler.
Defending the Indefensible.$1.3 Billion and 7,5000 employess unable to get anything correct, not even dress boots made in china.
My goodness what next.
If they stuck to long term strategies in government rather than the current minimisation of defence they might be able to stick to goals and have better project management so less of this happens. I would hate to think how much has been lost to postponing of deals or withdrawal of signed contracts.
Post a Comment