Also this: (Note also a big UAV mention).
The government is also expected to soon announce that it will spend at least $4 billion on another 24 Boeing Super Hornet jet fighters from the US Navy to prevent any air power capability gaps.
I am curious what the low-information folks over at the NACC think?
26 comments:
With all these gap fillers - will there be any money left for the the real deal when the fillers have done theirs?
Well, the first batch of "gap fillers" is now permanent according to Smith.
If purchased, this would give us 48 Super Hornets, purchased for $10.6B. Given that $16B was being thrown around as the total NACC cost several years ago, before reality cruelly intervened, there's only about $6B left for more aircraft.
What might that $6B buy? Based on the current numbers, maybe 36 more Super Hornets, giving us 84 in total. How many F-35s will that buy? 24? Less? Is it really worth purchasing so few? Or will the taxpayers have to pony up more cash to cover shortfall.
Intresting.
Might there be a plan to silently move away from the F-35 deal by buying S.Hornets as stop fillers?
With enough Hornets there will not be no need to the F-35's.
Which ones are for and whos against the F-35?
Hello Peter
"Which ones are for and who's against the F-35"?
We are all against the F-35. The ones are pro-F-35 advocates as well as the Super Hornet advocates are the wacky Australian Aviation.
What's wrong with the Australian Aviation?
The guy I knew in the hobby shop, I asked him "What do you think about Australian Aviation website"? he said to me "be very careful with them, when it comes to defence issues nowadays they mislead and publish untruthful rumours about the F-35 claiming for e.g. it's a true 5th generation fighter, ahead of schedule, better acceleration, climb rate, better weapons load, affordable to acquire, maintain etc etc".
Yes they do have some great photos and other merchandises, but when it comes to defence issues, be very careful who you believe.
Regards
The most positive 'glass half-full' aspect of all this is that pressure will be reduced and time will be bought to 'go slow' on said follow-on F-35 acquisition decisions.
That first squadron purchase of 12 F-35s would only add to the massive fiasco, if all said and done, it was concluded (after the hypothetical purchase) that the jet was just too expensive to operate or just not as reliable as originally assumed.
RAAF would then be left with 14 unaffordable F-35s after killing further procurement -- 2 jets for training and 12 jets for an OCU with no Operational unit to convert to, lol. That and possibly no money left to procure even UAVs??
So basically, RAAF could wind up by the early 2020s getting themselves a legacy F-18 replacement fleet to include: 48x Super Hornets, a few unarmed surveillance UAV and 14 mistake jsf jets... An interesting strategy to say the lease.
To Peter,
Of course the Super Hornet is ahead of schedule and proven aircraft, but unfortunately the aircraft as well as the F-35 will not be up to the job of dominating the skies.
When postulating possibilities, worth remembering what life is left in Hornets, Hawks, PC-9. Global Hawk (or whatever now called) is essential to stay abreast of what is happening in our neighbourhood and some costly submarines, if an adequate deterrent capacity is recognised in DWP2013. But, the rivers of money are dwindling to creeks and a financial drought is on the horizon for maybe decades.
If the respective Australian Services cannot foresee need for some rationalisation of their capabilities and roles to afford to operate and adequately man some platforms, they may be severely embarrassed downstream when some aspects of the ADF have to virtually grind to a halt. The signs are already there for Tiger and MRH-90.
I wonder how long it will be before Canada follows this very same path of purchasing Super Hornets to replace the legacy Hornets.
To Bushranger,
Actually, fairly little life is left in the existing legacy Hornet, as is.
Spend lots of AUD and you can further SLEP the remaining functional fleet requiring SLEP and add further next-gen systems' upgrades fleet-wide to maintain credible modern capability until perhaps around 2025.
Then what?
You need to produce a competitive replacement plan for RAAF to remain a credible and competitive Air Force in the balanced scheme of things... or wish to see RAAF drop in relevance as a defence capability and drop in credible status around the world.
I was under the impression that the cost of the first tranche of super hornets did not come out of the funds for the f35s.
Hi Anonymous, Feb22 10:50PM.
So we should keep on bludgeoning taxpayers, just to keep up international image? That sort of aligns with the argument put for very long range submarines so we can poke around in SE Asia at behest of the US and risk getting sucked into more wars in faraway places.
If Canberra wants to overdo top end capabilities, are trade-offs going to be made within Navy, Army, Air Force or the Public Service? ADF force structures will inevitably have to be somewhat reshaped to within national affordability. Just monitor world and local economic discussion for a reality check.
It will be really interesting to see whether draft DWP2013 in gestation changes any emphasis on 'Deterring and Defeating Attacks on Australia' as outlined in DWP2009 (Chapter 7.2). Logically, an updated defence policy ought to be generated before any more knee-jerk reactions on hardware acquisitions based on presumed capability gaps.
Somewhat hysterical justification arises in this regard for top end capabilities, yet the big gaps created by flawed planning for other segments of the ADF (like the helo force) are more or less dismissed. Such inconsistency pervades the Australian politico-military sphere nowadays.
"Yes they do have some great photos and other merchandises, but when it comes to defence issues, be very careful who you believe."
As opposed to the guy in the hobby shop???
I have been harping on affordability of ADF capabilities. This snippet might create broader appreciation of the world economic debacle that must inevitably impact further on Australian citizens in the near future: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article39037.html
Productivity in Australia is decaying and there are already shortfalls in revenue expectations, so national infrastructure and services will be adversely impacted. As the value of their life savings diminishes, citizens are going to be less receptive to extravagant defence spending if it overrides other mounting national economic pressures, such as providing adequately for health services and a rapidly aging population.
The ongoing Defence Capability Plan should at least be frozen pending emergence of DWP2013 and then critically revised within national affordability constraints. The notion being peddled by politicians that defence spending should be increased to 2 percent of GDP is just unaffordable and it should be pegged at about the present reduced level of around $24billion, which is assumed to be around 7.5 percent of present revenue. There will of course be less funding available to spend on new hardware because ADF operating costs will soar with the introduction of multiple recent acquisitions.
Enough said from me this aspect.
Bushranger, there is no shortfall in the budget projections,only incompetence.Include in that the middle class welfare that needs to disappear.It has reached over $90 billion.
Official Budget Outcomes
Howard/Costello 2006/7
Total Government Receipts $237 Billion
Total Government Expenditure $219 Billion
Australian Government Budget 2006-7
Gillard/Swan 2011/12
Total Government Receipts $330 Billion 39.2% greater than 2006/7
Total Government Expenditure $371 Billion 69.4% greater than 2006/7
Australian Government Budget 2011-12
To Bushranger,
No, ADF likely doesn't need 75-100x F-22, F-35, EF Typhoon, or 100x F-15AU for that matter. That would arguably indeed be overkill and simply not affordable or sustainable. Many would concur with you.
Yet there's in fact a lot of middle ground in which to engage a prudent and legitimate legacy Hornet replacement Programme.
That is, it's not an all-or-nothing proposition with respect to replacing the legacy Hornet fleet, which you are seemingly trying to outline.
A more cost-effective, overlapping mix of modern capabilities (manned and unmanned) would be the more sustainable and less risky pathway for the foreseeable future, with which to replace Hornets.
If we were living in the 1940s again, it would be no problem. ADF could simply order 500 P-51D and have them delivered a couple years later if there was ever a future crisis requiring such a contingency response. But in today's reality, it would probably take RAAF some 12 years, give or take, from selection of replacement platform to operational status of final squadron delivered.
One simply can't wait for intel communities to pick up an 'emerging threat' matrix therefor and then decide to begin recapitalizing a force structure. It doesn't work that way. An hypothetical emerging threat alone is only one partial determinant when implementing a policy to replace/modernize one's Tactical fighter fleet.
Other justifications are more generic such as emerging capabilities and maintaining balance of capabilities and balance of power. It's not simply about 'what the other guy's intentions are at the moment'... (whom ever that one guy might even be at a given moment in history! Which is the point -- it's irrelevant to single out any one potential actor!)
Moreover, if anything... if some alarm bells were ever going off in Australia down the road and the decision was then made to build up an accelerated, modern and robust Tactical force, that would be a huge provocation which the other guy might not take too fondly of and might even decide to preempt your military buildup before you became a threat!
Yes, what is needed is a global demilitarisation and code of conduct, no question. But that's for diplomats to accomplish and unfortunately, we're not there yet in the world today. There's still too much uncertainty of intentions and modernized capabilities being fielded at an unprecedented 'post-cold-war' rate around the world today.
If purchasing stop gap filler US aircraft are the politically appropriate way to move away from the F-35, there are quite a few other fighters would better serve the RAAF in the long term.
Why not buy new build F-15's? There are already two advanced F-15 variants flying and paid for - the F-15K and the F-15SG. An Aussie aircraft could select the best features between the two with little or no development costs.
Equipped with the latest AESA, the AN/APG-82 would give Australia an advanced fighter that could cover much larger distances faster than the Superbug. The aforementioned AESA in some USAF circles is thought to have the best long range detection in the world at this time.
RSF
Leper, as I said in another post, with those $6B you can buy 80 Gripens NG. Like the USAF chose the F-16 with the same engine as the F-15, you could have a mix airforce of 48 Super Hornet/Growlers and 80 small,stealthty,agile,fast and furious Gripens with the same engine. With their advanced Aesa radar excellent data link and Meteors, combined with the Super Hornets international roadmap Australia will be a super Airforece for many years to come.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtnnD5aFoQ8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOw0Og0i8pA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzNuNCuaUkE
Anon1 Feb 23 3:49PM; at 75, I have become apolitical since 1996 despite having voted conservatively for most of my life. I had concerns about what John Howard would do that were justified; for one, consider the irresponsible action of selling off two thirds of the nation's gold reserves and think how that relates to the current world economic scenario.
When JH promised to increase defence spending by 3 percent to 2018 and then 2.2 percent out to 2030 (endorsed by Rudd), it was intended to be in REAL TERMS, meaning maintaining dollar value. Well; if you start with say $22.8billion in 2008 and just compound that out to 2030, that would have required an unrealistic increase of government revenue over 22 years. But that is without adjusting the annual increases for a progressively debasing currency, as outlined in my Feb 23 3:00PM offering.
Granted there is huge waste across the whole spectrum of Federal Government expenditure and even if Abbott & Co. manage to curtail some of this, they will still be faced with shrinking revenue because they are advocating some reductions in tax income.
Anonymous Feb 23 3:58PM; I argue for a broader look at Air Force structuring, including the Hornet replacement and other assets. Being able to remember most of WW2 and recalling an era when Australian industry did successfully manufacture some less complex air platforms, I do understand the lead times involved. But we do not have the industrial capacity to self-manufacture some high end modern platforms in Australia, although something like the Super Tucano is well within local capabilities.
The DWP2009 proposition that Australia can be defended against armed attack is invalid in my view, but we do need adequate deterrence capabilities to discourage interference with trade corridors; also for close air support in low level regional intervention situations.
It might be no bad thing if some extra Super Hornets are acquired to temporarily abate the emotive capability gap argument. By the time the Hornets fade out and the JSF perhaps falls over, the true economic scenario for Australia might force those in Canberra to realise that there just has to be some rationalisation of military roles and capabilities. The Air Force would be better placed if it ceased trying to maintain too much emphasis on top end capabilities and recognised that it will likely be forced to reshape further in the near future.
More targets
Forget the F-35, you don't need them. You are close to have and unbeatable air force.
Russian or Chinese doubtful 5th generation stealth fighters won't have any chance against a fleet of Wedgetails, 4.5+ generation Super Hornets, Growlers and cheap Gripens (if you buy them in big quantities with those $6B), with the most advanced sensors, radars, data link and 6gen Missiles like the Meteors or Stunners in the near future.
One single Aesa Radar combined with the Advanced Atflir sensor will share the information to the rest of the fleet in silent mode. If enemies use their radars, Growlers, Super Hornet or Gripens will track them easily.
For their small size and shape, and it's only engine who doesn't show it's blades, Gripens are real 5th Gen Stealth fighters, as the Americans discover in Red Flag when they couldn't track them with their radars at a long/medium distance. Also in Dogfight against F-16 Gripens smash them. They have the same T/W ratio, speed and more maneuverability than the Eurofihters, and a smaller radius turn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUnhMrlnA1A&feature=youtube_gdata_player
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQN_J3xNlQE&list=FLeBIFMGQQwnYhO4wlfOCGJQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8KOPzLbdF0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKlQyPOiRuE
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/rafael-eyes-dolphin-head-nose-design-for-air-to-air-missiles-362593/
Bushranger,
Being 'apolitical' as a relative ideological position in itself truly has little relevance to the overall discussion of what actual mix of Tactical recapitalization would be more prudent for RAAF in the short-, medium- and longer-term.
I'm personally fairly apolitical myself -- being on an evolving apolitical track since around 1991 or so. I'm strongly in the camp of thought too, that the greater world itself needs to rapidly shift to more 'apolitical' paradigm, away from competitive 'us vs them' a la left-over Cold War chess playing and begin a serious, strategic global cooperative, civil code of conduct and joint-Program for sustainable energy, food and drinkable water production.
Nevertheless, it's very arguably still OK and legit in the meanwhile to yes, support a credible and capable Tactical Air Force recapitalization pathway for the RAAF (or USAF for that matter).
Thus, these are two separate issues being contemplated really... ie, 1) how pacifist and unilaterally demilitarized one wishes their own respective country to be and 2) taking a relative apolitical ideological viewpoint on national and global politics and how it relates to the future of the world, etc.
With respect to Australia equipped with (and manufacturing) P-51D in the day, recall that was a relatively complex and high-end platform! That would equate to a fairly capable and advanced Tactical force mix in relative terms, in a next-gen 2020 realm.
With respect to Australia dramatically 'debasing' the AUD?? Huh?
Compare AUD valuation 5 and 10 years ago vs EUR, JPY and USD and be shocked at AUD's true relative strength and stability.
Sure, Australia's inflation is creeping in an undesirable direction, from the comfy 2% target to north of 2.5%. But that's still relatively normal and manageable, as well as it being the unfortunate reality of a greater worldwide trend for other economic powerhouses and emerging alike.
RAAF can in fact afford a prudently-selected modernized Tactical aviation mix and recap strategy which is more sustainable than the current fiasco.
@ Superrhino
a hypothetical mix of 24x additional Supers block II+ in the near-term, followed by an alternative mix of Gripen NG (sharing the same engine) being delivered perhaps starting in 2019, and through around say, 2024(?) would seem to be one sensible option, yes.
Perhaps another option could be to evaluate and study a future-gen Korean fighter venture as well? Especially if that future design incorporates the similar F414 engine?
RAAF could then overlap and complement with the UAV/UCAV component as requirements and reliability are established, and a Super Tucano-type component, accordingly.
Don't overlook the potential in the future too when consolidating resources, of the P-8 as being a possibly viable stand-off missile-truck which could assume some of the requirements employed by Tactical fighter platforms.
Hi again Anonymous Feb 25 2:42PM; I really wish you and some others would use a screen name, as nobody really knows which shadow is talking!
A few last points.
The whole defence debate in Australia has strong political overtones. Too many praise John Howard considering he put in place unrealistic defence expenditure planning (also endorsed by Kevin Rudd) which led to a whole bunch of flawed acquisition projects. The projected big overspend on some arguably inappropriate hardware would have required about doubling of both defence outlay and national revenue by 2030, at a mean inflation rate of around 2.4 percent.
Nowhere have I said we cannot afford recapitalization of air assets; I argue that we do not need so much high end air combat capability and should be considering other more cost-effective options for true tactical roles in particular.
As with the run-up to previous Defence White Papers and the initial Super Hornet decision; hysteria is being generated at a political level, in the media and lots of forums re a supposed capability gap, no doubt fostered to some extent by the powerful defence industry lobby in Canberra.
DWP2009, Chapter 6.23 states: '...The enduring reality of our strategic outlook is that Australia will most likely remain, by virtue of our geostrategic location, a secure country over the period to 2030...' Chapter 6.38 also defines the primary operational environment for the ADF as being '...from the eastern Indian Ocean to the island States of Polynesia, and from the Equator to the Southern Ocean.'
China is beyond that region, but has an economic stranglehold on Australia and thus absolutely no need whatsoever to exert any military pressure. Our near neighbour Indonesia is acquiring some modern platforms, but air capabilities are quite fragmented with dubious ability to sustain any effort. Prima facie, there seems no threat justification for supposed capability gap hysteria, which might be confirmed by the intelligence agencies, if they were allowed to do their job sans political interference.
So why rush into more Super Hornets when delaying any decision regarding F-18 replacement for another year or 2 would allow the F-35 situation to crystallize? And would it really matter if 1 or 2 fighter squadrons were closed down as an interim measure to extend the in-service life of F-18s?
Finally, re the value of our money. According to the RBA inflation calculator, it would have cost $1.10 in 2012 to purchase what $1 would have bought in 2008, a mean inflation rate of 2.4 percent per annum, although presently a bit lower.
The AUD now floats, but in the past few days, the RBA Governor testified to the Senate that he considered the currency overvalued. The dollar is highly dependent upon terms of trade which are declining alarmingly, heralding an imminent slide of the AUD that is only held up by the interest rate differential around the world. That of course will mean lessened buying power for defence dollars and, as national revenue has also stagnated, foreseeable need for force structures rationalisation; an unpalatable reality.
Enough from me this thread, which has been an interesting debate.
Bushranger -
Thanks always for the discussion as well, m8.
Yes, it's ok to disagree ideologically, just as long as folks can co-exist and not hate while the system will inevitably fall into some form of interaction and transaction between parties. That's my view at least.
That said, I think I have a pretty good grasp of your approach and views however, with respect to AUS's tactical aviation force structure wishes... i.e., unilaterally, one way or another, finding a way to cut the overall size, even considerably.
And I also respect your wish that Australia is never drawn into a foreign conflict by an ally that is not in Australia's national interests. I personally would never wish my country to be drawn into a foreign conflict too, by another ally, if it was against my country's national interests. That's a natural and normal emotion and position to take.
All the same, that should have nothing to do with regard to the potential at least for Australia to bulk up as much as she can afford, for contingency sake and as a normal self-defense hedge vs any unforseen future surprises... at least until diplomats can finally sort out a greater worldwide disarmament and truce.
So what should AUS's strategic defence policy be about imo? It should be about employing the most capable, flexible and yes, hardest hitting as sustainably possible modern force structure -- by way of cutting fat and building muscle -- as a hedge, if anything else.
Does that mean AUS should be be open for business anytime as a gun for hire by allies? Of course not... but again, that's not a defence issue, that's a civilian govt leadership issue you need to sort out separately there down under given the rapidly evolving future times we live in.
Lastly, with respect to that inflationary figure you note of around 2.4% plus/minus. Again, that's perfectly manageable and is nothing unsustainable in itself. It's a normal heart beat, nothing to scramble for cover over.
Aus needs only to defend against misinformed, ulterior-motivated acquisition schemes and unsustainable force structures when taking into consideration her justified and required Defence budgets...and you'll cover your bases much better and not have the same type of concerns as with the F-35 fiasco today (yesterday).
Regards.
Don Koh
Hello Don; thank you for your considered response, with which I largely concur, especially your last para. Just some brief rejoinders.
The military should properly be subject to political control, but it is more Public Service domination in Australia, as has happened elsewhere. It is the ill-equipped bureaucracy that largely formulates defence policy and the nexus between them and the all powerful arms industry is just too strong. Unrealistic long range planning to generate defence industry projects has overridden maintaining continual and adequate military preparedness.
The major political parties here both endorsed 22 year increases in defence spending in real terms, so when present mean inflation is added to their 3 and 2.2 percent projected increases and compounded, that necessitates unachievable rising national revenue to maintain percentage defence spend. It has of course hitherto resulted in commitment to a large number of flawed acquisitions now impacting on financial capacity to recapitalize appropriate military functions. It was really a hugely dumb political con.
Australia now has rapidly declining terms of trade which must lead to a weaker AUD and national revenue can only be increased by higher taxation to sustain broader wasteful national expenditure. Even if inflation diminished a bit more, it still makes longer range planning for defence hardware acquisitions very problematic.
Australia could still have adequate and credible military capacity for regional needs, but there needs to be more outside the square thinking within the DoD bureaucracy and the military on how to better manage defence expenditure. The nation presently ranks quite highly in the world regarding actual defence spending and it is quite unrealistic to expect more funding for defence considering economic realities.
Finally, see this very interesting paper on Reasonable Defence - A Sustainable Approach to Securing the (US) Nation: http://comw.org/pda/reasonable-defense-a-sustainable-approach-to-securing-the-nation/
Post a Comment