Skip to content

Friday, 14 November 2008

The blue-sky marketing madness of the F-35

Crikey defence and security nerd Eric L Palmer writes:

The head of the Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program Mr Tom Burbage is wrapping up a visit to Australia this week. Lockheed’s unofficial motto is: We define the enemy, so that we can offer a solution. Burbage is here to tell Defence leaders that somehow the F-35 program is on track and we should get ready to sign on the dotted line next year.

Some are convinced it’s a good deal, like Mr Andrew Davies of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. In a Lateline TV program earlier this week he said he believes that the fighter program is the most affordable jet for Australia. As for its hoped combat ability, LockMart’s Mr. Burbage was in the same program saying, in effect, we have run thousands of analyses; the aeroplane is evaluated constantly by actual pilots and real air forces in a very stressing set of scenarios and Australian pilots have flown the simulator in those scenarios. These are bold claims of price and combat prowess considering a real aircraft with real war systems is years away from flying. The aircraft may never be affordable and most likely will not meet the future needs for the defence of Australia.

What else has Mr. Burbage said during this visit? In the ABC piece “Fighter jet production to continue despite gloom” he states that the program will go ahead with or without Australia. While this bravado may sound good, let’s look outside Australia and consider the wobbly F-35 participants:

  • Since 2006 Canada has cut their requirement from the original 88 to 60-65 and there is no guarantee that Canada’s next fighter purchase will be the F-35.
  • Denmark is looking at other fighter aircraft besides the F-35 for their F-16 replacement.
  • The Dutch seem to be the rebel of the team —  there have been serious discussions (Google translate Dutch to English) by politicians about whether their defence department has been honest about procurement plans involving the F-35.
  • Norway wants more home industry work and may get it with a fighter made by SAAB called the Gripen.
  • Italy has decided not to buy into the test program as originally planned.
  • In the U.K. there has been talk about not procuring the F-35 because the country can’t afford it.
  • Turkey, because of the strong influence of their military on politics would seem to be a sure thing. However even they are taking a harder look at military procurement the new economic reality.
  • The United States Air Force, the biggest potential buyer of the F-35, is flat broke. The U.S. Navy isn’t in a rush. F-35 arrival into the fleet has been delayed to pay for an out of control ship-building industry. The F-35 program recently crowed about Israel wanting to purchase some F-35s. This sounds like progress until you consider it really isn’t a sale.

So, when LockMart’s top guy for the F-35 states that the program will go ahead with or without Australia, maybe it’s time to call his bluff. Australia and the Department of Spendthrift Defence can’t afford this gold plated and unproven wonder.

4 Comments

  1. Tony Oldfield
    Posted Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    I’m puzzled.
    Why doesn’t the Australian Government address the refusal of the US Senate to deny its best and most loyal (sycophantic) ally the opportunity to purchase the Raptor?
    Surely now is the time to invite the Russians to bring the Sukhoi out to the Australasian area on a series of demonstration and capability flights.
    This may persuade the new US Senate and the new President that it might be more important for loyal allies to be guaranteed air superiority rather than being shot down by near neighbour’s demonstrably superiour Sukhois.
    In the end, we need to acquire superior aircraft.
    If the new President & Congress will not support our approach, then what’s the point of purchasing inferior aircraft to Sukhois?
    Get the Russkies out quickly.
    Bet that gets a better response than the recent Senate rejection of an ally that has blindly supported them in Vietnam & Iraq!
    Who is asking these questions of the government?
    We don’t need another Brendan Nelson disaster!

  2. Costa
    Posted Friday, 14 November 2008 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    Couldn’t agree more. Eurofighter would be the best option. Does Many Things Very Well.
    There might be some money left over for a small, say 12, purchase of F-22’s to take care of Top
    Cover and scare the bejesus out of our Northern Neighbours.

  3. Stoka
    Posted Friday, 14 November 2008 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

    I don’t see much evidence of basic common sense in the decision to buy this aircraft. There is plenty of hard empirical data that it doesn’t have the range, speed or firepower to do the job given the landmass of Australia or the adversaries it’s likely to have to face. The amount of money being squandered beggars belief. For not much more we could be buying the F22, a much more appropriate choice. We’re being sold this plane to keep a bunch of greedy spivs in pinstriped suits on the Lockheed Martin payroll happy, because if the F35 doesn’t make it commercially their heads will roll.
    At the very least you need a mix of aircraft - how on earth is a short range, single engine plane going to replace the F111 adequately? Tankers? What if the Sukhoi’s on your opponents side shoots down your tankers while you’re in transit to or from the target? Answer: You’d be stuffed.
    In the case the Yanks won’t sell us the F22 our best option might be to patch up our old F111’s and buy a bunch of SU35’s off the Russians.

  4. ScottyMac
    Posted Wednesday, 26 November 2008 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

    All this talk about the F-22 Raptor when the yanks haven’t even deloyed it on operations yet. Is it shy? Who is to know that F22 isn’t a lemon itself? The fact that they can’t figure out the F35 has me sceptical of all so-called 5th generation fighter programs.