Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
The JSF project … the J is for ‘joke’
|
The JSF or Joint Strike Fighter is a massively hyped, much-delayed defence project by which a single type of jet will supposedly defend the US and its NATO and ASEAN allies from baddies. Think of a super duper X-box with wings. It has got everything. Or has it? Contrary voices find it hard to be heard, but there are signs of bailouts in Europe and even in Washington DC. Two of those voices, defence analysts Peter Goon and Dr Carlo Kopp, were asked about the problems from the Australian point of view. Is it true the JSF will destroy the Australian economy before it takes out its first enemy jet? The JSF’s negative budgetary impact is a serious one, but less serious than the risks to national sovereignty should this aircraft become Australia’s principal combat aircraft. The most likely outcome of an air combat engagement between a JSF and any of the newer Russian-designed jets being actively marketed and exported into the region is a downed JSF and dead pilot. Questions about “cost effectiveness” are always predicated on the asset in question being effective. The JSF won’t be effective in the type of combat environment we are seeing in the Pacrim. This is due to fundamental choices in the aircraft’s design made during the 1990s, further exacerbated by the poorly considered design changes made since 2002. The JSF lacks the performance and agility to compete against modern fighters and air defences, relying completely on stealth. However, JSF stealth is, in most respects, inadequate compared to earlier US stealth designs, and is already seriously challenged by several recent Russian radar designs. This is the context in which Australian taxpayers need to view what is the most bloated and costly single Defence acquisition in Australian history. What have we paid for so far, and what comes next?
A conservative estimate to mid-2008 of what the direct cost of Australia’s involvement in the JSF program would be was about half a billion dollars. What has Australia got for this expenditure? A whole bunch of frequent flyer miles for the DMO, Defence and parliamentary folks, plus gigabytes of power point presentations and brochure material, but not much more. And DMO now wants us to buy two early JSFs to check them out before we buy them. This is like buying a type of car to road test to see if you want to buy it. There goes another half billion. The only way to prove the operational capability of the JSF in Australia is to get Lockheed Martin to put up two to test in Darwin, in an environment that doesn’t exist in the US. However, it is in the area of the associated opportunity costs where the real losses accrue and where the real damages are being done. For example, the Systems Integration Capabilities of the facility at RAAF Base Amberley and its industry support base that were put in place by very smart people in Defence and Industry back in the late 1990s are now being gutted. The high-value work is now being earmarked to go overseas to places such as the Boeing facilities in St Louis, leaving Australians with only screw drivering, stores accounting and shipping to do. The (lost) opportunity costs associated with Australia’s involvement with the JSF program would be measured in the billions of dollars — most of which has gone or is going offshore. Then there are the corporate carcasses, mostly SMEs across the Australian industrial landscape, which will have to be buried due to the misadventures resulting from their involvement, encouraged by the DMO, Defence and Department of Industry & Trade, with the JSF program. The signs of such are already visible with some Australian companies that did the hard yards, the research, development, recruitment, training and associated hoop jumping plus the up-front investment to win early work in the JSF program on the promise of large follow-on contracts, only to find such contracts now going to bidders from countries with either much lower or subsidised labour rates. Will it work?
The short answer is no. For any combat aircraft to “work” it must first be capable of staying alive in the type of combat environment it can be expected to encounter, and second be capable of performing its intended mission effectively, be it killing other aircraft or surface targets such as warships or ground forces. The third consideration is that of how difficult the aircraft is to operate, in terms of basing needs, aerial refuelling needs and supporting assets. The JSF is non-viable in all three respects, and on current projections more expensive to buy and support operationally than the superior F-22A, which is at least three times more capable than the JSF will ever be. The JSF is a case study in bad project definition, in many areas poor engineering design, especially at the management level, resulting in a poor implementation of what was a bad idea in the first place.
So you’re saying successive governments have been snowed?
Since 2002 the Canberra DoD bureaucracy and senior leadership group have conducted an intensive and sustained campaign to market this aircraft to parliamentarians on both sides of Australian politics. Rather than “keeping the supplier honest”, our Defence bureaucracy has become, to all intents and purposes, a proxy marketing office representing the agendas of the supplier camp and JSF proponents out of the United States. This role reversal, which throws out decades of good governance practice, has been especially damaging since only a handful of parliamentarians have actually understood what is happening. This problem is exacerbated by pervasive technical and professional de-skilling through the bureaucracy, resulting in the organisation not understanding the manifold technical and management problems, with which the design and the program are riddled. Like many bureaucracies, which are prone to “shoot at messengers bearing unwelcome news”, the Russell Offices bureaucracy has been sliding into this abyss at an ever-increasing speed, unable to admit to itself that it blundered in the first place by selling the program to the Howard government in 2002.
Aren’t we seeing signs of alarm already in the US and Europe?
The Danes have just deferred their choice of fighter aircraft, not long after the Dutch almost fractured their governing coalition over the program. Reports from the UK are now saying that Britain will cut the number of JSFs it procures to a third the number intended originally. In the United States, the latest Pentagon Joint Estimate Team report has confirmed what most analysts with good knowledge of the program predicted a long time ago — the program will require upwards of another $US17 billion ($A18.7 billion) and a deep restructure to produce an aircraft that meets the now-obsolete and strategically irrelevant operational requirement. The Obama Administration’s independent advice is that the JSF is inappropriate for use against China and that the USAF purchase should be halved. The material reality is that the JSF has been a “failed project”, in technical terms, for some time now, kept on life support by the Rumsfeld and now OSD (Office of the Secretary for Defense), Gates with problems hidden behind an incessant barrage of often very effective public relations propaganda. The problem with this self-destructive bureaucratic behaviour is that it involves real and strategically dangerous losses in military capability at unprecedented costs to taxpayers.
OK, it’s f-cked. What do we do now?
First, we collectively have to realise that Australia is not alone in this predicament. The same Western global disease that gave us the GFC, the failures in corporate governance in companies such as Enron and HiH, and the meltdowns in the local and international insurance industry, is at the root of what has come to be known as the Just So Flawed (JSF) program. Since our PM, Kevin Rudd, and his government have worked hard to get Australia recognised on the international stage as a progressive and stable contributor to the management of world events, Australia is well placed to lead the rest of the world away from this abyss. For ourselves, since the US gave Australia and the World the GFC and since Australian blood continues to be shed in support of the US campaign against terrorism, most if not all Australians would think it only appropriate that the US not only agrees but offers to provide to Australia with the means for getting the best air combat capability it can, at the most cost-effective price. At a unit price somewhat less than that for the JSF and being at least three times more capable than is claimed for the JSF, thus requiring fewer aircraft to be procured, the F-22A Raptor is the logical choice. Being a member of such an exclusive club and operating about 25% of the world fleet would create unique opportunities for Australia and its defence industry — far more powerful and effective than from being one of many also-rans within a failed, collapsing program that is just so fraught with a total indifference to reality. As prudent risk managers, we should not put all our eggs in one basket, as was intended with the JSF. To this end, Australia needs a combat strike aircraft that complements the F-22 Raptor while satisfying the Australian requirements of extreme range, long endurance and large payloads as well as having the ability to match the Raptor’s high speed. Australia already has such an aircraft — the F-111. Now, before naysayers such as CDF Angus Houston, CEO-DMO Steve Gumley, CAF Mark Binskin or the Lockheed Martin-funded Williams Foundation make noises about the early retirement of the F-111 having gone too far, we should recall a few salient points. First, they are the people who have failed to extricate us from this mess in the first place. Secondly, the RAAF stood up the F-4Es Phantom in six months when delivery of the F-111s was delayed. Australian industry is more than capable of supporting, maintaining and evolving the F-111 at costs far less than what Angus as well as Steve’s DMO people have been required to claim. Even the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) says so. If Angus, Mark and Steve aren’t able or, more likely, don’t want to muster the means for keeping the F-111s flying and evolving them with the capabilities to complement Australia’s and America’s F-22A Raptors (things that neither the Super Hornets nor the JSF would be able to do), then stand aside, gentlemen, before you do any more damage. There are plenty of Australians with the background, knowledge, experience, and expertise along with the right attitudes who would be prepared to step up to the plate and make this happen. And what about for the Super Hornet buy or “Nelson’s folly”, which most experts, including the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, consider non-viable? Either keep them as very expensive flight trainers, which is about all they would be good for in the regional context or, better still, sell/trade them back to the US Navy — a win/win since they are the only remotely usable aircraft that will be able to fill the parking spaces on top of their aircraft carriers for the foreseeable future. This is a “call to arms”. We need to have an air power dominance capability that matches our position as a supplier of valued resources. Protect it, or lose it. View our Crikey Clarifier archive. |
|
|
25 Comments
At least twice, Goon and Kopp claim the F-22 is “three times more capable” than the JSF. What units of measure are we using here? One third the turning circle? Three times the speed or range or weapons load? Three times the kill rate against equivalent opponents in simulator scenarios? Three times what, exactly?
Even if true, for some value of “true”, I’m not sure how this translates into a need for fewer aircraft if we got the F-22. Surely an aircraft can only be in one place at any one time, and the proportion of aircraft in serviceable state is going to be around the same? What am I missing? That fewer will be shot down?
Just wanting to bring some rigour to the discussion of a multi-billion-dollar purchase…
Please visit the site below to view a submission by Group Captain R G Green AFC RAAF (Retd). which is highly pertinent to this subject.
I served at the same unit (Aircraft Research and Development Unit) in the 1960s, and developed the highest respect for his personal qualities, though I was employed on different duties.
He is an ex- Chief Test Pilot of the RAAF.
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs/sub22.pdf
D J Ward
RAAF
(Retd)
Yes I know the F-22 is a far better air superiority aircraft, and a known quantity, but…
1. the Americans won’t export it, not even to Japan, Israel or the UK
2. they’re stopping production of it anyway.
That rules it out of any practical contention.
A US Senate committee has just recommended developing an export version of the F-22 partly to keep the line open (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5896JU20090910) but that’s a long way from getting it as policy. An export F-22 would obviously have to have some features removed, and until we knew just what we don’t know how much it would compromise its capabilities.
The Dutch, Danish and British examples have the difference that they don’t have our range requirements and hence can look at the Eurofighter, Grippen etc.
If the F35 isn’t up to scratch, and we can’t get the F-22, what options do we have? More Super Hornets? Or do we blow the US alliance to pieces by buying Sukhois? Basically we’re screwed.
PS: Mirage IIIO- Mach 2.2. F-18 - Mach 1.8. F-35 - Mach 1.7. Will the follow-on to the F35 be subsonic?
(from Michael R. James)
Ben, great article in the detailed analysis. But I suppose I am in fantasy land again when I find all of this to be missing the forest for the trees. I am all for a strong defense but Australia is just blind on this stuff. You say “We need to have an air power dominance capability that matches our position as a supplier of valued resources. Protect it, or lose it.” Just who exactly are we needing to/planning to bomb or fight off with all this fantastically expensive firepower? Bainimarama? Boat people? Talk of a resurgent China is just cringe making.
Some of these modern armaments are just becoming too expensive for us to continue to pretend we count in any real way in the world. This state of delusion (complacency for most Australians) has led us to spend $6B on the useless Hornets (yes, you know what I am thinking….coulda built the Sydney-Canberra TGV for that!) and endless billions over the years on stuff that we don’t need and doesn’t work half the time (helicopters etc). Now $36B for second rate fighters?
As for forward planning, the only thing our military and politicians are capable of is to want the expensive toys the chief arms sellers are touting. In the early 90s if it was obvious to me, it must have been obvious to a lot of people (except the military/pollies) that un-manned electronic smart weapons were the future. This was way before we first saw those drones on primetime tv. The thing is that unlike massive fighter jets, this is something a smaller nation like us could do. Certainly for the kind of budgets we spend on expensive imported stuff from America. The development needs are mostly in the software and communications. Most of the physical stuff (jet engines, avionics etc) is off-the-shelf from plenty of suppliers around the world. And just think of the incredible boost to local hi-tech it would be. That is of course exactly what the bloated american military budget is to their electronics and civil aviation industry. And it is bound to be vastly more effective than a limited number of fighter jets with their fragile human pilots.
So yes, I would rehabilitate the F-111s as a stopgap, pay the half billion for the two trial JSF’s (diplomatically smart and no big cost really) and hope that smart people like Faulkner, Lindsay Tanner and Rudd might rethink the whole thing. It is not too late.
Oz had one of the first and best operforming pilotless aircraft in the Jindivik ,wayyy back warn I were a lad in the 60s. Before silicon chips & fishy net stuff. Imagine what we could do if this cultural/political cringe could just be buried with the Rodent. Fat chance of that as long “the yank” (TM@MLatham) is PM.
Good to see such articles but the tone is a bit emotional and perjorative. I worked in RAAF HQ in the 1980s as an air defence fighter controller when we were choosing the fighter replacement for the Mirage. I also helped develop the early staff work which has lead to Project Wedgetail, the AEW&C platform. I also worked in the mid 1990s on buying the new air defence mobile radars whic have been deployed to Afghanistan recently. Reality number one - we don’t have choice when it come to choosing defence equipment of this type. Replacing the Mirage was a choice between the F-16 and the F- 18A. Now we have the choice between the F-35 and ????? - no choice really. The F-18A is OK but not really much better than the Mirage when it comes to fuel endurance and radar detection range. We really did get our money’s worth from the old Mirage but we won’t from the F-18A which is literally falling to bits and has many operational restrictions. BTW, we could have bought 3 B707 AWACS in 1983 for $50 million each, a veritable bargain considering we’re spending up to $3 billion on Wedgetail which is not yet up to scratch.
Now for the F-111. A truly remarkable weapon despite it’s huge maintenance costs. In 1996 the ‘pig’ was consuming 25% of the RAAF maintenance budget. Some savings were made by outsourcing but is still an expensive piece of kit. But - the F-111 can fly from Darwin to Jakarta, lob a precision guided weapon through the bedroom window of the Indon President (if required) and return to Darwin UNREFUELLED. The Super Hornet will not be able to do anything like that, in fact there a very few platforms that could. There is a case to keep some
F-111s. Maybe we should buy the Sukhoi? Everyone else in the region has them. Alex
I’m with Michael J on this. Why do we need manned fighter planes? What advantage do they have over unmanned drones?
Re. unmanned drones.
If you check the link in the second message (http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs/sub22.pdf) one part deals with the potential insecurity of NCW (Network Centric Warfare). Seems to me that if comms links are potentially vulnerable, so are control links to UAVs.
Can’t see how a pilot can be jammed…
Can’t see how a pilot can be jammed, if jamming of the UAV is possible then the same info and comms -radar, passive sensors etc that are being fed to the pilot can also be jammed.
JSF, Raptor, F-111, Superhornet, C-172 - all will successfully replace the F-18 which has never operationally been employed in its major role of “Defence of Australia”. And don’t quote the trip to Iraq at me, yep they went, but only embarrassing now to try and argue that one.
So we stooge around with a starting point of “must” have a fighter-aircraft. Exactly what threat is it mitigating. By the time anything actually gets into service the UAV technology will be so far past the ability of any air-breathing target that we will look foolish.
But should we be shocked, RAAF officers on this project are almost all navigators (whatever the hell that means these days - name change doesn’t disguise it) or fighter pilots. While project managers have spent years gaining experience in the cut-throat gun-runner contract the RAAF promotes some type A in a zoom bag, waves some fairy dust and abra cadabra a multi-billion dollar project lead. But the shallow closed shop gene pool is for another day.
Doesn’t matter though. All the usual suspects will have left town well before the f#ck-up is complete.
Any particular reason we can’t buy Russian kit now?
Whenever defence procurement comes up, especially when it’s about aircraft — and especially fighter aircraft — sooner or later someone suggests buying Russian or Chinese equipment. They may look superficially attractive, at least from published performance specifications, but a former defence intelligence officer tells me it’s more complicated than that.
It’s not just about the shiny new jets. It’s about the whole package. Logistics, maintenance, software, training etc — not to mention how it integrates with existing equipment and systems and that of our allies. They’re straightforward issues if you’re buying assault rifles, but a big deal if you’re talking about an air defence system.
“We learned the hard way with the Collins SSGs [submarines] that it isn’t easy to alter a complex weapon system from its ‘off the shelf’ configuration,” he says. “The Malaysians, as MiG-29 operators, have learned the hard way that Russian after-sales service ain’t what it should be.”
He’s fairly scathing of what he calls “open source punditry”.
“Those making the decisions have real information about Sukhois, or what have you, in big red folders marked with interesting code words. And they’re faced with real restrictions, obstacles and trade-offs at every stage of the acquisition process.”
Noting that fighter pilots run the air force, he says, “Biggles won’t willingly vacate his cockpit and he hates doing stuff with the Army. That, in a nutshell, is why some blue-suiters here and abroad are so blindly enthusiastic about the F-22.”
My suspicions about UAVs are because this has all been heard before, about 50 years ago…
The line then was that manned aircraft were going to become superseded by guided missiles. This view made it to the highest levels of governments, notably with the infamous 1957 White Paper on defence in the UK which poleaxed British military aircraft development.
It was also a line used extensively with the F111 project in its early days, back when it was called the TFX. It was seriously said then that the TFX would be the last ever US manned combat aircraft program!
@Malcolm Street
That something hasn’t happened doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t happen.
It doesn’t even mean that it shouldn’t have happened.
And people also said you could never make money on the internet (approx 1999). They were right at the time, but not now.
Again we need 100 fighters for…?
Malcolm Street - your last is a very good point and epitomises the biggest of lessons that history shows us, namely, that many who are responsible for tomorrow’s past and upon whom we rely don’t learn the lessons of history very well, if at all. UAV technologies have an important role to play but it is a niche role and they have a long way to go before they become mature enough (if ever) to replace direct, on site human input in the air combat continuum.
Robert White - when I wore the uniform of the RAAF, my bosses told us that our job was to be so capable and so well prepared that the other guy didn’t even think about taking us on. That is the fundamental reason why peace loving nations like Australia have a Defence Force. I fear those who are now floating on the top of the ADF pond, cutting off the sunlight and the oxygen, thus forcing out many good people who are sick of/from the stagnantcy and toxicity, have forgotten this simple fact.
With respect to the Air Power state known as ‘Air Dominance’, the aim is ‘to be so capable and so well prepared’ that the other guy’s pilots don’t even bother strapping on their aircraft in anger.
Despite what some have said in this forum and others, the fact that we have rarely had to strap on our aircraft in anger is testament to the foresight and wisdom of those who chose Australia’s air combat capabilities - up until now!
Stillgherrian - Being more than three times more capable than that being claimed the JSF might be is a tad more involved than you may think. Explaining this is beyond the scope of this post, however, you are cordially invited to peruse the information, analyses and papers on the Air Power Australia website and on-line journals ( http://www.ausairpower.net).
In the meantime, you might want to consider the following question. Is the JSF really a Fifth Generation Fighter as is being claimed?
One way of determining the answer to this question would be to ‘Peer Review’ the capabilities of the JSF, as marketed, with those aircraft that are being claimed to be its contemporaries; that is, other Fifth Generation Fighters such as the F-22A, the Russian T-50 PAK_FA and the Chiness J-12/J-XX aircraft.
As for your “former defence intelligence officer ’ friend, he is right in saying that it is more complicated - a lot more.
His comments about ‘open source’ information demonstrates this fact, since they bely the importance placed on such information and its applications by the international intelligence community and suggest a somewhat limited understanding of such things, as do his comments in relation to the Collins Class Submarine debacle.
As for his claim of those making the decisions having the ‘real information’, again this is far more complicated than he would have you believe.
Firstly, it assumes that those with what he calls the ‘real information’ have the expertise to understand the ‘real information’. Being in a position to know each and everyone of these individuals professionally, I can assure you their expertise lies elsewhere. Those with the requisite expertise have now gone silent because their colleagues who did speak up in the interests of what is right andwhat is best for Australia have either been silenced or were asked to leave.
Secondly, in recent times, have you ever seen or heard of the DMO or Defence making a decision or, moreover, accept responsibility for a decision. Since around 1999, it has all been about getting the Govt to make the decisions, then (almost immediately) saying it is a Govt decision and DMO/Defence are not responsible. More can be said about this but I think you will get the drift.
Finally, and in addition to the above, the DMO/Defence agenda has, since 2001, always been to buy the JSF, come what may. One does not have to read much of the DMO/Defence evidence to Parliament in Hansard or the Media Statements to realise this has always been their aim, despite the many declarations about “watching briefs” and that the Govt has still to make a decision, etc.
Makes you wonder, really. However, I hope this helps.
Peter Goon - the problem with your analysis and its implicit message that we need a real 5th generation fighter for the RAAF is that we’ve backed ourself into the position where there is only one possibility (F-22) and it’s not for export (and going out of production). There is not only no plan B, but no possibility of it within our current overall defence ideology.
In previous times (Sabre, Mirage, F-18) there’s been a variety of fighters from allied nations we could choose from to fit RAAF requirements. The current case is unique in that *there is no alternative to the JSF* if we want even a pseudo-5th-generation fighter from an allied nations - the only alternatives are from Russia and China. We could have JSFs up against Russian/Chinese full 5th generation fighters and goodbye doctrine of “Air Domination”.
Which begs a very important and far-reaching question. If (a) we need the F-22 to maintain air domination over our neighbours (b) but the US, for their own reason, won’t supply them to us (or anyone else) (c) and we thus have to make do with the USA’s second-stringer which will be inferior to potential enemy aircraft (which doesn’t matter to the US because they’ve got the F-22 to gain air superiority) and hence unable to maintain air domination should we be having another look at the US alliance? Because frankly if the alliance is holding us back in the fundamental task of being able to provide for our own air defence, we should be having a look at it.
I don’t have any solutions to this. My ideal would be a Swedish-style home-grown effort, but that’s completely pie-in-the-sky, particularly for 5th generation. None of the Western-European equivalents is 5th generation, and they don’t have the range we need anyway.
Stillgherrian - your comments from your intelligence officer friend are noted - when I went to work with British Aerospace in the early ‘80’s it was, shall we say, interesting how much detailed information they had on potential enemy systems that in the open literature had virtually nothing known about them. However, Peter Goon’s point remains - the information is useless without the ability to analyse it competently. It basically comes down to your faith in the current culture of the Defence.
Peter Goon:
“when I wore the uniform of the RAAF, my bosses told us that our job was to be so capable and so well prepared that the other guy didn’t even think about taking us on. That is the fundamental reason why peace loving nations like Australia have a Defence Force”.
Precisely my point, the JSF will not give us that “edge”, we will be back to a numbers game, and don’t like our chances playing our population against our northern threats. I assume there are threats!!!!
So the Raptor, will that do the job?, from what I see from here and other research YES it will. So Uncle Sam we have been there for you so time to show some non-self-obsessed loyalty to a true partner.
If not then let’s maintain our edge with technology that does not involve humans in the cockpit.
Gee maybe all that tax money we bleed for the fat pay of US gun runners could be used to develop our own technology we COULD EXPORT.
What hasn’t changed is that the Americans are only prepared to give us their second best stuff.
What has changed is that their second best stuff used to be good enough.
(from Michael R. James).
The blogs divide into two streams: those who simply are unwilling to examine whether Australia needs such fighter aircraft and those who are willing to ask that question.
Those who are sceptics about UAVs (and perhaps future technologies that fall outside that descriptor) fall back on “they were trying to do it 50 years ago” are standing naked before us all in their embarassment. (eg. Peter Goon (31 Oct09, 12:50 pm) simply gives an unsupported opinion in his first para.) I have absolutely no doubt that if we put a fraction of these absurd fighter budgets into developing unmanned options that they would represent the greatest deterrent imaginable. (But no, we will spend even more on buying off-the-shelf drones etc from the Americans and end up even more dependent than ever.) And of course, something even the supporting blogs do not mention, but one of my main points (also in the alt.energy field) is that we could develop these things ourselves, and possibly better than the Americans (whose obsession with bigness is a liability).
The justification of the need for such a defence is very shaky. In today’s Crikey, Mungo says: “The fact that the Australian mainland has never been invaded and is never likely to be….”. Just another opinion but one which many analysts would agree with. That doesn’t mean we have to ignore defence but it does mean we can afford to think creatively and independently of the Americans etc. We have the luxury of remoteness that gives us a certain protection against the more extreme scenarios. Indonesia, Malaysia, China if you are a reds-under-the-bed type are at least 20 years away from anyposition to begin any hyper-aggressive scenario so let’s use that time wisely to develop our own much cheaper defences and build our own capabilities/economy/hi-tech workforce at the same time.
@Michael R James:
I’m not sure what you mean by “such fighter aircraft”.
I think everyone here thinks we ‘need’ something that is better than what our neighbours have? Perhaps ‘need’ is too strong, but certainly, I haven’t seen anyone here arguing that we shouldn’t try to have something better than what we think they have. (Always accepting that we may be under/over estimating their actual capacity, and also acknowledging that there can be short/long term tradeoffs.)
And I don’t see anyone here defending a JSF purchase.
The unresolved debate that I see is what should we do instead. Manned? Unmanned? And in either case, from where?
To Michael R. James -
hi Michael,
Pls allow me to reply for Peter as he is otherwise occupied. I am very familiar with his APA work through many hours of debate/argument, etc.
Firstly, I assure you Peter has no reason to be embarrassed.
What you may call ‘unsupported opinion’ is still expert opinion and, besides, the reference to ‘the air combat continuum’ should have given you a hint.
IMHO, it will be UCAVs (unmanned combat air vehicles) that will be required to do the roles of manned fighters.
For all the reasons that should be obvious to you (i.e. data link vulnerabilities, spectrum limits, etc), these would have to be autonomous to be effective. Now, even the AI gurus cannot agree this side of 2025 when their technologies will be up to far more simple tasks. Then there are the issues of ROE and the various treaties to which we are all signatories. Then there is the matter of the aviation regulations and associated authorities.
However, putting this aside, how would you and you wife/girlfriend/friend feel about having an autonomous AI controlled machine flying over top of you, your kids, your house, etc. on a training sortie carrying several tonnes of high explosive?
I must admit I found the bulk of Mungo’s article an interesting read but the pre-amble, once again, shows what Peter said in relation to history and learning - Mungo (and your good self) seem to have misplaced WWII et al.
As for your insight into all things to our North, the following link is well worth a read as is the extract below -
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/10979/
“Only power could protect peace,” the 59-year-old air force commander said in an interview with Xinhua, 10 days ahead of 60th anniversary of the founding of the PLA air force.
Superiority in space and in air would mean, to a certain extent, superiority over the land and the oceans, Xu said.
“As the air force of a peace-loving country, we must forge our swords and shields in order to protect peace,” he said.
cheers,
Linda V
Ben 5.50pm. I meant “any” fighter aircraft. The arguments between the JSF and the F22 is only valid if you accept the basic premise that we should be spending so hugely on any such craft. It is a distraction. My argument is that I feel Australia is terribly vulnerable because we essentially import anything remotely complex and technical. We have a depleted industrial capacity, almost zilch in electronics (notwithstanding CSIRO’s triumph with wifi which does actually show what we can do if we get the opportunity, ditto solar-PV and solar-thermal). I want to make us strong in a more fundamental way not in the way that third world dictators do (spend their treasuries on imported weapons they can barely use). In my opinion any military budget must have a huge component of promoting local industrial strength as well as providing credible defence. I don’t believe fighter planes do either of those things (and as Ben has said it is a delusion to think we will somehow capture servicing/subcontracting needs for these planes) now, or in the next 25 years, certainly not beyond, if they ever did.
LindaV. Sorry I just do not accept any of those arguments. Defeatist and not reality-based, despite all the claims of “expert”. Those who actually create the future — in Silicon Valley etc — never think like that. Which is why our good people are mostly Californians (Ausra, and Trouson for Stem Cells, Zhongren in China with the world’s biggest solar company). Spend our money on-shore and insist the supported industries achieve the impossible.
I think we’re in danger of having a couple of conversations at once here, so let me try to sum up the loose threads of conversation:
1. There doesn’t seem to be any suitable manned aircraft that we can buy. Nobody seems to want the JSF. The Americans won’t sell us the F22. There was a suggestion that we might look to other suppliers, but that suggestion seems to have been (ahem) shot down by Stilgherrian.
2. There are weaknesses with unmanned craft (as per Linda).
3. There might or might not be a possibility to manufacture unmanned aircraft locally.
Linda, you said that “UCAVs will be required” but you also imply that they aren’t yet combat ready. What do you suggest that we do, given the seeming lack of options?
Ben 6.08pm. Good summary. Except that I would remove the “or might not” to #3. Of course we could do it, and be world-beating if only we supported the effort. I am talking about the future, maybe tens years (during which I am perfectly happy not to have a replacement of the F111 etc) so any defeatist argument about inadequacies of UCAVs etc is irrelevant. As other forward-looking bloggers have noted, we can barely imagine the future of electronics and communications tens years out, except that the capabilities will be staggering (and I personally do not believe AI or totally autonomous is necessary.) Why don’t we create the future instead of a being third rate client state of the US.
To Michael R James -
(Edit - focus on issues rather than other commenters please)
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-130308-1.html
Properly managed, this plan would see Australia with the best and most effective “Air Dominance’ air combat capability for about half the dollars that senior officials in the Defence/DMO bureaucracy would have us tax payers fund. A large portion of these dollars would be spent in Australia on engaging Australian Industry (Peter always capitalises ‘Industry’, just like Defence and DMO) with far more, high value work for Industry than the current plans of Defence/DMO could ever hope to generate - both for Australia’s and for export.
(edit)
Air Power Australia is only one of a large number of such activities, all of which have been, and continue to be, privately funded by people who care about Australia.
cheers,
Linda V
Register now to join the conversation instantly, or log in to post a comment now.