Posted on 01/03/2006 11:09:39 AM PST by Dundee
Costs hit fighter jet order
AUSTRALIA may halve its order for US F-35 joint strike fighter jets to 50 planes because of continuing cost blowouts on the $256billion project, a move that could threaten regional air superiority.
Australia had pledged to buy 100 of the radar-evading stealth aircraft to replace an ageing air wing of 71 F/A-18 attack aircraft and 26 F-111 tactical fighter bombers.
The first of the US-built Lockheed Martin joint strike fighter aircraft are due to be delivered to Australia in 2014.
Australia has joined its allies in the project to build the planes, which has enabled the order to be purchased for a reduced total of $16billion, including maintenance, spare-parts and other costs.
But a senior Defence official has warned a parliamentary inquiry in Canberra that Australia could be forced to reduce its target order if the US slashes the number of planes it plans to build, because this would further drive up costs of the troubled F-35 project.
The price of the aircraft has reportedly already blown out from $45million to $60million per plane, but this could rise further if the US slashes its order of 2500 aircraft by one-fifth, as some US reports have suggested.
"The (Defence) white paper from 2000 says (we buy) 100 ... but depending on who you speak to ... some other people think 50 would be good," deputy Defence secretary Shane Carmody has told an inquiry into Australia's defence relationship with the US.
"A factor in the cost blowout, I think, would be if the US decided to reduce the number of aircraft it is acquiring.
"We certainly have some concerns if the (joint strike fighter) gets very expensive ... and ultimately, sometimes you have to cut your cloth, but we are a long way short of that at this point."
The US Congress has already recommended slashing $270million from the Pentagon's joint strike fighter budget next year.
Under the project, Lockheed aims to build 2500 stealth fighter aircraft for the US and several hundred more for its allies in the most ambitious defence project of its kind.
Australia is interested in buying the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) version for delivery by 2014 to replace its F/A-18 fleet.
But US Defence News has cited Pentagon sources as saying the US Air Force may be forced to scrap the CTOL version and opt for a smaller number of the more expensive navy version of the fighter.
Mr Carmody told the Australian inquiry that Canberra had still "not committed on aircraft type or numbers".
"I think there is a lot of analysis going on within Defence at the moment by Air Force, the project office and DSTO (the Defence Science and Technology Organisation) to ... look at the numbers we need, how many missions they need to carry out," he said.
Aldo Borgu, author of a report for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute on the joint strike fighter, saidbuying only 50 would leave Australia's air defences "very vulnerable". "With 50 fighters, you simply would not have enough to provide for Australia's air defences or to deploy fighters on combat missions overseas," he said.
Mr Borgu said there was now talk that, as part of the US Quadrennial Defence Review due to be completed next month, Washington might axe the CTOL version and force the US Air Force to buy the navy version.
"The conventional take-off and landing version is the version the RAAF is interested in," Mr Borgu said.
He added that there was a real risk that Australia could lose its air superiority because "other regional air forces are not standing still".
But the head of defence think tank the Kokoda Foundation, professor Ross Babbage, who suggested a purchase of up to 120 aircraft in a separate report, said it was only prudent that defence planning take into account low- and high-number options.
"I can't imagine that in the end we would only buy 50 fighters ... but there are other options, including complementing the fighters with UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), which may mean you can have fewer of them. I don't think anyone has realised yet just how much more capable the JSF will be than the current generation of fighters," Professor Babbage said.
Defence Minister Robert Hill and Defence Force chief Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston insisted Australia was still on target to buy 100 joint strike fighters at the launch of the defence strategic update last month.
I don't know who he's talking to because 50 would not be good, it would be insane.
I've always wanted Australia to get 80 or 100 F-22, but of course that would be even more expensive. I say damn the expense, this is our national security we're dealing with.
Why are we building F-35's when we can just build more F-22's?
Is one for export?
Trying to mimic the F-16/F-15 mix that worked so well for the past 30+ years:
1. F-22 for total "air superiority".
2. F-35 for the multitude of tasks performed by today's "multi-role fighters." Fighter, attack, CAS (tough call).
Just like the F-15, the cost of the F-22 is too prohibitive to buy it for most uses. While a smaller number of F-22s will dominate the airspace, the F-35 will perform the grunt work.
> I've always wanted Australia to get 80 or 100 F-22, but of course that would be even more expensive. I say damn the expense, this is our national security we're dealing with.
I'd be quite pleased if New Zealand acquired 100 F-22's. Instead, the government's closing down Whenuapai AFB just down the road, probably going to turn it into cheap social housing. Just like they did Hobsonville next door. It makes my blood boil.
What price national security??? A few F-22's would give the Bad Guys pause to reflect, perhaps to reconsider...
I see. So instead of the F14-15-16-18 configurations, we will go with a F22 and F35. reading up on the F35, this plane will go to the Air Force, Navy and Marines.
Seems smart enough, parts will be cheaper.
I like your tagline.
Someone wrote it on the boards and I asked him if I could use it as my tagline.
It's a keeper.
The US Air Force wants more F-22's which is superior to the f-35.
However, the US Navy has not agreed to a "navalized" F-22, so they've got a significant gap to fill with the F-14 retirement.
There's still a lot of heated debate on this, but the F/A-18 will fill the F-14 role for the near future. Wether the F-35 is suitable as a "Fleet Defender" is still heatedly argued.
From what I see, the STOVL version (F-35B) lacks in performance and is having trouble finding buyers (Brits are balking and the USAF is pulling it's order for 300+). If they cut that version, they may lose some USMC sales but may save enough to fund the more desireable variants CTOL and CV variants.
Indeed. Thanks for the heads-up.
BTW...
A fanatic is one who won't change his mind and won't change the subject - Churchill
New version: A fanatic is one who won't change his mind and won't change his tagline. - Churchill)
Duly noted...
F-18 E/F super hornets and JSF's is the package the navy is going for in the near future. The super hornet is a good plane much better than the regular hornet.
The F-35 is a replacement for our aging fleet of F-16s and F-18s. The F-22 is a replacement for the F-15. In other words, they are apples and oranges. The F-22s are much more advanced but are built for air superiority. The F-35 is mostly a strike fighter with decent air-to-air capabilities. It is drastically cheaper then the F-22.
The F-22 was built "in-house" and will not be available for export except to our very close allies. We probably won't sell the avionics to even our allies though.
The F-35 is a joint venture, much like the Eurofighter Typhoon, and will be shared across all of our armed services and available for export to are good friends.
Personally, I think the F-35 should be scrapped in favor of stealty and pilotless stike craft and at least several dozen F-22s.
I thought all the F-111's were scrap..........well, they were scrap to begin with, but is anybody else other than australia using these relec's?
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/050512-F-2295B-280.jpg
http://www.f22-raptor.com/government/images/Congratulations.jpg
Agreed.
The common F/A-18 platforms mean higher up-times and availability with a much lower workload. Many lament the loss of the F-14 and the Phoenix, but the Phoenix was never much of a missile against anything but bombers anyway. The speed and range of the F-14 may be sorely missed, though.
Perhaps a navalized F-23 may be in the works?
The F-111 may be one of the best fighter-bombers (strike aircraft, really) of all time. They saw considerable use in the later years of Vietnam and were the choice for our strikes against Libya in the 1980s. HARDLY SCRAP, but currently dated when viewed against stealthier (but much slower) platforms.
We need to maintain our lead in air superiority. However, we aren't really being challenged in that aspect by those who oppose us.
I would think that a smaller number of superior air superiority craft can't meet the same needs as a larger number of 'workhorse' planes. We need a larger number of planes and we need to be able to station quantities around the world. I don't think we can do that at the per unit cost of the F-22.
Unmanned vehicles are definately where we are headed in the future, but versitile unmanned aircraft are a ways off yet. We cannot afford to wait until they become a reality, we need to upgrade our aircraft now to maintain our edge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
