Australia Buys into Joint Strike Fighter

news.ninemsn.com.au ^ | 27 Jun 2002

[Dundee]

Australia invests $300m in US fighter plan

Australia is set to invest $300 million in a United States project to develop the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter as a likely future replacement for Australia's frontline aircraft.

Defence Minister Robert Hill said the decision would place Australia at the forefront of developing the world's biggest and most advanced combat aircraft program.

He said Australia would need to replace aging F/A-18 Hornets and F111 strike aircraft from around 2012.

Senator Hill said Australia would enter a memorandum of understanding for the development of the JSF with a decision on procurement likely to be made around 2006.

The first aircraft would probably be delivered around 2012.

"Through the JSF program defence will have access to levels of capability and technology in the aircraft that will be a generation ahead of other contemporary aircraft," Senator Hill told a media conference.

The JSF is a stealthy, supersonic multi-role fighter which is likely to form the main part of the US Air Force and that of other air forces until around the middle of the century.

Australia is likely to need around 100 aircraft to replace the F/A-18s and F111s.

The unit price of each aircraft is estimated to be around $US40 million ($A71.4 million) each.

Industry Minister Ian McFarlane said the project would have substantial implications for Australian industry with potential earnings of up to $US4 billion ($A7.14 billion).

[Dundee]

This is really good news for Australia. Maybe we could get a squadron of the VSTOL version for a possible aircraft carrier.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

.

[Squantos]

It was either this or learn to speak Chinese IMHO........

Stay Safe !

[VaBthang4]

(((((((Ping)))))))

[Utopia]

It was either this or learn to speak Chinese IMHO........

When I lived in Australia, my walk to school had me pass the grounds on an Australian war memorial. On a display outside, were 2 Japanese subs that were captured in Sydney Harbor in WWII. These things were tiny. The Japanese had already printed victory currency for the subjugation of Australia.

[Paradox]

Austrailians, euro-NON-weenies!

Sometimes it seems the best of the Europeans are the expatriates and their decendants...

[rmlew]

Compare teh Aussies to the Kiwis.
New Zeeland got rid of its air force. Anzac is turning into AC+USA+UK+free loader.

[KC_for_Freedom]

Not bad news for Lockheed Martin too I suspect. (Former LMT employee here.)

[mamelukesabre]

Although I'm not against progress, and certainly not against progress in our military's weapons, I wonder how important this new fighter really is. It seems to me that any old fighter plane would do, as it is the weapons systems that make the difference, not the vehicle that they are mounted on. Am I completely bonkers here, or am I making sense?

I am reminded of a fighter jet that the israelis use(or use to), that is basically an F-4 phantom with french engines, or perhaps is was vice versa, F-4 phantom engines on a french fighter jet. This plane was very successful even though is is, in a way, just some old, outdated, mismatched parts thrown together.

[spetznaz]

I am reminded of a fighter jet that the israelis use(or use to), that is basically an F-4 phantom with french engines, or perhaps is was vice versa, F-4 phantom engines on a french fighter jet. This plane was very successful even though is is, in a way, just some old, outdated, mismatched parts thrown together

Might you be referring to the Kfir? The Kfir is essentially the airframe of the Dassault-Breguet Mirage III/5 series mated to the General Electric J79 afterburning turbojet and fitted with a suite of Israeli electronics.

Anyways i kind of agree with you on the other topic of the necessity of ultramodern aircraft! Althoug i am in awe of such machines like the Raptor and the JSF i continously ask myself this question.....are they really necessary if you consider that the cash and resources used for the development of the F-22 and the JSF could have been employed to developing ultra-modern weaponry and ordnance to be used on late generation F-15s and F-14s (oops, thanks to certain people the F-14 was killed). Anyway the cost of developing ultra-modern missiles/seekers/targetting/standoff systems etc as well as late generation variants of existing aircraft models would be actually cheaper than creating an entirely 'new' generation aircraft.

Also it reminds me of the B-2 spirit Stealth Bomber. Although the B-2 is quite probaly my fave aircraft i think it is quite useless! And let me explain myself before i start getting flamed (lol). Think of it...the darn thing costs half the price of an aircraft carrier (the cost of a B-2 is around 2 billion dollars)! Meaning 2 spirits go for the asking price of a whole nuclear powered US aircraft carrier. Secondly there are aircraft like the B-1 Lancer than can efficiently do the job of the B-2 (and even carry more bombs), and the B-1 itself is an extremely advanced plane (although not in the league of the Spirit) and is far cheaper. Thirdly i do not find the Spirit cost effective! Flying a 2 billion dollar behemoth all the way from mainlan USA to kill some offending Taliban Jehadis in some Afghan dirt hole to me seems rather inefficient. Especially when you consider a combination of a UAV (eg global Hawk or Predator) meshed with a Tomahawk could have done the same job! Heck, even that is too much for a place like Afghanistan....a fighter bomber with a couple of JDAMs would have done the job!

Hence the B-2 Spirit seems like a waste of cash on great technology (i agree the tech is amazing.....but the project itself is 'forced'). After all there are other assets that are cheaper and more efficient. Eg in case of a nuclear war SLBMs and ICBMs would be the mainstay....not the B-2 (and even if a manned bomber was somehow needed to clear up where the missiles did not...then a B-1 Lancer with standoff missiles would do the job quite well). In the scenario of conventional aircraft then Tomahawks and CALCMs could easily take care of heavily defended targets that would bode ill for manned fighters.

And anyway using a B-2 to attack Taliban footmen holed up in some cave sounds like overkill.....and although i am in support of overkill i am definitely against ultra-expensive overkill going after some goatherds with AK-47s and 20 cent sandals!

Anyway here is a picture of the Kfir jet.

[RightOnline]

"Also it reminds me of the B-2 spirit Stealth Bomber. Although the B-2 is quite probaly my fave aircraft i think it is quite useless! And let me explain myself before i start getting flamed..."

No flames here, my friend. I completely agree with you. Given the ability, I'd kill the B-2 in a New York minute due to its utterly ridiculous cost.............and I'm a former SAC airplane driver.

[VaBthang4]

I could be wrong but I thought the Kfir was an Israeli knockoff of the French aircraft actually lifted from French Schematics stolen by the Israelis after the French reniged[sp?] on a deal between the two countries.

[VaBthang4]

I would agree if that were the only scenario....but being able to fly all the way to Beijing and perform the same task is really the type of mission that it is designed for.

I dont wanna hear about their new high felutin radar. Until they bring one down....

No they didnt bring the one down in Kosovo. That was a combination of piss poor operationable management by the officers in charge...not changing the egress routes on particular missions...and the radar.

Hell a grip of kids from the Bronx could bring down a stealth if you gave'em enough heat seekers, AAA and a fighter that goes home the same way everyday.

[spetznaz]

I could be wrong but I thought the Kfir was an Israeli knockoff of the French aircraft actually lifted from French Schematics stolen by the Israelis after the French reniged[sp?] on a deal between the two countries

I am not informed on how the Israelis procurred the aircraft, but the Kfir is indeed essentially the shell of a French aircraft (the Dassault-Breguet Mirage III/5 series) with Israeli avionics, and American Engines (the GE J79 turbojet with afterburner).

Thus it could be said the Kfir is a 'knockoff' of a French aircraft...however i am not sure about the exact manner the Israeli's acquired the airframe. All i know is that the Kfir is quite possibly better than the Dassault archetype it was derived from due to better engines and avionics.

[spetznaz]

I would agree if that were the only scenario....but being able to fly all the way to Beijing and perform the same task is really the type of mission that it is designed for. I dont wanna hear about their new high felutin radar. Until they bring one down.... No they didnt bring the one down in Kosovo. That was a combination of piss poor operationable management by the officers in charge...not changing the egress routes on particular missions...and the radar. Hell a grip of kids from the Bronx could bring down a stealth if you gave'em enough heat seekers, AAA and a fighter that goes home the same way everyday.

Well....all i have to say is that i think the B-2 Spirit is a formidable aircraft....after all what other aircraft can penetrate enemy defenses with impunity and deliver up to 16 separate bombs (even nuclear ones) and get back with all souls on board, and without having to land even once on enemy territory! Hence the B-2 is an amazing aircraft in every respect...however that was not my point.

My point was that it is not cost effective, and is not efficient! By the way when i say it is not efficient i do not mean it has low efficacy! Nope. Actually it is my belief that there is no other aircraft that matches the capabilities of the B-2 THAT IS KNOWN TODAY (for those who say tales of the US Aurora project and the Russian stealth bomber). The B-2 is unmatched in its mission...to that there is no question whatsoever.

The only problem is that every single mission that the B-2 does can be matched in a more efficient manner by other strike and attack assets! In the event of a nuclear slugout (eg against Beijing) our Ohio Class SSBNs would launch Trident SLBMs. That would not only be cheaper but also cost effective....and the logistics would be much easier.

In the event of a conventional alternative (without a 'friendly' airbase to base our fighter-bombers in) then we could use the B-1 Lancer, which has inter-continental capabilities and although is not a stealth aircraft has formidable defensive suites (its AN/ALQ-161 defensive avionics suite provides jamming against early-warning radars and the fire-control radars of missiles and anti-air guns, as well as incorporated Northrop Grumman jamming transmitters, Raytheon phased array antennas and a tail warning pulse Doppler radar, which gives rear-facing hemispherical coverage). Also it has the largest internal payload of any current bomber (including the AGM-86B which is a strategic cruise missile, fitted with a conventional warhead with a yield of 200kt and a range up to 2,500km) as well as the ability (if need be) to be fitted with the AGM-69 Nuclear Standoff missile! Hence the B-1B can match many of the aspects and facets of the B-2...even though the B-2 has the huge advantage of stealth. Furthermore in the conventional scenario it would be more prudent to use a slew of Tomahawks and AGM-86B ALCMs than to send B-2s from Whitemann airforce base in Missouri! And with Global Hawk and satellite imaging then the real time accuracy of the Cruise missiles (and the future JSOW and JASSM) would negate the need for the B-2.

And when you factor in its cost (2 billion dollars apiece) which is half the cost of a Nuclear aircraft carrier, one begins to wonder about the prudence of the B-2. For example when in the scenario where it was used in Afghanistan to deliver some JDAMS....which looked very forced to me.

A pertinent analogy would be that let's say you have a gun rack in your house, and you have a wide array of weapons ranging from 9mms to Assault Rifles and the like.....and let's also say you even have RPGs and the like! And you are well versed in their use and capabilities. However you also recently bought an ultra-expensive 'death ray' that costs i million dollars a pop to shoot! And let's say some thug tries to rob your house on Friday night, and you catch him in his tracks.

Would you finish him off with a bean-bag gun to incapacitate him, shoot him with a Steyr Aug until he is dead, use your bazooka, knee cap him with the AR-15 or .....would you go and take you 'death ray' laser gun and obliterate him, and pay your power company a million bucks for the pleasure? Mosy people would use the cheaper...yet extremely potent...alternatives. The laser gun would be effective, but so is the Steyr aug and you do not have to cough up a mil in the process!

Similar scenario with the B-2. It is highly effective, but there are a lot of other assets that can do the same job it does, and do it much cheaper!

And i think the B-2 is overkill! And as i said in a previous post, i LOVE overkill. However when the overkill costs 2 billion dollars and is doing something that can be done not only as efficiently but cheaply (relatively speaking) then its VITAL need is questionable! And i am not knocking down the Spirit....i just think it is a waste of money...but on a good project! It is not a 'white elephant' per se...but it is darn close!

And about the Kosovo incident...that was a F-117A stealth 'fighter' that was shot down. And i agree...stealth is not everything. It is a lot...but try attacking a nation like the UK or the Russian Federation with F-117s and B-2s and chances are a good number are coming down. However Stealth is still something great...and the Kosovo situation was overblown since a lot of factors could have contributed to the downing of that aircraft. So do not think i was trying to knock down stealth (although i think stealth suffers from two problems: 1) It is under-rated. 2) It is over-rated).

All i was saying is that the B-2 seems a little 'forced' when it comes to getting viable missions for it that cannot be readily and cheaply performed by other assets.

After all someone can use a Bentley to drive to various holes in a game of golf....but a golf cart would be more efficient and do the job perfectly (even though the Bentley would have great air conditioning and have a banging audio system)!

[VaBthang4]

"And i think the B-2 is overkill! And as i said in a previous post, i LOVE overkill."

So do I and as far as the American Military is concerned....there is no such thing.

"However when the overkill costs 2 billion dollars and is doing something that can be done not only as efficiently but cheaply "

2 Billion 2 shmillion....if the air force wants to blow their wad on it then who am I? And that cost effective arguement of yours didnt hold too much water the last time you tried it.....haha.

~smile~

I feel you. Although I wouldnt agree that the B1 can do what the B2 can especially when we consider the fact that much of its capabilities are indeed classified.

But I hear you.

[spetznaz]

Lol