Tonight’s 4 Corners was about the mess that is Australia’s fighter plane procurement plans, something that’s been noted previously on LP.
Most of the material has been covered elsewhere before, but there was a new tidbit in tonight’s report. According to Brendan Nelson, one of the major reasons for retiring the current F-111’s early was that testing showed that their wings might face structural failure. However, the program claims the failed test was actually the result of a flawed testing procedure. According to the program transcript:
BRENDAN NELSON (speaking at press conference - 6 March 2007): We are determined that under no circumstances will we take the risk of an aircraft having an engineering failure at Mach 1.5 at a very low level.
AIR VICE-MARSHAL PETER CRISS (RTD), AIR COMMANDER AUSTRALIA 1999-2000: Doctor Nelson seemed to imply or didn’t seem to imply he said he didn’t want to have an aircraft come apart at 1.5 on the deck on his watch. Well first of all the F-111 can’t do 1.5 on the deck but I know what he is inferring and that is that in a high speed, low level environment there’s a lot of pressure on the airframe. It’s not going to come apart.
ANDREW FOWLER: What we can reveal tonight is that the so called catastrophic wing test failure that both Boeing and the Defence Minister had exploited was caused by a mistake. Peter Criss has former colleagues at the Defence science and technology organisation which carried out the tests.
AIR VICE-MARSHAL PETER CRISS (RTD), AIR COMMANDER AUSTRALIA 1999-2000: I certainly talk to people, those that I can get access to without embarrassing them, and they acknowledge that they broke an F-111 wing in test through a bad test spectrum, in other words they set the wing up incorrectly.
If this is true, we’ve just spent six billion dollars, without a tender process (and thus quite possibly bought a dud), to replace an aircraft that was still serviceable - or, at least, wasn’t going to fail because of the faulty wings Nelson was spouting to his Cabinet colleagues and the public.
Going after the government on Defence for spending too much money on American hardware is politically risky for an Opposition sitting pretty in the polls, so I don’t expect for Labor or the smaller parties to make a big deal of it. But there might well be some fun and games in the new Parliament after the election on this issue, if it turns out that that the Tories have been as incompetent on this as they appear.
Defence Minister, Stud Nelson VC, has mastered the dark art of the “No Bid” contract. This goose would prefer to act as a Core Neo -Conservative MIC-enabler, rather than provide Australia with adequate Air Defence.
Wonder what he copped for the sling?
What the Four Corners program did not consider was why shouldn’t we buy the Russian fighter?
If it can do 2.3 mach we could do our usual stuff and modify it to suit our local purposes and for the scenario they had with the 200 nautical mile buffer after firing our missiles we could be well out of the scene before the enemy could scramble and with no chance of being overtaken.
Are we bound by military or trade treaty to only buy US stuff?
Dany: we’ve discussed this berfore.
There are several problems with buying Russian:
One thing I didn’t like was how much of it was framed in terms of a possible military conflict with Indonesia, in the next decade. That really did seem highly unlikely and only on the bounds of possibility. And if Australia looks further abroad? While the story did make a number of strong points, it really did rely on the ‘yellow peril’ angle, and fear of Indonesia in the popular imagination, just too strongly for my liking.
It would have been nice to see Australia’s risk of attack from neighbours evaluated on merit too!
The government’s defence procurement policies have been weak since the day it came to office and decided to run off at the mouth about the Collins submarine just to score some minor political point on Beasley (as beautifully highlighted by the Bomber in his valedictory speech).
The Collins-class is definitively the most capable platform we have ever operated in air land or sea, but you will never hear about its importance on the front of news limited newspapers, the most important work that they carry out is pretty much wholly classified.
But not only its procurement - also the way it sets the operational agenda for our forces. They broke the back of the Navy over the whole Tampa / SIEV thing with senior command elements at war with each other over whether the Navy’s role should involve border protection or not. But the way they hung the C.O. of HMAS Adelaide out to dry in front of a senate committee was in effect, the salutary lesson to all senior commanders about the governments attitude to them - political considerations are paramount whilst on operations in the field.
How this government achieves ’strengths’ in defence and security (want to hear about airport security?) simply highlights to me that the complete ignorance of these matters by journalistic elements and the general public - especially many of the hairy chested boys toys brigade and other cut-lunch-commandos that you find around the traps. They apparently think parading around posturing like a troop of chimpanzees constitutes a defence policy.
The fact that it is frequently the case to find journalists who can’t tell the difference between air-superiority fighters and attack aircraft or frigates and destroyers writing in the major dailies as defence specialists should alert any informed person as to the level of analysis that you will get from the newspapers.
Nonetheless, I didn’t see 4 Corners last night, but good on them for having a go. I will have to watch out for it on ABC 2.
As an interim measure how many Russian planes could you buy for 6 billion?
If Indonesia, Malaysia etc get the Russian planes I doubt it would be very difficult for anyone to get any technical details they want once this stuff is available outside Russia.If China get the Russian planes they would be copying them in no time flat and probably be able to supply cheap spare parts to the highest bidder.
Indonesia etc would also be at the mercy of the whims of V Putin.I do not think that Russia in particular favours countries which have an element of Muslim delinquency in their makeup such as the scenario portrayed in the Four Corners program.
hey it ate my response … can mods check it out for me?
Regarding who to defend against and therefore what equipment is required: Do you think that Indonesia, say within 25 years, would ever be China’s ‘deputy sheriff’ in SE Asia/Austalasia?
A man out here in this very place name,was the originator of many things to do with testing planes including the F111,and worked alongside ,on the Nomad aircraft the once head of ASIO. ……I have dotted his name out,because he may have something to say about this himself ,if still alive.I am not sure of the facts as presented, and, well, do not be surprised if other insights,historically,about material strength indicators paints a different picture again.Both …..,and the deceased out here would of known and used these testing instruments and procedures. The man out here use to do stuff with Qauntas and went to aircraft accidents and was a person who set up a library system within Defence,evolving matters also flight. I doubt he would of made mistakes.but, understandings and updating what already existed as F111,may have leadto a different summary accounting between military users and the Defence people overseers. The required skills,and historical views,and a sense of both of them on request for information….may have lead to misunderstandings.which is then a operational intelligence priority communications failure. I dont think it is reasonable to claim or blame Nelson or Liberals entirely for this,for accounting has been lax in other areas let alone operational safety matters,where we have seen with helicopters at least an unwillingness to always follow procedure,and account for those procedures followed. I think it is a very grey area,which ever spelling, that puts Ministerial incompetence up there first on this matter,and working personnel at different levels the same. However,yes, it is too much money blown!
Robert the problem of Russian weapons systems of being incompatible is being solved. From
[link]
( The Sukhoi discussed on Four Corners)
“Su-30MKA Highly specialised version for Algeria is similar to the MKI, but will principally be equipped with French and Russian avionics. It will feature head-up and multifunction displays from the Thales Group and Sagem of France.” Other defence forces are also changing the Su-30’s avionics.
The Russians also wouldn’t be the only possible source of spare parts for the Su-30.
There are a number of issues that the excellent Four Corners brought up.and for some of the terms in that program see
[link]
1. These fighters have to be considered as an overall part of our defence forces and not just as toys for the boys.( The JSF F-35 Lightning II is likely to be the last ” meat in the seat” as far as the U.S. is concerned).A key example : if in the scenario of the attack on the military communications headquarters on the outskirts of Jakarta we had used the
Super Hornets against the Indonesians Su-30s then all of the Super Hornets would have been destroyed. This may be an acceptable cost for the goal achieved if we have sufficient other defence assets. However we have to go through most probable scenario analyses and I find a direct attack on the Indonesians improbable. We might plan however for an outlying territorial dispute with the Indonesians.
2. The decision to buy the JSF appears to have been made very carelessly.
3. The JSF is also a comparatively slow aircraft against the Su-30. The scenario of an interaction between the JSF and Su-30s wasn’t explored on the Four Corners program.
4, The decison to buy the interim Super Hornet was hopelessly flawed.
Force Integration Theory: The recent spate of US equipment purchasing is related to force integration with the US military. E.g. AU tank crews or air crews can be cheaply transported to an area and provided with US hardware upon arrival - cheaper for us, increases their pool of trained personnel - something important if we ever have to fight WW2 again. This is only a reasonable strategic plan if we wish to accept the Deputy Sheriff role envisioned for Australia by the neo-con’s hard-wilsonianism - an ideology which probably wont survive the next decade.
If we accept this theory as an explanation for recent military procurements it neatly explains the Abrams tanks and the JSF, AWAC and some other purchases… But unless AU pilots are to be required to support the US Navy (who are the apparently the only US or allied force flying them), then the super-hornet purchase is inconsistent with the force integration approach.
That’s s Cool Radar System Theory: A mate in the military confided that he suspected (yeah I know, anecdotal and all that), that a prime selling point of the super-hornet was the radar system. Apparently no-one told anyone else that the radar system can be purchased separately and fitted to the f111 at some ridiculously low percentage of what the super-h’s are costing.
Anyone else got some cool conspiracy theories to share about the super-hornets? Preferably evil Dr Nelson ones (pic’s of him Dr. Evil style for pref).
Apply Heinlein’s razor: Nelson, ya just incompetent.
If the DSTO stuffed up a test, it’s hardly the minister’s fault. I don’t expect a career politician to tell flight safety engineers how to do their jobs, but do I expect him to act on their advice.
Why is anyone surprised to be told that 40yo planes, once notorious for falling out of the sky in great numbers, are close to end-of-life? The USA retired them over a decade ago. Given that they are at EOL, any government is required to plan replacements.
The obvious (but unfortunately not complete) replacement is the super-hornet. It’s a close enough match to our existing force to make logistics simpler than any alternative. There’s no point running a tender if you already know what plane you want - it’s not like there are multiple suppliers.
Another thing is, just because the DSTO (allegedly) stuffed a single test does not mean that the planes are safe. Given their age and peculiar fatigue susceptibilities I’d be starting from the opposite viewpoint.
Unfortunately the “Howard is good for national security” faithful probably aren’t 4-corners viewers, and are unlikely to have read the numerous scathing reports from the Australian National Audit Office on incompetence/inefficiency in the DMO, (lost equipment including rocket launchers, substandard gear for soldiers) . In the context of last-night’s program, the 2005 ABC report ASPI calls for better accounting procedures in the ADF, is spot on and the ANAO report on Management of Air Combat Fleet In-Service Support (2006/07) points out we lack the parts and skills for the new stuff.
At least the “spare parts” for the flying pig are available.
Whatever you think about the wisdom of buying anything still on the drawing board (the JSF), the super-hornet seems to be totally irrational from a military viewpoint, irresponsible from a financial view, but totally understandable given Peacock’s role in Boeing.
I’ll also point to a previous LP post by Robert Merkel calling for a new defence white paper is worthwhile. I’ll quote a bit here:
Contract management and procurement procedures are pretty bad throughout the federal government, but when buying such expensive toys, and with the strategic importance of long-term defence planning, oversight by the ANAO is critical.
The elephant in the room is not the super hornets per se, it’s the stupid commitment to the JSF. Without that, we wouldn’t be contemplating the super hornets and might have a clearer view of what we really require once the f-111 is retired.
Craig Mc does have a point: the f-111 fatigue profile is more or less unique due to the swinging wings. We’ve invested a lot of effort into keeping them flying, at some point there are diminishing returns which need to be accounted for.
We ought to have pulled out of the JSF project as soon as the cost overruns and time overruns started occurring. It’s an expensive, overly complicated dog with capabilities we’ll never use. Good, long range radar and satellite investments and a heaping helping of ballistic and AA missiles would have been more effective. Of course, they aren’t much use when you’re playing deputy sherriff or getting involved in resource wars.
“AU tank crews or air crews can be cheaply transported to an area and provided with US hardware upon arrival - cheaper for us, increases their pool of trained personnel - something important if we ever have to fight WW2 again. “
The Tiger tends to gainsay that argument. Attack/recon helos would the first pricey bit of kit you’d want to have 100% ANZUS ‘fungible’, of any capital purchase, given their highly tactical role and the difficulty of self-deployment.
Tho’ as it turned out I think we got spivved into funding Lockheed Martin’s Hellfire II/bolt-on launch mount testing program on ours, anyway. In the name of (partial) integation, I imagine. Bit like buying a Pepsi franchise but still locking yourself into installing Coke post-mixes, to enable/bankroll their ongoing market-expansion and new flavour testing.
In a time of ‘war’, a fool and his defence dollar are very, very, very soon parted.
I’m not particularly surprised to hear the DSTO stuffed up the test… and I don’t think that anyone else should be either.
Craig: The parts commonality is apparently a lot less than you might think, and the weapons we’ve bought for it (AIM-9X, if I recall correctly, and JSOW) are completely incompatible with our recent weapons purchases for the “classic” Hornets (ASRAAM and JASSM).
Even if the Super Hornets were the only option, the plan for integrating them into the force was non-existent, as the 4 Corners program demonstrates. Deciding to buy Super Hornets without telling the Chief of Defence Force? That’s just ludicrous.
The final point about integration with the Yanks is our air force offers them nothing that they don’t have themselves in massively greater quantities. Nouse about counterinsurgency warfare and rather useful (if small in size) special forces are far more useful to them. Of course, the most useful thing of all we offer the Yanks militarily is the political cover to say “see! It’s a coalition of forces, not just us acting unilaterally…”
George: Australia has confronted, or come perilously close to confronting, Indonesia multiple times over our history. We all hope it doesn’t happen again, but it seems imprudent to assume it won’t.
But that fantasy rationale is of course the cornerstone of our ridiculous over-spending on “defence” for the past 50 years.
Meanwhile, SBY has just released a new album of songs, including one he wrote while here for APEC. Be afraid…
Craig Mc [link] “Built in the late 1960s, the F-111 is a contemporary of the US B-52H and B-1B bombers, both of which the US Air Force intends to operate well past 2030″ whcih covers the period of our
supposed air defence vulnerabilities.
The only possible bone of contention then is the swing wings, and there has been no recent evidence of problems with it.
Plane thread! Plane thread! Party time, excellent!
Three points.
Carlo Kopp is a stooge for the F-22, that needs saying first and foremost. The choice between buying FA/18Es and F-22s isn’t real: it’s questionable whether the Americans would sell the latter anywhere. That $6BN for what we got was a crappy deal is the problem.
Second, the four corners transcript reads thus (my italics):
Tanker vulnerability at long range is hardly the FA/18’s fault, especially since we’re using 707s.
Lastly, the most important problem isn’t an engineering one but a political one. Australia is no longer an outpost of Westernness surrounded by tinpot third-world dictatorships propped up on either side by Soviet “assistance” and CIA slush. Our neighbours are getting rich and liberalised, and doing well for themselves—it’s bizarre irony that our market-fixated Government sees that as a defence problem. It’s not going to be realistic to maintain Australia as a preeminent military power, as we can’t outspend our neighbours, and alas, the international arms market works a lot more efficiently now than in 1960.
In the end, we can have deterrence or supremacy, but not both.
I’m aware that the parts largely won’t be swappable - even for two planes so closely related. I’d be pleasantly surprised if the percentage of shared parts was more than 20%.
Logistics go further than parts though. It goes as far as managing relationships with suppliers, and includes familiarity with design philosophy, training, and technician certification.
David, we would never be in any projects if that were the case. That’s a problem that’s not unique to any party, or for that matter, the defence industry. Working in both IT and Engineering I can tell you it’s the norm.
The element of military strategising, as portrayed on 4 Corners that concerned me was the enormous mismatch between the expense of the means adopted with the relatively small effect achieved.
So what if the RAAF were able to knock out an Indo communcations centre? The nature of the Indo threat in the region for as far as one can see isn’t military aggression of the kind that relies on high level communications. Rather, it is the low-level quasi militia activities witnessed in East Timor. These actions can go on regardless of military communications infrastructure.
Such an attack as the one wargamed on 4 Corners last night is of use if and only if Australia and its allies can and want to station assets in the Indo sphere of political control. Now it is well known that Australians can’t do that, and the only nation that can and may want to is the United States. And for the life of me I can’t see why the US would want to right now.
However, this kind of strategising does attempt to encompass long-term potential requirements. Thus the only purpose for RAAF wargaming of the the above variety is as part of a more general US scenario in the region.
Perhaps the eagerness of the US to encourage Nelson to purchase the Super Hornets is to say that Australia is surplus to US strategic military requirements in the region for the time being. The US is thus sending a message not only to Australia, but also to Indonesia.
On the other hand, the Super Hornet purchase may be the product of good old fashioned complacency and graft.
I don’t understand why Nelson went for Super Hornets instead of the F-15E.
The thing I didn’t like about the 4-corners wargames was that they assumed that there was no fighter cover for the attacking force.
I think Australian F-A 18 equipped with Amraams or other modern stand off weapons would make an absolute mess of any hostile Su 30s.
“Meanwhile, SBY has just released a new album of songs, including one he wrote while here for APEC. Be afraid…” -Ghandi
OMG, weapons of mass distraction.
Craig Mc wrote:
I know it’s the norm. The JSF project was supposed to be “different” (I suppose all of these development processes are). Other industries seem to be able to learn how to bring complicated machinery to clients on time and on budget. Defence industries? Disaster. All the merging of programs, meddling, insistence on parts commonality or adaptation of designs to tasks not properly considered by the designers. It’s not helped by the massive, sloshing buckets of money and a fundamentally non-competitive industry structure. Why we participate is anyones guess, but as stated above, Indonesia is hardly a credible threat as a nation, and World War II isn’t coming back any time soon.
I guess part of the problem is that war toys are just so *sexy* to some people. They are an anorak delight (how fast? how high? can my dog beat your dog?). At it’s base is the pimply, adolescent inadequacy of politicians pandered to relentlessly by a massively cashed up industry. I’d be proud to say Australia was the first country to say “forget it, we’re not buying any more of your expensive, late, complicated and unnecessary products”. Wishful thinking it might be, but since most of the credible threats to Australians come in fertiliser bags, backpacks, Jeeps full of petrol or Mitsubishi L300 vans driven by religious nutters, our defence dollar would be much better spent on overseas education provision (helping people) rather than trying to kill them after they’ve had a brain snap. We ought to be confronting irrationality and hokey religions and poverty in equal measure. We ought to be bombing other countries with books, internet connections, $100 OLPC’s and Hiluxes to get them to school. We ought to be parachuting brigades of teachers and agricultural experts and civil servants, lawyers and policemen, not the SAS. We ought to take a long, hard look at our oil dependency and the implications it has on global political concerns.
In short, it’s time we grew up.
‘Indonesia is hardly a credible threat as a nation’
So I guess during the East Timor operations there was no risk of regional conflagration.
David, I agree with your sentiments, but air defence is crucial to protecting Australian interests in our region.
Today it’s a backpack. Tomorrow it might be a Shenyang J-11, and anti-backpack measures will only go so far against one. It would be too late to start an air superiority program then.
Walking and chewing gum at the same time, I agree. However, what’s to stop someone taking your book money and spending it on Korans, driving the kiddies to a madrassa in your shiny Hi-Lux, and letting them network jihadi sites on their OLPCs? Other countries aren’t so receptive of the “colonial” notions you’re suggesting. Take a bible and a pulpit to Saudi Arabia and see how far you get with your educating.
Indeed. We shouldn’t choose to be weak and expect to survive by the mercies of others. We need be strong, and that means paying for our own defence, something the Europeans need to learn all over again. This involves buying the “war toys” when they’re needed - even Switzerland has them.
East Timor, timboy? To pretend that the Indonesian military’s disgraceful actions in East Timor was ever a threat to Australia is just deliberate stupidity.
Would we have sent a single soldier to East Timor if it was not for the undersea oil? And now that we have a contract signed in our favour, with a pro-Canberra government in place, what are we doing for those poor people? Nothing. And where are our troops for West Papua? Nowhere. And what about Burma? Too hard.
We are being subsumed into the US military-industrial machine. Go watch Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911 to see how companies like Lockheed work the political process.
So let me get this straight: we’re getting rid of these to get these at list price + ORC, while we’re waiting for these because someone said the big end sounded like it was about to go.
I did say ‘Australian interests’ Gandhi.
Isn’t there oil in all three?
Yep, and there’s also oil beneath the Northwest shelf which is all ours.
Plenty of oil to protect
“We ought to be bombing other countries with books, internet connections, $100 OLPC’s and Hiluxes to get them to school. We ought to be parachuting brigades of teachers and agricultural experts and civil servants, lawyers and policemen, not the SAS.”
Fortunately there’s already a lab study for this proposition. For decades now, the West has been doing just what you say in Africa — smothering the place with doctors, teachers, experts, aid of every imaginable stripe. And it worked! By golly, it worked! I mean, just look at the proof, just look at the millions of people from all over the world, willing to risk their lives in rickety boats to immigrate to Africa, land of opportunity.
So you support the Bush-Howard Doctrine of pre-emptive Oil Wars, do you timboy?
You said there was a “risk of regional conflagration”. I assume you meant Australia going to war with Indonesia. Do you really think we should do that in order to procure oil that doesn’t even belong to us?
Craig Mc
This is true. We keep propping up stupid, oppressive regimes in foreign countries and plead frustration at the slowness of their progress. One hand slaps johnny foreigner down via the voracious military-industrial complex (more oil! more toys!), the other hand is shaking it’s finger at why these countries don’t rise in popular revolution against their oppressors. No wonder they turn to madrassas (lets face it, in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan it’s as close as you’re going to get to a school). Propping them up, then blowing them up seems a little counter productive if we wish to encourage liberal democracies.
There’s clearly room for debate on how many “war toys” Australia actually needs.
Whatever your view on that, I assume we’d all agree that if we decide to buy war toys, we should make sure we get the best possible value for money. And there are very serious questions as to whether, in this case, the government is doing so.
Robert, I’m arguing that the “value for money” equation is a seriously damaged way of looking at the defence arm of foreign policy (might as well rename our department to “attack” as it stands at the moment). If we decide to buy toys (and we decide this a lot it seems), we’d be saving a hell of a lot of money not buying into the relentless upgrade cycle presented as a fait accompli by US based defence industries.
We know the government does “value for money” poorly - my memory might be a bit hazy but Beazley wasn’t much better as defence minister, despite trying to re-spin the Hornet radar reworkings into a kind of “digger does good” story of good old Aussie ingenuity in the face of adversity.
The US rips us off, full stop, every time, with outdated, unwanted and expensive products we have never used in anger in the defence of Australia. When will we learn and just quit buying from them? If we at least made noises we were looking in other directions, we might get a decent deal every now and again.
Gandhi
A yet to be determined area of the Timor Gap is Australian territory.
so yes, I think Australia should defend it’s territorial interests should they be threatened.
And I don’t follow you’re argument. If Interfet forces were attacked by Indonesian forces, and Interfet forces responded in self-defence- how would that have been an oil war?
timboy,
Hilarious. How about you and John Howard sit down and divvy it up one day? Maybe you could bring John Pilger along, just for the illusion of legitimacy:
Oh, maybe you are confused because Evans was Labor?
No, you wouldn’t, would you? If you are not being deliberately obtuse, maybe this will help.
Meanwhile, breaking news:
[link]
Gandhi
Australia’s agreement with Indonesia was based on prevailing international law re maritime boundaries at the time which placed an emphasis on continental shelves.
We may as well give all the oil to East Timor- they will still rely on Multinational and Australian companies to exploit the resources anyway.
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Australia had already stitched Indonesia up in their negotiations on the border between their economic zones when Indonesia accepted the Australian argument that the demarcation should be drawn along the Timor Trench which runs parallel to Timor and is much closer to that island than to Australia, rather than halfway between Australia and Timor. The agreed economic border between Australia and West Timor reflects this. Had Indonesia been able to maintain sovereignty over East Timor the same logic would have applied in drawing its border and, because of that, most of the oil would have been on the Australian side. Hence no need to invade for the oil for we would have already had it.
One of the reasons (there were a number of others) why the Australian government, and its position was supported by the Opposition with a few honourable exceptions, had to be dragged kicking and screaming into intervening in East Timor by an unprecedented coalition of the Left and Right (the Catholic Church and RSL on the Right) was that the intervention would see that cosy arrangement unravel, first for East Timor then possibly later for West Timor.
Having reluctantly intervened to secure East Timor’s independence Australia then set about screwing them in negotiations to secure what it had with Indonesia, though the East Timorese didn’t do themselves any favours by appointing Peter Galbraith as their negotiator. Talk about an own goal there.
Your quote from Pilger captures the flavour of the whole thing perfectly and that was when Labor was in power.
However timboy is right that under the treaty with East Timor the final drawing of the boundary has been left undetermined largely I think, to protect Australia’s position re the West Timor boundary.
Let me see if I’ve got this right, timboy…
Our agreement with Indonesia was “based on prevailing international law re maritime boundaries at the time”, but the actual Australian territory involved is “yet to be determined”.
And we “may as well give all the oil to East Timor” even though we have to defend “Australian interests”. Hence the endless need for expensive military hardware. Right?
By that logic, we might as well give all the oil to the Iraqis, too. But what “Australian interests” are we defending over there, besides John Howard’s own political interests?
GregM,
Thanks for your input.
I would still like to hear timboy explain how Indonesia is a “credible threat” to our “national interests”, and how that justifies our multi-billion-dollar “defence” budget.
‘yet to be determined’=’subject to negotiations’
That’s according to the Timor Leste government anyway.
The ‘logic’ you refer to is yours entirely- so you’re right it isn’t that logical.
There is clearly no link between Australia’s maritime boundaries and the war in Iraq.
There is as GregM points out, a very close link between Australia’s maritime boundaries with East Timor and our maritime boundaries with Indonesia. And there are Australian interests to be protected as against Indonesia.
Back to aeroplanes for a second. There are a couple of realities here:
1. The “Super” Hornet is a bit of a dog, which even the USN didn’t really want, and only accepted because its preferred option (another paper plane) didnt make it into production.
2. The JSF is seriously behind schedule, way over budget and unlikely to meet its performance goals. It is not a match for the Su 30 updates which are coming into service in our region. Mainly because its relatively slow (Mach 1.6 vs 2.3 for the Su30) and seriously hampered by limited range and payload. Of course as soon as you start hanging wing tanks or external ordnance on it - there goes any chance of stealth. Oh and those tankers (they’re Airbus MRTTs Liam not 707s) - as we saw last night they are the weakest link in the chain, and will have to loiter within range of the enemy air superiority capability.
The best choice for us is the F22 or one of the European jobbies. The US is considering selling the F22 to Japan amongst other countries, because they, well unlike Australia, actually asked.
The whole JSF/Super Hornet story (they are in fact one story, not two, since one begat the other) is so riddled with incompetence and graft that it would be funny if we weren’t talking about at least 22 billion of our money, oh and actual serious stuff like defence.
People keep playing off the performance weaknesses of the super hornet against SU-30s.
But what about the differences in weapons and radar systems.
I think the US equipment has the upper hand in these departments.
But Pre-dawn is right- the F-22 would appear to be a good choice given the amounts of money being dropped.
Great post Robert. A bit like sticking with the Gloster Gladiator/Hawker biplanes in the 30s when the monoplanes were round the corner.
Billions yes Robert, but with the Sukies at half price, we’d still come out on top I think.
Politically, “detaching” Australia from the US as primary supplier would be a major coup for Russia. Cooperation would be enhanced by this move and I’m sure we’d have some expertise to trade with Ivan, of advantage to both parties. When we bought the Mirages from France, did the we not put ourselves at similar risk? (and the US going apeshit)
(Would it not also be a marker for an independent foreign policy?)
I’ll save Timboy the trouble. Threats aren’t about policy, they’re about capability. With several billion dollars worth of fragile resource infrastructure well within reach, even a small regional power like Indonesia has the capability to cause us major economic damage. Further, we’re an trading island nation, and that implies we need to project power well beyond our borders in order to secure trade routes.
The world’s full of people who look for soft targets. We don’t want to be one of them.
The one major disappointment of the show was the failure to address the matter of the comparison between the F35 and the F22. Why the hell are we buying the F35? What is the use of a single engine, short range aircraft in replacing the F111 in a country the size of Australia? The arguments about cost a rubbish, as everyone knows. The F35 will prove just as expensive as the F22 and a lot less potent. We need a DETERRENT!! The only practical option is to buy about 70 Raptors and retrofit the F111 with advanced weapons, avionics and engines. And the Super Hornet is just a waste of 6 billion - money which could have been spent on the F22. This crap about the US refusing to sell it to us is just to cover the embarrassment of the Defence department buying the wrong planes after being conned by glib salesmen from the US.
Fair point Stoka, but this was essentially a story about procurement, and the lack of oversight of a dodgy purchase which was thrust onto the RAAF by a minister who really doesn’t have a clue.
The F35 and F22 story is one for another day. One that I have no doubt is just as interesting.
But given our tie-ins with the Yanks anything other than a US product was always pretty unlikely.
And really, your talk of retrofitting the F-111 (again) for an eternal shelf-life is just tosh. While the discussion about us being the only purchaser of the SH outside the USN is entirely valid, you might like to consider the we’re also the only AF in the world still flying Pigs.
They’re a great plane, sure, but it’s a bit like arguing that we can still squeeze a few years out of the ‘75 Commodore with some new mags and a retrofitted fuel-injection system. After all, the sub-frame’s perfectly fine.
What bollocks. New Zealand has the “capability” to launch a reasonably aggressive attack on Australia - does that make them a threat? Is the USA a threat? Or is it only the little brown and yellow men we need to worry about?
Australia’s image as a racist, war-loving country has flourished under Howard. We are fast becoming the “threat” that others should worry about. Meanwhile, diplomacy anywhere outside Washington and London has become a dim memory.
Stoka, I can only agree. The main deterrent value of the F111 has always been its range and payload. As the report said last night there are still very few aircraft operating anywhere in the world that can match it for accurate delivery of a heavy bomb load to a distant target, and still get away from that target at Mach 2.5. Add that the US has hundreds of airframes and engines in the desert at Davis-Monthan, and you can readily envisage a scenario where it soldiers on for years yet. OK, its an old airframe but the electronics and weapons are state of the art, and easily upgradable. By way of precedent, the US has no plans to retire its B52s.
However, the F111 is not, never was and was never meant to be, an air superiority fighter - thats why we need the F22.
Watching the History Channel today they did have something on the F22 and I had the same thought as Stoka.
Can the military enthusiasts give a rundown on the F22 v the JSF?
Gandhi, sorry to tell you this, but since they gutted their Air Force, the only capability that New Zealand has to attack anybody, is in the Rugby.
And CK, whats wrong with an upgraded Commodore? Hell, Holden only got rid of the 6 cylinder “Red Motor” in the late 1980s! Of course the F111 cant last forever, but it can certainly make it until we replace it with a realistic option (the F35 aint it) without throwing 6 billion down the toilet on what is, an outdated dud.
Australia is the only Air Force flying F111s because the US withdrew theirs as part of the “peace dividend” after the fall of the USSR. Remember those sweet halcyon days - didn’ t seem to last long unfortunately. Way back in the beginning, (in about 1964 when it first flew) there were a bunch of countries lining up to buy the F111, then the Viet Nam war cranked up and the customers deserted the US, and the idea of European aircraft consortia started up. One of the first projects was a thing called the Multi Role Combat Aircraft - which evolved into the Panavia Tornado - have a close look at one and what does it look like? Why its an F111, only smaller!
I think Stoka has a valid point there CK, as the program discussed the F35 as a replacement for the pig and the F/A18 (with the interim being the Superhornet); it was germane enough for this thread. The point is that the F35 is a crock anyway, although 4 Corners didn’t deal with the issue. The JSF is only stealthy from certain angles. The Raptor, which has a radar signature of a blowie, as compared to the JSF’s duck, is being sold to Japan and probably Israel. Why are we being stiffed by the Seppo’s? Hasn’t Johnny slipped up the Uncle Sam jaxi far enough over these 11 years? The F22 is far better value for money. The F35 is a waste of money and will be obsolete by the time we get it.
Seriously, you AJ’s are so full of it. Your combined efforts cannot even answer this one simple question: in what way is Indonesia a credible threat to Australia?
Meanwhile, billions and billions of MY hard-earned tax dollars are being wasted on this crap every year. Meanwhile, my kids cannot get decent teachers at school. Meanwhile, my Dad dies because the local hospital does not have a bed for him, and there are not enough staff to care for him, and not enough resources to treat him properly.
Wankers, the lot of you. Seriously.
Gandhi, sorry to hear of your loss. Yes, I’m an AJ, but I lost my own father a couple of years ago too - pity we wont cough up the tax dollars for widespread prostate cancer screening isn’t it?
The truth is that Indonesia may not be a threat - certainly isnt a credible one yet, but do we want them to become one? Lets not forget that they are continually upgrading their military capability too. And while they may not attack us, they can still threaten other interests we may have. There are many lessons in what happened in East Timor between 1974 and 1999, and indeed, since.
Anyway, I don’t think any of us are directing these arguments against them specifically or singly. History is full of the stories of countries which couldn’t be bothered defending themselves, and are now parts of other countries. What makes us think we are so special so as to be immune from this?
My main beef in this whole thing is that these morons in Government are wasting serious money on crap that doesn’t deliver.
Perfectly good points PDL, and I must add that I’m not defending the SH or F35.
I’m all for big FU airpower, but the fact is that the F-111’s are so old they couldn’t get anywhere without adequate air-cover and, in their bomber configuration, couldn’t get anywhere with a full fuel and bomb load because:
a) They’d be as slow as a truck full of chickens, and
b) Anybody with a 1960’s radar system would detect.
You want a deterrent? Buy some cruise missiles.
PDL, defence lists the new flying servo as due to enter service in 2009. Which I look forward to, ’cause I’m an absolute Airbus stooge. A400M? Yes, please Minister.
On deterrence: you’ve given the perfect description of the mission profile for which the Pig was designed. Take off from Mönchengladbach, evade air defence, vaporise Minsk, return to a non-radioactive West Germany (fingers crossed), or failing that, Sweden (fingers on both hands crossed). The Cold War planners didn’t assume long-range air superiority over Soviet airspace, nor do the British planners who operate the Tornado wherever it goes. All they need is a short-range superiority over airfields, and lots of money for payload.
Personally I think that kind of long-range inderdiction capacity is perfect for a country like Australia whose real vulnerabilities are trade routes not geographical centres. It’s cheap when it’s done by F-111, and it’d be even cheaper and more effectively done by cruise missile.
That would of course mean a whole world of multilateral treaty-breaking pain, and probably the onerous task of actually engaging with our neighbours in arms détente. Listen to me, I sound like fucking John Lennon.
A fascinating hread and well done again to Robert for his usual careful research.
I’d like to toss this googly to the LP-ers on this post:
for those of you who argue we need to replace the strike capability of the F-111 - which seems to be quite a few of you - why not take the logical next step and argue for Australia developing a medium-range ballistic missile.
After all, if you really want stand-off capability, why not build missiles?
In the immortal words of Jonathon, the computer from War Games… “shall we play a game?”
Comments crossed with you PDL and CK—needless to say I think we’re all on the same cruise missile train together.
Sir Henry: “The Raptor, which has a radar signature of a blowie, as compared to the JSF’s duck, is being sold to Japan and probably Israel. Why are we being stiffed by the Seppo’s?”
Is this actually being stiffed though? From a strategic big-picture point of view, you have to admit that Israel, Japan and Australia all live in very different strategic neighborhoods, with different threat levels, response windows, and tactical and political needs. Israel is in a situational category all its own; Japan is looking right across the water from the next big threat, and has political obligations that accompany that fact. Australia’s security is vital, of course (and of course it makes sense for Australia to plan for its safety independently of US thinking), but its immediate neighboring threats are sort of second-rate and not globally or existentially menacing. Of course, things change. But if a world scenario were to emerge where Australia’s security was in serious danger of being compromised by a power with global reach, then I think US policy would shift gears rather quickly, don’t you? We’re just not there at present, and hopefully will never be. Naturally you have an obligation to yourselves to not bank on that attitude unconditionally; still, as a skeleton key to US supply thinking, it’s probably not without significance.
CK, the F111 gets into its target under radar cover (hence stealth is not an issue unless the enemy is operating AWACS) and with electronic protection from another specialised aircraft at about 500kts, drops its load (either by toss bombing and IR guidance or by using Harpoon or Popeye stand off missiles) and leaves the target at all possible speed (ie Mach 2.5), hotly pursued by the bad guys presumably. The F18 and the JSF cant do that and would tie up a lot more resources if we were to try. This is the deterrent value that both aircraft lack.
Liam, the scenarios discussed on the program last night were framed around the Super Hornet (entering service in 2010) and the JSF (entering service no earlier than 2016 - maybe). Hence, there wont be any 707s doing tanker duty.
Stand off / cruise missiles and ICBMs are great in theory, but there is a reason that the US and the USSR persisted with manned bombers throughout the cold war. All warfare is psychological and military capability is as much about threat as actually doing anything. The big problem with these automated systems is that you cant call them home once they’re launched - thats a bit tough if the bad guys cave in to your demands mid flight. Thus they have limited deterrence value because you’re unlikely to use something which has this limitation. But thats one reason why the latest generation of manned combat aircraft will be the last - we’ll see a move toward unmanned drones, flown by young guys & girls back in a bunker at home & who have trained on PCs.
Pre-dawn leftist,
Sorry to hear of your loss too, and thanks for acknowledging that Indonesia is NOT a threat. And sorry for the language too.
So how do we stop Indonesia and other neighbouring countries becoming a threat? Does anyone here really think an arms race is the answer? Really?
How about we Aussies drop all this Bush Doctrine anti-Muslim GWOT crap, for starters. How about we tell the US rightwing Christian crusaders and the Zionist Israeli neoconservatives that they are on their own now?
How about we build more social and economic bridges to our neighbours, invest a heck of a lot more in local Foreign Aid, invite a whole lot more Indonesians, Malaysians and Philipinos to come and live here, yeah - all that sort of thing… You know, “peace”.
To quote the old Mahatma:
War is over, if you want it.
I’m not sure what an AJ is Gandhi, but to address your question:
1. Indonesia straddles Australia’s major sea lanes and air routes to Asia and from there to Europe. If events turned hostile between our two countries they could and would seek to sever our sea lanes through the Sunda Strait (between Java and Sumatra) and the Lombok Strait (between Bali and Lombok) which are the major sea lanes through which we send our min