…, $400 million cancellation fee…
COMMENT: IIRC the cost includes much of the lifecycle cost as well. This is like saying your $15,000 new small car, which you will drive for 10 years (say $6,000 PA) costs $75,000. It’s true, but misleading in context. The ‘cancellation fee’ would be to pay for work *already done* on this order. The first 2 aircraft are under construction, and the subcontractors are, of course, producing material and components for the rest. We don’t have a carrier, but aircraft designed for that role are marinised and very rugged.

#3Gandhi
What bugs me is that the new Defense White Paper has not even been published, and yet there is this unchallenged assumption by all involved that we MUST buy more US military hardware. Why?

COMMENT: How are these two statements logically linked? We are a US ally, of course we purchase some compatible equipment, and much of theirs is very good. Please note we are not buying US AWD or LPH, but Spanish.

#3Gandhi
Is there one single genuine military threat to Australia anywhere on the horizon which would necessitate the use of fighter jets? No.

COMMENT: The ADF is the national insurance policy for unforeseeable circumstances. Can you guarantee that there will be no such need between 2010 and 2050, the approximate life of this combat aircraft type?

#5 Wilful
The most interesting little bit of news has been the actual confirmation that the Australian government is potentially interested in the F-22. Meaning the previous mob had not asked and had not truly considered it.

COMMENT: Oh, nonsense. The interest has been there (we looked at a hi-lo mix of F-22 and F-35 about 5 years ago) but the cost was (and remains) exorbitant and we then had no need for a pure air superiority fighter. The US also refused to consider its export at the time. As circumstances have now changed, it is being looked at again. This is normal planning.

#6 and #7 Gandhi
COMMENT: While I hope not, you might have the “kumbaya redneck� view that everyone in the world thinks the way you do. If so you need to know that this view is fundamentally racist: it is a view to be avoided. You also apparently lack an understanding of history or just how fragile and unstable our region has become since the Empires departed. The world is and remains a dangerous place. Look how quickly a fragile and unstable region unravelled between 1909 and 1914. In such a world, you do not think we need an ‘insurance policy’. Why?

#9 Robert Merkel
Howard apparently decided, unilaterally, to commit to the JSF back in 2002.
Mind you, there are fairly solid reasons why the Raptor may not be the right option for us even if available. It will be more expensive than the JSF (though how much isn’t clear) both in terms of unit cost and lifetime cost, it doesn’t do certain things we want it to do (notably, maritime strike with cruise missiles), and we’d have to make a decision on it real soon, because it seems like the production line will shut down in a couple of years.

That said, one concern about the F-35 is that it’s a single-engined plane. I’m not sure that would be my first choice for flying for long periods over water.

COMMENT: You are routinely a source of dispassionate and logical comment on defence matters, Robert. AFAIK Howard ‘gripped up’ the options and made a decision some months before it was due, but that’s about it. As PM, he and the Defence Minister had authority to do that even if it astonished the CDF. F-22 is, as you say, a pure air superiority fighter with little strike capability. Engine reliability has improved so much since 1975 that overwater ops in a single engined bird can now be thought reasonable. This is the same reason why we are now using twin-engined airliners on long haul overwater routes.

#15 Paulus
Well, maybe in the period between the two comments he had been briefed on the “many secret and classified capabilities� of the F-18E that Greg Sheridan tells us about.

COMMENT: I am not in the F-18E game, but I have recently shifted my opinion on it. Janes is reporting that the USN has decided that their future carrier air groups will be an F-25/F-18E mix. So F-18E will have complete data interface capability with F-35 and be a standard node in the future network - and that’s our F-18E we will get. If so, that literally changes everything about how it should be perceived.

If Sheridan is poorly read in these circles, that indicates a deliberate refusal to even read well-regarded commentators who dissent from the common views held in these circles. That says a lot about these circles and none of it is good. Sheridan is very closely and carefully read indeed by politicians and APS/Military policy-makers in this town *irrespective of their political views.*

#16 pre Dawn Leftist
The Americans are replacing their F117 (stealth strike aircraft) with F22s.
COMMENT: No. F-117 is a light bomber, now obsolescent. F-22 is an air superiority fighter. The F-117 interim supplement is a network of aircraft and assets ranging from B-52, B-1 and B-2 to A-10 and Apache. Its physical replacement is F-35 (really F/A-35).

#16 pre Dawn Leftist
The JSF doesnt do certain things we need it to do - like provide a credible deterrent against the fighters certain Northern neighbours are bringing into service.

COMMENT: If considered as an aircraft only, this is true. An unsupported F-35 will probably be overmatched by an unsupported Su-30, but no-one fights that way any more. We no longer fight as we did in WWI, which is where this comparison comes from. F-35 exploits a wide variety of space based, air-breathing and ground-based situational and targeting data information advantages (which we enjoy under privileged access alliance arrangements with the USA and UK) to derive asymmetric advantages in air combat. There is a furious and passionate philosophical debate raging about this (quite invisible to most civilians) which is arguing about whether or not we are now moving beyond John Boyd in some areas of aerospace conflict. Personally, while it pains me to say this for reasons I will not expand on, I do not think we have. I think we are in danger of moving back into the philosophical/technological territory which gave us the Lead Sled and the Great Smoking Thunderhog as fighters (vice Heineman’s Rocket and Boyd’s Automatic Ace Maker). Lots of good men died because of that last time.

#22 Wilful
we can’t seriously occupy anywhere.
Not that this is a bad thing.
COMMENT: Erm… do you disagree with Howards intervention in East Timor, then? For we surely “seriously occupied� East Timor, didn’t we? Took the whole ADF to do it too.

BTW in Timor, due to us simply not having the amphibious and afloat command and control capabilities we needed, and the networked aerial capabilities we needed, or the direct infantry support tanks we needed *we had to ask the USA for them.* They provided them (and much more) very quickly indeed. Yes, the Peleliu had a USMC battalion aboard – with M1 tanks. Between the ADF, US support and Cosgrove’s most admirable brinksmanship the Indonesian Generals caved. We then learned the lessons involved and these are that we need big amphibs, AWD for the command and control at sea, something like the networked F-35/tanker/Wedgetail combo in the air, M1 tanks to economise in the lives of our infantry etc. That’s where these lessons came from, and that’s why we are getting these systems, and that’s why the US Alliance is absolutely critical to Australia: they helped us big time in Timor. Who else would have? The Euroweenies? They had to call on the USA to help them with the Bosnian war because they could not handle it! And that was a stoush in their own back yard between bandit gangs and a fifth-rate military: so much for their soft power.

#25 Robert Merkel
OldSkeptic: I wouldn’t be so sure. We’re not really in a position to know.
COMMENT: Correct. I catch some of the edge of this (I do not need to know more). This is a good enough aircraft, and if it does indeed have full data interface compatability with F-35 it will be an exceptional one.

#25 Robert Merkel
In at least some of the trade press, there are persistent claims that the Air Force have been keeping a close eye on the Super Hornets for years, as a backup in case the JSF was delayed.

But if that was the case, why was it a) never mentioned publicly, b) why was the decision to purchase done in such a hurry, and c) why is the new Defence Minister publicly stating the process wasn’t followed?

COMMENT: a) because defence does a lot of things the public does not need to know and this is sensible contingency planning (IIRC it also WAS mentioned in public in APDR I think) b) I do not know but those responsible for the flight safety of the F-111 fleet were VERY relieved so I suspect that there are drivers there we know nothing about (Carlo Kopp’s astonishing bombast notwithstanding) c) because he’s playing politics, how surprising

#26 Amused
Could I just ask the ‘experts’ here a small question. Against whom will we be using lots and lots of very expensive and fast fighter planes, and who in our neighbourhood do we imagine is going to require us to use lots of very big and expensive Tanks and Aircraft carriers?

COMMENT: We do not have aircraft carriers, and the amphibs are not carriers. Actually, the F-35 isn’t even fast. That has not been a tactical demand for 40 years, but it had better have very good energy state transfer characteristics. “Amused�, do you own a house or car? If so, do you insure them? If so, why? Insurance is expensive! Who in your neighbourhood is going to damage your house or car? You insure your car or house because you cannot predict the future, and this is your protection against the unforeseen.

The ADF is Australia’s insurance policy.
#26 Amused
I love how the ‘big expensive military toy’ brigade succeeds time after time, in shifting debate on military expenditure away from the reasons for the purchases, and onto their ‘merits’ as pieces of equipment it would be nice to have, because, well, because it would be good for us to have them!

Who FFS, are we arming ourselves against, now? Anybody got a clue? Anybody care to put forward a target for all this very expensive ’stuff’?

COMMENT: “Amusing� you will literally become a millionaire overnight if you truly have the ability to accurately predict the future. Can you absolutely guarantee that from now until 2050 (ish), the lifetime of these systems which form critical parts of our insurance policy, that there will not be ONE conflict, national collapse, war, natural disaster or anything else needing the ADF in the Indian Ocean, West Pacific and South Pacific oceanic basins? Because that is what you have to be able to do to throw away your insurance policy. And that is why the ALP in opposition and government has never agreed with you.

#30 Wilful
In defence of the tanks (and I don’t support their purchase, but merely to offer the other side of the story), they are thought to offer an invincible strong-point when used in peacekeeping interventions (Timor l’este, Solomons).

COMMENT: Their use in peacekeeping like this is almost purely psychological. They are very good for intimidating self-proclaimed ‘big men’ with a few hundred followers, these armed with rifles and machetes. They provide proof of overwhelming power, which tends to cause fun people like Harold Keke to stop murdering, stealing and raping, and to surrender. Which is *exactly* what Keke did, yes?

#30 Wilful
I can imagine a whopping great tank would be pretty intimidating and undefeatable parked downtown in TPLPC capitals. And with flechette rounds, they’re reportedly quite useful in clearing jungles.

But yeah, the above justification is bollocks IMHO. Is a tank the message you want to give? And most rebels would be lucky to have an RPG, so our range of APCs should be fine you’d reckon. And the flow on costs of tanks (C-17s) are crazy.

COMMENT: These statements are logically unconnected and do not form an argument. A handful of tanks in Honiara would have been enormously reassuring to the Guadalcanalese when the intervention started (so they have said to me, anyway, last time I was there). They would have to be placed back aboard ship within a short time, this itself is a powerful message that law and order has returned. C-17 were not bought purely to carry M1, but again to answer a problem identified in Howard’s liberation of Timor (and again, where we had to ask for US heavy transports to help out) but in the end they were not needed as we were just barely able to cover the need with what we had and an INCAT catamaran. I think there were far better, cheaper and more sensible options than C-17. That said, I note that they are doing marvellous work in Timor right now, work we simply could not have contemplated before. Marvellous asset, but hideously expensive.

#31 Ben Eltham
Correct. As shown by the comparison between the infantry casualty rates at Buna-Gona-Sananada with those at Balikpapan or Fire Base Coral during Vietnam. Tanks economise on infantry in close terrain, and infantry economises on tank losses in close terrain. There are some circumstances where APC can partially substitute, but these still tend to result in higher infantry (and APC) losses. An APC is not a tank. The argument against them on this site would ‘save money’ (to spend on progressive social programs, doubtless) and the PBI would die in greater numbers in consequence. No thanks. Been there, done that, lost the family members. It was called Fromelles, Pozieres, Passchendaele, Ypres, Singapore, Ambon, Buna…

#33 Predawn Leftist
Are you sure about the F117 and the cruise missiles?
I wouldn’t be.
COMMENT: You do not know the facts. The F-117 can ONLY carry weapons internally if it is to maintain low radar observability. The *weapons* are not ‘stealthy’. It was designed to carry free-fall laser guided bombs. It can now carry *one* of the following selections:

2 MK84 2000-pound
2 GBU-10 Paveway II
2 GBU-12 Paveway II
2 GBU-27 Paveway III
2 BLU 109
2 WCMD
2 Mark 61
In WWII parlance, it is a light bomber which carries two bombs. See FAS for details on these weapons.
#33 Predawn Leftist
Apart from which, I’m pretty sure that no aircraft suffers from a disability which precludes the attachment of such weapons. Hell even the venerable (and according to some people, prehistoric) F111 can carry cruise missiles of a very wide variety

COMMENT: ‘Disability?’ No, a necessary feature of a 1st generation ‘stealth’ (a misnomer if there ever was one) design. If you want really low radar cross section (RCS), then weapons have to be carried internally. This restricts weapon size. With really low RCS, you can get very close to the target. This means that you do not need ‘cruise missiles’ or long range stand off weapons, hence the short-range armament of F-117. When F-111 was designed in the 1960s, RCS reduction was unknown territory, you got close to a target by being low and very fast and dropping iron bombs on it. These were unguided. You needed a LOT of them so the F-111 was a bomb truck. As air defence systems got better, this attack method became suicidal. Check out what the Soviet supplied, built (and partially manned) air defences did to the Israeli air force when the Egyptians and Syrians launched their unprovoked attack on Israel during their Holiest day in 1973 (the Yom Kippur War). So people merrily developed stand-off weapons to reduce the risk to the aircraft in response. Still the air defences got better, so they reduced the aircraft RCS and got back to close range. Still the air defence got better, so now we are edging back to low RCS aircraft at longer ranges with low RCS weapons like Stormshadow. The developing counter is moving outside the aircraft and missile hardware box to exploit asymmetric advantages in a fully networked air environment. This is called progress and it has been going on for millennia.

MarkL
Canberra

This may be fixed at some point in the future, but isn’t now.

Liam: there’s also the JASSM and AGM-142, missiles (the JASSM is a genuine “cruise missile”, the AGM-142 is relatively short-range) which can be carried by the “classic” Hornet and the F-111 respectively. Such weapons could also presumably be fitted to the F-22, though it would entail external carriage and thus loss of stealthiness and supercruising ability. However, it doesn’t currently support carrying such weapons, and the USAF would have relatively little interest in doing so so we’d probably have to pay for it.

The really stupid thing is that we spent hundreds of millions of dollars buying the JASSM for the classic Hornet (to cover for the retirement of the F-111) and then we bought the Super Hornets to replace the F-111, which can’t carry the JASSM!

warnerd mode off.

Are you sure about the F117 and the cruise missiles?

I wouldn’t be.

Apart from which, I’m pretty sure that no aircraft suffers from a disability which precludes the attachment of such weapons. Hell even the venerable (and according to some people, prehistoric) F111 can carry cruise missiles of a very wide variety

It’s my experience that a tank is only as good as the person left guarding it!

But yeah, the above justification is bollocks IMHO. Is a tank the message you want to give? And most rebels would be lucky to have an RPG, so our range of APCs should be fine you’d reckon. And the flow on costs of tanks (C-17s) are crazy.

As Robert noted, we haven’t had an aircraft carrier in a quarter century. The two new amphibious ships aren’t ‘aircraft carriers’ as some have characterised them. They seem pretty useful to me, whopping great humanitarian utility. Wouldn’t ‘invade’ a failed state without one of them in the harbour in the future, there’s your hospital, supply, comms, civilian shelter, everything.

But as for fighter planes, they a) make it impossible for anybody bar the United States to get anywhere near our territory - something we couldn’t guarantee without them, and b) let us destroy any ships, vehicles, or buildings we can reach (and that reach extends a long way to the north).

That means that were a future Indonesian government decide that it wants East Timor back, or the Chinese government decides it wants to set up shop in the Solomons, we have the military capability to stop them. Without fighter planes, we don’t (or, at best, it becomes very militarily dicey).

Now, you might argue that such possibilities are unlikely (and they are), and not worth the billions we are going to spend.

Who FFS, are we arming ourselves against, now? Anybody got a clue? Anybody care to put forward a target for all this very expensive ’stuff’?

Un Zud, of course. Those evil Kiwis cannot be trusted.

Un Zud delendo est.

I love how the ‘big expensive military toy’ brigade succeeds time after time, in shifting debate on military expenditure away from the reasons for the purchases, and onto their ‘merits’ as pieces of equipment it would be nice to have, because, well, because it would be good for us to have them!

Who FFS, are we arming ourselves against, now? Anybody got a clue? Anybody care to put forward a target for all this very expensive ’stuff’?

In at least some of the trade press, there are persistent claims that the Air Force have been keeping a close eye on the Super Hornets for years, as a backup in case the JSF was delayed.

But if that was the case, why was it a) never mentioned publicly, b) why was the decision to purchase done in such a hurry, and c) why is the new Defence Minister publicly stating the process wasn’t followed?

Would you buy a new model of car if it was sold like this: “this is the latest model, it goes 50km further on a tank of petrol, has a larger boot, has better headlights and louder CD player than the old model. Unfortunately it is slower, has poorer brakes, roadholding and handling and costs twice as much as the old model”.

we can’t seriously occupy anywhere.

Not that this is a bad thing.