The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is supposed to be the long-term replacement for the F-18 Hornets that make up the majority of Australia’s air combat capability. It’s been pretty controversial; aside from doubts as to whether it’s really as capable as claimed, there’s been a lot of doubt as to whether it will be available for anything like the cost, and on the schedule, that’s been claimed. The schedule is particularly important, given that the Hornets are starting to wear out; if the Joint Strike Fighter isn’t available on time Australia might be in the awkward position of having to ground the Hornets, and either buy (or borrow) an inferior “transition fighter”, or be left without air combat capability for a period.
So it’s not surprising John Faulkner welcomed the news of some rather blunt actions from the US Secretary of Defence, Robert Gates – sacking the US Air Force general in charge of the government side of the program, and withholding $614 million in payments to the plane’s maker, Lockheed Martin, as an incentive for them to get their backside in gear.
While this might be seen as a worry for Australia, I’d be very surprised if the planes aren’t ultimately delivered in time, even if they aren’t on budget, and they’re good enough to do what we want them to do. The US armed forces are depending on the Joint Strike Fighter working even more than we are. And they have massive obsolesence problems with their Air Force, Navy, and Marine fighter fleets. If the F-35 is delayed too much, they won’t have any planes to fly.
So the US government is going to move heaven and earth to ensure that the JSF is ready in time. And if it’s ready for them, it should be ready for us.
This is interesting.
The F-35 was meant to be the no wuckin forries aircraft, the one that was very useful—it was the F-22 and other projects that were supposed to be more trouble than they were worth (Joe Lieberman’s laser plane, for example).
How does the Eurofighter’s timetable compare?
At least Brezhnez doesn’t have anything as good as the new Lightning…
I doubt that they will be delivered on time. It is a new aircraft with new technology – it will be late. And as you say it will be over budget. Just like Wedgetail, JORN, Collins etc. But it will be a great piece of kit once we have it.
No comment on Joel Fitzchimps continuing saga??
I’m sure they will be just as useful as the Collins too!
I doubt it also. It’s an unfortunate trait of the government tender process that no one in the system has any incentive to be honest about the time or cost required to complete a project. In many cases there’s a very strong incentive to be dishonest and underestimate the time/cost required.
“In time” and “on time” are not the same things.
Now Robert – on time is of course delivery as per a date set by a contract – how do you define in time? – in time for Christmas?
Fmark – do you beleive everything you read on the internet and in the media?
In time, in this context, means before we (or the Yanks) have to buy transitional fighters or take costly life-extension work.
About 2 years ago, Ben Sandilands the Crikey aviation writer, was very critical of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter because it was vapor-ware, a string of great ideas, it had worse performance than the latest generation of MIGs being flown by the Chinese Air Force. The MIG fighter cost a known value say $20 million and the F-35 stratospheric cost continued to climb. There is yet to be a flying prototype of the F-35 JSF.
Remember our Abrams tank purchase that are too heavy and too wide to be driven on Australian roads, especially those in the Northern Territory
Razor, apparently the Abrams tanks are quite maneuverable and can comfortably operrate in northern Australian conditions.
You really want to start an argument about the Abrams? With me?
Just so you know, 1st Armoured Regiment (Tank) is where I was a Troop Leader (in Leopeards). It is my spiritual home. Good mates actually ran the project that purchased and delivered the Abrams early and below budget.
Just because it is big and heavy doesn’t make it a dud. Quite the opposite.
There are very rational lines of argument about what sort of purchase would have been appropriate for the ADF, but seeing as I doubt you had inside exposure to Project Army21 or any of the recent defence White Papers, I doubt you would be familiar with them.
Now, you were saying?
One moment please, was that “in Leopeards” or in “Leopard-skins”, funky man?
Billie, the JSF flies. But that’s a very long way from a plane that reliably flies through its entire flight envelope, fires its weapons, has working radar, etc. etc. etc.
As for Fitzgibbon, he’s flat-out denied the latest allegations and is promising to sue the paper.
That said, even on the basis of what we know already, I’m glad he’s out of the ministry, and wouldn’t be at all sad to see him lose his preselection.
As for the Abrams, lets just hope we never actually want to deploy them somewhere we send troops to, ‘cos it would be a bugger to have to drive them all the way back to Melbourne again.
Grace – that depended on how many bundy and cokes had been drunk.
Fmark – last time I looked the Tank Regiment was still based at Robertson Barracks, Palmerston, Northern Territory.
Pay that Razor
Thing is, Razor, til we bought some huge-arse plane, we had no way of moving the fuckers without renting an Antanov.
(Disclaimer: I used to do movements planning in the Army.)
David – I ran Log Ops for the Battle Group so I know how to move them – the traditional way is to ship armour around the place. Flying them is a rather recent and expensive option.
Grace – after the leopard skin came nudity as it is hot in Darwin. Unfortunately the Brigade commanders always seemed to be bible thumping anti-funsters so you’d end up with a letter of censure on your record for perfectly normal behaviour when you are stone motherless drunk at 3 am in the tropics with a swimming pool just asking for a swim.
Gah, the headline of this thread gave me a fright this morning as I dived in for a quick look before going off to my job in a project based around JSF.
Razor – “bible-thumping” commanders is a new one, must be the yankee influence from the sights on their rifles…
I was associated with a contingent of Australian military engineers in the South-West desert of Africa back in the late eighties where it was as hot as you like. The first thing the troops did was bring an abandoned and defunct swimming pool back into working order, under orders from the commanding officer, for after-hours recreation.
Not all bad.
Sorry Robert, off topic, will shut up now
Except to say, the JSF was a disastrous decision, as any boffin could have told you at the time. But the Man of Steel and George W thought it was a good idea at the time, so we are stuck with it.
Thanks Mr Howard, may your memory be mud.
This does not compute, “And if it’s ready for them, it should be ready for us”, unless the emphasis is on the normative, “should”. Last I checked, Fordist production lines didn’t aim for parallel completions.
From recall, there was a strong smell of dirty dealings with Boeing and Nelson’s advisors when the super hornet decision was sprung on us. Never quite got to the bottom of that…
It’s quite apparent to everyone not invested in the DoD world that F-22s would be the best solution for Australia, but it must be true that the Yanks wont sell them to us, otherwise tehre’s basically no case for us not seeking them. If this is true, and it must be, then it should have been a major embarrassment for Howard, when the Sheriff wont let teh deputy sheriff play with his shiny Winchester repeating rifle.
Helen,
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaServer_Faces:
Ugh. Simplfy = MVC web framework ….
You have my sympathy.
Wilful, without rehashing arguments held before, there’s plenty of drawbacks of the F-22.
Most importantly, it doesn’t drop a whole lot of weapons that Australia wants to use, and the USAF had no interest whatsoever in upgrading it to do so. Upgrading it to do so would have cost a whole lot of money.
and they wont sell us the F22 at the moment.
In any case, the F-22 is out of production. If it ever was an option, it’s not now.
SDBs.. and getting them to keep the production lines open would have meant they were cheaper… But you’re right, it’s dead horse flogging.
Getting a lot clsoer to UAV time.
Razor @ 21, I don’t think we had a big enough boat, either. I don’t think we do even now, although I’m a bit out of touch with what the current capabilities are.
Tobruk certainly wouldn’t move them (too big for the lower deck, too heavy for the upper deck), and I don’t think Manoora or Kanimbla were up to the task either.
Either way, we had to rent or buy stuff to move the Abrams tanks after we’d bought them.
Correct, Robert.
The problem being whispered about Canberra has nothing to do with JSF, which is still pretty much on track. In fact, it’s doing well for such a complex program. The airframe and engines – the actual aeroplane – are no issue at all. It’s the easy bit.
The hard bit lies in making it a node inside a global electronic system, working torrents of data into an accurate comprehensive picture that will inform but not overwhelm the pilot, and making the data standards and processing able to deal with data flows and systems 40 years hence.
On the Canberra side, the problem is money. It is slowly starting to dawn on Krudd&the Komical Komrades that they are rapidly running out of other people’s money. Apparently, they have no clue why Howard had lots, and they have none left.
After all, they could not possibly be incompetent wastrels about to hammer the economy flat with frivolous spending and a massive new tax under an Employment Termination Scheme, could they?
Pink batts and Christmas cheques, anyone?
Interesting aside (very OT, sorry). Rumours, leaks and whispers are really flowing from the Department of Cli-Fi as the AGW scam falls apart. The latest from D.Cli-Fi is that the real aim of the ETS is equivalent to a 50% increase in GST. (This one has been about for a year)
The new bit is: the real political attraction to Kruddles&Ko?
Not one brass razoo of it has to be given to the states.
Dunno about veracity, it is just a buzz I have picked up, so treat it as such.
MarkL
Canberra
Out of interest, I note that the cost for the first seven JSFs is going to be $AUSS3.2billion … There were plans for up to 100, presumably at a cost of around $AUS43 billion.
I find these two figures interesting as they have come up a bit of late.
I do wonder though if one were to consider opportunity cost, how the JSF would stack up against other means of protecting Australia from harm. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest it wouldn’t compare well.
grace @ 24, the first thing the combat wombats do anywhere is build a swimming pool. The second thing they build is a Squadron / Regiment bar.
After that, they do the roads, etc.
Heh. Razor. Were you around in K93?
The boys bogged a Leopard. Nothing unusual until we took a gander.
They’d bogged it to the upper deck. Impressive!
MarkL
Canberra
Fran, the cost of a fighter plane depends very much on when you buy it. If you want the first one out of the factory, they cost you a packet. If you want the thousandth, they’re a lot cheaper.
Doubtless true DI(NR), but of course it’s still a heck of a lot of cash. Even if the whole 100 could be had for $25bn I’d say it was money poorly spent.
…”…or be left without air combat capability for a period.”
Oh noes, how will we keep Afghan populations figures down to an acceptable level if that happens,…heaven forbid…
Not sure which of my off-topic rants you’re referring to, Fran.
I agree the JSF was unwise, though. OTOH, the F-111, one of Menzies’ sillier decisions, turned out OK in the end.
Sorry DI(NR) I realise I was responding to RM …
Now that we have the F111s we might as well keep making them work. Seriously, why do we need fighters anyway? Whom are we going to be shooting at?
DI(NR)@36, Understood, Bundy and Coke was instantly available. Fortunately, the South Africans had already built some very nice arterial roads, and Casspirs and Buffels were all the go for cross-country, so it was straight down to business.
Why are supposed Leftists discussing which means of destruction the Australian imperialist state should have at its disposal?
MarkL – I was a fresh minted jube LT in 93 doing my ROBC so I missed K93.
I haven’t personally done that but the current CO of the School of Armour buried his Tank up to the turret in a creek crossing at Mt Bundy in 95. Range Control labelled us environemtal vandals and accused us of all sorts of evil including firing WP rounds off range (idiots!).
The most impressive boggin I ever saw was a Tank Transporter c/w Leopard AS1 bogged through the tarmac. Oops.
Do you mean bundy ‘n’ coke, Chav? Fucking horrible stuff. I don’t know how the troops put up with it.
Grace @ 24 – no bible-thumping wasn’t that unusual Both Brig Jim Wallace is an example.
The Ginger Beers always had good fridges which were well stocked.
“Why are supposed Leftists discussing which means of destruction the Australian imperialist state should have at its disposal?”
I’ll give you one guess.
Incidentally while I was chaffing at the bit in my KJU-98768, it was pretty clear to me that the old boys sunning themselves on their LMC-667′s had no idea of the shit sandwich that was soon to present itself with startling clarity on their horizons. If they looked like fools it was because they were.
Years later bogged down in my own personal hell in a YT-987 with only an AJF for company and a pair of chocolate brownies, I was to reflect on my own chocolate croissant so to speak.
Still, jolly good fun and not a bundy ‘n’ coke to be seen thank heavens.
Come on, Adrian. You don’t want to discuss major issues of public and foreign policy because you’re ignorant of the details? Don’t discuss them then.
And you were discussing them?
Razor@47: I had thought Wallace was a sad aberration, sorry to hear otherwise… and yes re their bar, even stretched to a whiskey sour, amazing given the circumstances…
Adrian @48…ah yes, I see your point…
Gracw @ 52 – yes, Wallace was a sad aberration – putting a Special Forces guy in charge of an Armoured Brigade is a waste of time for everyone involved . . . oh, you mean the bible thumping – the ADF reflects society, a few get through.
Don’t worry Adrian, MarkL will be able to understand it.
david irving (no relation), by what standard did the F111s turn out OK in the end? Since we bought them we haven’t had to use them, to the best of my knowledge – at least, not against an enemy with any actual anti-aircraft capability. So they may have flown, and looked dangerous, and stuff, but it seems difficult to say they turned out OK in the end.
Further, under what strategic plan were they purchased? The only military engagements we’ve been in since they were bought – the Gulf Wars and East Timor – were almost certainly outside the purview of the plan under which they were purchased. Even had we used them in those wars (and I don’t know if we did), their performance is untested against the original plan, which almost certainly had something to do with the defense of our nation in the Pacific.
Defense spending discussions seem to be an evidence-free zone (witness all the pointless acronym-stuffed willy-waving anecdotes above), with questions like “opportunity cost” and actual assessments carefully avoided (the author of this post being a rare exception). It’s in this context that people argue the Abrams is a waste of money – not because it can’t do something very violent very well, but because the violent thing it does very well doesn’t suit our strategic needs. The same is no doubt true of a plan to spend 43 billion bucks on a couple of jets.
Bear in mind that the last govts version of “strategic planning” was “don’t”. Remember in 2000 they released a white paper which didn’t mention refugee threats, terrorism or deputy sheriff, but by the 2001 election the central threat to Australian security was refugees and middle eastern terror. Whether or not the latter is true, their inability to include it in a strategic review commissioned just a year earlier is rather telling, don’t you think? Why anyone would think that this JSF purchase is the right one given this kind of strategic planning is beyond me.
Chav asked:
Because, Chav, supposed leftists includes a wider group than socialist revolutionaries. And even amongst those of us who envisage international socalist revolution as a desirable and plausible goal, there would be those who think the bridge from here to there should touch both shores, rather than be designed to compel those on this shore to make the considerable leap and swim required between here and the structures marking the incipient proletarian revolution.
I happen to think it would be a good thing if Australian imperialism suffered greater technical constraints on its ability to project its power, and instead spent more of the resources it might marshal on intimidating other working people on things of material value to working people here (or there).
sg, I suspect that any hardware we own just needs to look dangerous – it’s not like we can afford enough of it to actually be dangerous. (I except the Infantry from this, as they’re the ones who actually sieze and hold ground.)
The F-111s were ordered during our involvement in Vietnam (probably with that conflict in mind), but didn’t actually get delivered until well after Whitlam had got us out of there, so I don’t hold out much hope of us getting the JSF in a timely fashion. Still, they did a good job of making us look like we had an air force, for nearly 40 years.
Agree about the Abrams, too (despite Razor’s specific expert input).
My point, for what it is worth is that the term ‘left’ and ‘right’ have become too generic to really mean anything of consequence.
Anyway I’ll leave this discussion to the non-ignorant amongst us.
Sg I’m sure some will opine that the F111s kept the Indos in order all those years when they were just busting to invade. I remember reading comments a few years ago salivating about how the F111 would let us drop a bomb down a chimney in Jakarta in a thunderstorm, or some such.
That’s the problem with defence spending (as opposed to spending on things you can use to join in the yanks’ latest excellent imperial adventure). If it’s done well it’s an effective deterrent and you never have to use the hardware at all. Nobody can ever really know whether you dodged a bullet or not. Bit like cutting greenhouse gases, actually.
Good Lord, Razor.
They bogged the combo through the tarmac?
Unless it was something weird like a sealed road over a soak in the blacksoil country after a big rain, how the heck did they manage that?
Saw a Starlifter bogged at RIC (pilot missed the taxiway) and that was impressive for the scale of the recovery op, planes being so fragile and delicate. Pilot got the boot from the USAF for it, poor devil.
MarkL
Canberra
I don’t think that’s true at all Ken. Just because we bought the things and they sat there and we weren’t attacked doesn’t mean they were an effective deterrent. It just means we weren’t attacked. Some kind of documentation linking Indonesian strategic thinking to our possession of these wonder weapons would be required to convince me of that.
Alternatively, if we had been able to say to the Indonesians, for example, “best you don’t invade any neighbouring islands, or our magical super jets will send you back to the stone age…” but they did invade a few neighbouring islands, and we kow-towed to them all the way. So it seems like we weren’t too confident in our strategic poise in the 70s and 80s, even though we had F111s which turned out to be ok in the end.
Similarly, our possession of all these super weapons didn’t give us the confidence to reject American overtures to act outside our strategic space in an illegal war. Why? Because we were so confidently backed up by our super-jets that we felt we desperately needed to cling onto the American defense umbrella. NZ, on the other hand, ditched the jets, refused to allow nuclear warships into their harbours, and didn’t get to be involved in an illegal war.
So what turned out better in the end? I don’t get the sense that the deterrent these F111s represent really has done anything to help us in our strategic planning over the last 40 years. They haven’t been put to use and our foreign relations have continued to be conducted on the basis that they wouldn’t be enough. It seems to me that this makes them more a failure than a success. The money would have been better spent on beer. Or, alternatively, on defense spending that suited our strategic goals.
@56 Point taken Fran and I concede close reading of your comments reveals an oblique questioning of the need for a Joint Strike Fighter whatsoever. I just find it absolutely amazing that this post was even allowed to be made on LP, given that it parades itself as a ‘left-of-centre’ blog. As for your comment,
“Because, Chav, supposed leftists includes a wider group than socialist revolutionaries…”…
Even the Greenswould probably not have posed this blog post in terms of a question as to whether Australian Imperialism was getting its value for money from the US for Joint Strike Fighter.
The fact the post was allowed to go ahead speaks volumes…
Yes, but the ‘centre’ is so far to the right these days it will probably end up in the far left.
Oh gos no, Adrian, please don’t tell me you are an adherent of ‘Horseshoe Theory’..?
Fran, I will treasure this comment for its illucidity. Even Chav does not have a clue about what you are talking about.
I’m fully aware of what she is saying, asshole.
But again, why did LP allow this post in the first place, given that it is a ‘left-of-centre’ blog?
Chav, I’d guess the post was “allowed” by our hosts because this is a forum for the free exchange of ideas, not an exercise in groupthink.
GregM’s assuming that if he doesn’t understand something, nobody else does either.
To answer your question, refer to Liam’s post where he characterises this discussion as one involving “major issues of public and foreign policy”.
He just forgot to add “from a centre right perspective”.
Not that it really matters when you’re looking at that old horseshoe and reflecting on our current left wing government and lefty media. Give me non- ideological, culturally enriched yoghurt any day.
You mean Groupthink, as in being left-wing and opposed to militarism..?
Shall I sing you a song…
I cried when they shot John Lennon
Tears ran down my spine
And I cried when I saw “JFK”
As though I’d lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X and Ice-T had it coming
They got what they asked for this time
CHORUS
So love me, love me, love me
I’m a liberal
I go to pro-choice rallies
Recycle my cans and jars
I’ll honk if you love the Dead
Hope those funny grunge bands become stars
But don’t talk about revolution
That’s going a little bit too far
CHORUS
I cheered when Clinton was chosen
My faith in the system reborn
I’ll do anything to save our schools
If my taxes ain’t too much more
And I love blacks and gays and Latinos
As long as they don’t move next door
CHORUS
Rush Limbaugh and the L.A.P.D.
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can’t understand where they’re at
Arsenio should set them straight
But if Neigborhood Watch doesn’t know you
I hope the cops take your name
CHORUS
Yeh, I read the New Republic(an)
Rolling Stone and Mother Jones too
If I vote it’s a Democrat
With a sensible economy view
But when it comes to terrorist Arabs
There’s no one more red, white and blue
CHORUS
Once I was young and had an attitude
Stickers covered the car I drove in
Even went on some direct actions
When there weren’t rent-a-cops to be seen
Ah, but now I’ve grown older and wiser
And that’s why I’m turning you in
“Give me non- ideological, culturally enriched yoghurt any day.”
If only there were such a thing…unfortunately we are stuck with Yo-Plait of the either the Left or Right-wing variety.
Asshole? This is an Australian blog, Chav. In Australia the word is arsehole (which is a word coined for you),
I have to ask, in response to Chav’s urgent desire to suppress free speech, why did LP allow Chav’s post in the first place, given that it is an Australian blog?
I think you’ll find, Chav, that the answer is that unlike you, the left in Australia, including the left of centre, value freedom of speech, and don’t (unlike you) demand that it be censored at any time you are criticised or ridiculed by it. We mock people we ridicule them, We cut down tall poppies. We have done so since we started settling here in 1788.
We are grown up people. It is about time you asked yourself about how grown up you are.
MarkL @ 61 – end of the wet – they took a run out to Mt Bundy to see what the conditions were like. Found out that they weren’t good yet near a culvert.
effing Truckwits.
They almost rolled my Leo by trying to load while parked on the camber of the Highway near Delamere Range and it slid off sideways.
“I have to ask, in response to Chav’s urgent desire to suppress free speech, why did LP allow Chav’s post in the first place, given that it is an Australian blog?”
I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware you preferred Australian militarism over its American variant. I stand humbly corrected.
Arsehole.
“We mock people we ridicule them, We cut down tall poppies. We have done so since we started settling here in 1788.”
And we abandon any political principles whatsover by asking what kind of means of destruction will best serve our brand of nationalism.
that’s a pretty funny song Chav…
Thank you sg, but I must confess, I didn’t write it myself.
The Russians are claiming to be able to deliver their JSF competitor, the T-50, by 2015. The Indians have ordered 250 of them, apparently. They already make a very capable aircraft, the Su-35. that is flown by regional neighbours. One feature of the Russian aircraft is long range, which was also as I understand it an attractive feature of the F-111 given Australia’s geography and the huge potential area of operations. I’m not aware the JSF is so configured. Will the JSF be able to operate independently of access to US global military communications systems? Maybe these questions have been answered, and I’d be pleased to hear they’re stupid.
Chav, I’ve read your postings on LP over five years now, You don’t have any political principles. You are all posturing. An empty vessel.
Sorry to say that but it has to be said.
That’s why we ridicule you.
I hope that helps.
Hal @ 97 – the JSf will be able to operate independently of access to US global military communications systems. It may suprise you that we are reasonably good at that sort of thing.
And no, despite the cost etc, we are not going to by Russian kit.
@78. From a clique of opportunistic petit bourgeois, that is quite a bold accusation GregM.
Chav, you’re free to read or not read LP, and you’re perfectly free to skip over my posts if you want.
It is a perfectly reasonable debate as to whether Australia needs a hugely expensive combat aircraft capability. There’s also a reasonable debate as to how much of such a capability it needs. Spending on defence is an arguably necessary evil.
When it comes down to it, however, the only bits of the armed forces that are actually of use for defending Australia from direct attack are the combat aircraft and the submarines.
Razor, your contributions will likely be better received without the sneering hubris. I am not surprised that Australian military industries are capable, although I am somewhat bemused at your casual assumptions based on zero evidence.
At any event, you’re either deliberately or ingenuously ignoring my point, which was that regional neighbours seem likely to have a stealthy competitor up and flying for some years before we can expect delivery of the JSF, the point of which was supposed to be air superiority. If air superiority is of no concern, why then is it we have to have the extraordinarily expensive piece of kit in the first place? If it is of concern, shouldn’t we be a bit less sanguine about the delays in delivery? Last, I am not reassured by Robert’s argument that the US needs it and so it will happen. A number of US weapons programs have been cancelled because of gross delays and cost overruns (the F-22 being one of them) in recent times. The JSF program has been burdened with mission creep – trying to make the one weapon serve a plethora of roles, some of which have been inherited from other, cancelled programs.
Razor: Ah, Delamere. That explains it. Good pig-shooting there, though.
HAL9000
Well, not really. The point is multiple use for the platform and air superiority as just one combat effect of the platform. Your thinking is a outdated (don’t worry about that, not many in the ADF get this either yet, but it is happening). The whole point of the F-35/F-18 mix (both have reciprocal full data commonality, which is a Very Big Deal) is to oppose his aircraft with your networked system.
In that circumstance, the radar reduction of his aircraft (a tactical effect only) is quite close to irrelevant. Example. If the desired effect is air superiority for 1 year, then our system might work out that hey lookee, all his top-notch knuckleheads wot fly his nice “stealthy” birds are all having their morning cuppa at Ethel’s cafe at 1000.
So we put a JDAM into Ethel’s cafe at 1005 and kill them all.
Now we have the effect you wanted – we have air superiority for one year.
Want it for one week?
Then our system might determine that the weak point is their cryogenics. The country might have just one supplier of liquid oxygen to aircrew MILSPEC and of liquid N2 used to cool the aircraft computer, and of the liquid helium used to cool the IR seekers on his AAM.
And the best way to stop that supply might be to get the cyber-weenies to wreck their computer system so their plant does not work for a week.
Effects-based warfare is like that. Sort of twisty. (Think Sir basil Liddell-Hart’s ‘indirect approach’)
Again, effects-based warfare just does not work like that. The platform is capable across the entire spectrum of conflict. This afternoon it might be doing an intel collection activity. Tonight it might be dropping iron bombs on some talib’s cave. Tomorrow it might be grounding someone’s helicopter fleet for 14 days by firing a cruise missile that takes out their supply of gearbox lubricants in the shed at the end of the runway. For example, it is going to have formidable intelligence collection capability (look at the public data on its systems!). Sure, it is designed to efficiently and accurately deliver ordnance to unwilling customers, but it can do orders of magnitude more than that.
Yes. That is why we have contingency plans. That’s one reason why the Howard government got the new Hornets.
Odd thing to say. F-22 was originally a specialised platform, the ultimate Cold-War pure air superiority fighter. Only the USAF could dream of affording such a luxury. It is probable that no new fighter this half-century will match it. But it acheived that as much through access to an all-pervasive access to the network/system as by brilliance of design as an aircraft.
What F-35 does is use that development, and a bit of the radar reduction stuff and all that jazz, to meet a broader spectrum of combat effects with a much, much cheaper airframe. We know all the bits work. It’s making them all sing in symphony that’s the hard bit, but you can achieve that incrementally if you have to. That’s why they have been bringing that symphony together for 20 years in other platforms, and have already fielded it in the new Hornets.
No, again this is obsolete thinking. There are no ‘roles’ any more in the sense you imply. ‘Roles’ are dealt with not by platform specialisation any more, but by specialising the weapons the platform carries. In essence, ‘roles’ have been pretty much disconnected from the platform, which now is a multi-function ‘carrier’ which is used to impose combat effects using those specialised weapons. None of this is really new, either: it’s the original ‘battleplane’ concept of the 30s. They could not make it work then because they had no network as we do now, and no specialised ‘smart’ weapons until 1942, so they had to do the only thing they could, and specialise the platforms based on roles to compensate. Primitive and wasteful, and they knew it, but they had no other choice.
None of this is easy to explain if you don’t have a solid grasp of what warfare is for, and what warfare really is: but basically we can be thought of as truly understanding what Clausewitz was banging on about when he said that war was the continuation of politics by other means. We are now directly obtaining the effect desired inside the enemy command structure/government. Which is what Clausewitz meant by that statement.
The implication is, of course, obvious.
MarkL
Canberra
It was when you said “much, much cheaper” that I realised you were simply making it all up.
I’m not sure I understand why you think von Clausewitz is worth reading, MarkL. I tried once, but it all seemed to be about the siting of latrines.
This is important, as our army is shitter-driven, but it doesn’t really address strategy.
MarkL: that’s all well and good, but “network-based warfare” isn’t fundamentally different from what smart armies have been seeking to do for ever and a day.
Yes, the technological means to perform precision strikes beyond the immediate battlefield have changed a great deal. But it’s still only as good as the intelligence you get, and that remains notoriously unreliable.