Sometimes to stockholders:
Australia will review its air-combat spending program, which includes a $5.8 billion deal for 24 F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter bombers from Boeing, the Sydney Morning Herald reported today.
The review is being will start “as soon as practicably possible,” a spokesperson for Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon said in an e-mail.
Fitzgibbon took office after Kevin Rudd’s Labor Party defeated John Howard’s Liberal-National coalition government last month.
The government may cancel the Boeing deal or try to renegotiate it, the Herald said.
Former Defense Minister Brendan Nelson agreed to buy the planes in March. He drew criticism for not involving Australia’s defense chiefs.
It’ll be interesting to see what, if anything, takes their place if Oz cancels the deal entirely.
Strangely, this is similar to what happened in New Zealand in 2001. Labour government elected, cancels existing contract for F16s. Nowadays the RNZAF has no strike capability and operates helicopters straight out of MASH.
Oz is a place that could probably look long and hard at F22′s – or if the production line hasn’t disappeared entirely, F-15E’s and F’s.
Make no mistake, the defense establishment wants F-22′s.
- SJS
Would we allow F-22s to be exported?
While a good jet for the U.S. Navy for any number of reasons, Rhino is the wrong jet for the RAAF for any number of good reasons. Even then, forget the equipment for a minute. The whole deal was a bad government process. Doesn’t matter if it was a toaster oven, the shop-o-holic making the decision back in March was clueless.
ELP – care to elaborate? What jet should have been bought, and why?
It’s true that the deal was a surprise – especially as the Chief of Air Force had said only two months previous that it wasn’t required…
If our Oz buddies CX the order, our own guys in blue (even that funny off-color bus-driver shade) sure could use some more flying machines. And soon! And more than just 24!
ELP- Why is it the wrong jet for OZ?
John-
We were actually borrowing production slots off the USN much as we did with the C-17 (although they were USAF slots).
Anyway, 10 bucks says we end up with the Super Bug anyway, purely as it’s the last man standing.
F-22: Not available
F-15: Too long to deliver
Gripen: Shorter legs than even a Bug
Typhoon: Drops about two kinds of bombs, and will till circa 2014.
IIRC the rockets pods for the pigs go US in 2013, the G’s are already retired (quietly).
I’d still be putting my money on F/A-18 BACC and F-35 NACC.
I’m with Sim here – typical post election sabre rattling. At any rate, we were really only buying the SuperBug for its radar and avionics set.
Yo. Aussies-
I’ve been reading your comments in here and I’ve read a little of ELPs “war pigs of the world” stuff on his blog back a couple months.
Notwithstanding your internal politics of buying stuff, y’all seem to be bickering about, here and abouts (common to both countries I reckon), just what don’t y’all like about the SuperHornet? Are you guys buying the buddy store with it? How’re y’all fixed on big wing tankers? Are you buying it because of all the bells and whistles it comes with?
Seeing how I’ve gone this far, just why did you buy Hornets (a Naval jet and known gas hog up front) in the first place? Seems to me your threat axis to the north is huge and more range on your interceptor-sea strike jets, the better.
I have never studied your defense strategies, but it would appear from a self-defense standpoint. power projection and expeditionary air warfare ain’t your bag. A nice big mix of F-16 and some F-15′s would have been fine for your needs 70′s, 80′s or 90′s.
Lastly, if I may blokes, y’all have some smart folks down there, a lot of practical aviation industry experience and a pretty impressive industrial base. Why don’t y’all build your own stuff based on US designs you can buy. Then add on avionics and weps as they come. Sorta like Japan.
Don’t want to be insensitive or scare ya off but it seems you are addicted to leading edge US stuff even we ourselves can’t afford in great numbers (and you keep pointing out)…Seems like our defense relationship is sorta like the crack dealer smoking all the drugs and leaving none for the junkies…
BTW, I like them big ol’Aussie AF cowboy looking hats. One of your O’s back here in my building leaves it out on his desk all the time. I might snatch it one day! Oh yeah what’s that big ol’ tube intstrument that makes the weird haunting noise the Aborigines use. A goolagong? I always wanted to get one of ‘em to scare the neighbors and also a couple of those heavy war boomerangs for woodchcks..instead it seemed like everytime I left Perth I had a hangover and good memories but neither one of those. Always thought I’d be back. Any ideas on where to get the real things?
b2
Knowing that I’m tilting at windmills here, I will point out that the Hornet is not a ‘gas hog’ – the legacy model just doesn’t carry very much. Specific fuel consumption on the FA-18A/C was lower than on the F-14, for what that’s worth.
Some jets carry their own gas and pay the performance hit for all that size and weight. Others aren’t tankers.
A little OZ history.
Back in the early 80′s, when we were deciding on a replacement for the MirageIII, there were six candidates; F15, F18L, Tornado, Mirage2000, F16, F/A18A. The choice came down to either F16s or F/A18s, the remainder being too narrowly focussed, RAAF wanting a true multirole aircraft. It was settled that we needed a twin engine job, then decision makers being on the receiving end of too many engine failures in the bricklike Mirage. Hence the F/A18A.
With the F/A18A, I think the first four were imported and the remainder progressively assembled or manufactured here. I believe that is still the plan for the JSF. Recently there have been some poor outcomes with that method (Seasprite, Tiger,) so it may have been a risk management decision. Purchasing existing US equipment is a lot safer and quicker than developing and manufacturing your own.
As for tankers, yes we are getting replacement tankers, along with AWACs aircraft, stand off missiles, UAVs, and a satellite hovering above, plus all the other computery type stuff to tie it altogether. A good friend of mine was involved in the project work for it.
B2 – it’s a didgeridoo. A goolagong is something different
B2-
Considering adding the Bugs to the Pigs still wouldn’t get you to 100 I imagine the unit price for a beast of our very own could stun even the most pork enamoured pollie. As an aside I recall the CO of 1 Sqn stood up before a Senate Estimates Committee and said only about 17 Pigs are airworthy at any on time. Besides, as Chris mentioned we have an unfortunate habit of ballsing it up when it comes to defence projects.
The Hornet is only meant to be a stop-gap, for that reason availability is key. Under the FMS program we’re getting a turn-key package of USN Super Bugs with little mess, little fuss (the US military buys them, all we do is hand over the cash) and we then can link in with the USN spiral development program. They’re the same bird minus the paint.
BTW – Only cowboy looking hat I can think of in the RAAF is the same as the Army slouch. Always looks off with roundels on it IMO, then I’m used to my grandfathers which sits in my cupboard.
Not “Gas Hogs?”
I believe these expensive but extraordinarily capable, multiple-million-dollar machines were built to fight, no? I sincerely doubt they were built to get good gas mileage on an x-country or to merely punch economical MPG holes in the sky.
I also believe that once afterburner is tapped – as it was designed, and is certainly needed within any hostile environment or engagement – all AB-equipped aircraft are indeed, extreme “gas hogs.” It is the nature of these beasts, F-18′s certainly included.
Tankers do not/cannot venture into hostile airspace. Ergo, you had better carry enough of your own gas, and of course a weapons load to do the job given a tasked combat range. Otherwise, you are an expensive, empty and worthless shell that has nevertheless made a lot of contractors wealthy.
Meager loiter fuel flow, as opposed to adrenaline influenced, massive combat AB fuel flow exist in entirely two different universes, regardless of the fighting machine. If the craft is in harm’s way – as it was supposedly designed to be – then it is indeed a gas hog, especially if afterburner is available. Tanks were gas hogs too – as both Patton and Rommel knew… petrol often was more important than the fighting machine, regardless of any superior capability.
Biased for sure, but this site has an interesting comparison on fuel specs, and many other interesting parameters -
http://www.mirage-jet.com/COMPAR_1/compar_1.htm
Lex,
re- “the legacy model just doesn’t carry very much”
I accept that, and also the fuel burn rate difference from the Turkey, but that still doesn’t make up for the flaw that the ‘legacy” Hornet was basically a Tacoma that got a Prius gas tank installed off the production line. They have perfect legs for a country like Switzerland or Finland both of which are smaller than a good sized western state.
I ain’t bashing your sled Lex, I’m just trying to figure out how the Aussies got in this conumndrum!
re your “Others aren’t tankers”
Ain’t that the truth though! But since when has the Navy ever designed one for our needs. Never. Always sorta of an aux mission til now.
Chris-
re- “As for tankers, yes we are getting replacement tankers, along with AWACs aircraft, stand off missiles, UAVs, and a satellite hovering above, plus all the other computery type stuff to tie it altogether. A good friend of mine was involved in the project work for it.”
Gee. Where are you going with all that stuff?
re – “didgeridoo” Thanks it’s coming back. That’s it! Ms. Goolagong was a tennis player. Sorry.
Bugs= Hornets. The whole series or just the Rhino?
Pigs = F-111 Aardvark- “It is affectionately known as the ‘Pig’ for its ability to hunt at night with its nose in the weeds, thanks to its terrain-following radar.” I just added that so the other folks reading this would know we ain’t discussing farming.
Sim- “SuperHornets as a gap filler till JSF”. OK. That I can understand..
re- the hat: the RAAF officer here wears it with his blue working uniform and I have seen him wearing it in a zoombag on flight suit Fridays. Looks like an actual uniform part.
b2
Hey B2, here is a Goolagong fer ya
Pigs = Not so affectionate.
Speaking of conundrums Down Under, there’s another one ongoing with a frigate upgrade gone awry:
Frigates ‘Can’t Go To War’ Despite $1.4bn Upgrade (ADVERTISER (AUSTRALIA) 02 JAN 08) … Ian McPhedran
The navy’s front-line fighting ships cannot defend themselves and are unable to be sent into battle, despite a $1.4 billion upgrade. A navy insider close to the 4000-tonne Adelaide Class Guided Missile Frigates has revealed the ships’ complex electronic systems are not working properly. . .Senior officials now admit that the 1997 frigate upgrade project was a “debacle” created by the Howard Government’s decision to maximise the sale price of the Sydney-based contractor, Australian Defence Industries, when it was sold to the French firm, Thales. . .Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon described the upgrade as “another nightmare” Labor has inherited from the previous Coalition government.
And the money quote?
The sailor said what angered him and comrades was the gross waste of taxpayer funds when the navy could have bought virtually new and more capable U.S. Navy Kidd Class Destroyers in the late-1990s for a bargain price.
sound familiar?
- SJS
It does sound a bit familiar, although calling the Ayatollah-class “virtually new” by the late 90′s would be gilding the lily, it seems. If only Oz had asked for an Arleigh Burke or six with both TACTAS and a helo hangar, now that’d been showing us how it was done.