danrh:dev2: :dev2: :dev2: :dev2:
Russian officials in Moscow declined to comment.
I want to see this change or it will have to wait until the boats actually arrive in India.
Daniel
danrhT-1A Jayhawk
Did you actually mean the Beech Bizjet or did you mean the T-45 Goshawk?
Daniel
danrhNow one just has to wonder if this is a ploy to drag down the price of the Gibbs & Cox ship or its serious.
Spain leads for $7bn navy contract
* Patrick Walters, National security editor
* March 01, 2007SPAIN is poised to win the contest to design the navy’s new air warfare destroyers, destined to be the biggest and most advanced warships in its fleet.
As the race to win the contract to design the three vessels enters its final weeks, state-owned Spanish naval builder Navantia is heading its US rival on price and delivery time.The $7 billion program will be Australia’s second-biggest defence project in the coming decade, after the $14 billion joint strike fighter for the air force.
Long regarded as simply a stalking horse for a new warship designed by US firm Gibbs and Cox based on the US Navy’s Arleigh Burke class destroyers, Spain’s modified F100 warship is now an even-money bet to win the contract.
The Spanish ship is much cheaper and would be delivered about two years earlier than the US design submitted by Gibbs and Cox.
Gibbs and Cox has been the Howard Government’s preferred designer for the air warfare destroyers, but the firm’s bigger and more capable warship exists only in its preliminary design phase.
And final target cost estimates due to be handed to the Defence Department tomorrow are expected to put the Spanish F100 warship ahead on price by more than $500 million, according to government and industry sources.
The Government has committed $450 million to the project’s start-up, with the cabinet due to take the final decision on the winning design in July.
In August 2005, the Government announced that the Gibbs and Cox “evolved design” would compete with an “Australianised” version of the F100 for the right to be chosen as the navy’s new frontline warship.
The new ships will be equipped with the US-made Aegis combat system, giving them the ability to track hostile aircraft and missiles at ranges beyond 150km.
Adelaide-based shipbuilder ASC has already been chosen to construct the vessels, while Raytheon will be the systems integrator, as part of a novel alliance with partners ASC and the Defence Materiel Organisation.
Spain’s belated recognition that its F100 could be selected has resulted in a last-minute lobbying push by the Spanish Government.
The Spanish F100 air warfare destroyer Alvaro de Bazan arrives in Perth today at the start of a three-week visit designed to highlights the ship’s advanced capabilities. Spain is also sending its naval chief and senior government officials to Australia this month in an effort to clinch the AWD contract.
The design offered by Gibbs and Cox is a more powerful warship than the Spanish F100 air warfare destroyer, and remains the navy’s preferred choice.
Gibbs and Cox believes the heavily modified Arleigh Burke offers better all-round combat capability and better growth options for future technology upgrades than the F100.
But with four F100s already in service with the Spanish navy, Navantia argues that its destroyer offers a low-risk and highly capable solution for the Royal Australian Navy.
The first of the navy’s new frontline destroyers is scheduled to be delivered in 2013, but the US design is not likely to be in service before 2015.
danrhOops wrong thread.
danrhOK, so now I’m confused. According to the report the Government will purchase the Super Bugs as well as upgrade the Pigs. I’d assumed from previous media reports that the Government were hell bent on getting rid of the Pig in order sacrifice any long range strike capability. If the Pigs are to be kept (three cheers for common sense) then what squadrons will convert to the Super Bug. While the report doesn’t specify this is the RAAF going to retire two squadrons of legacy Hornets and have those squadrons convert to the Super Bug?
Its not both it either/or. If the Government is going to take the Super Bug deal to Cabinet and then Parliament then it needs data on the options to present. Hence looking at Piggy Upgrades.
Daniel
danrhAir Force to buy 24 Super Hornet fighters
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21245486-31037,00.html
February 18, 2007
Unless something else happens, this sounds like a done deal…
This was actually just the Weekend Australian’s re-write of the earlier story that appeared in the Australian. Nothing new here.
Daniel
danrhIn other words…the Howard government will have a hard time avoiding the blame for the Sea Sprite fiasco?
Not really, people just don’t care enough about this sort of stuff. The government continues to produce multi-billion dollar surpluses (thanks to the GST and the resources boom) and people know this stuff is expensive so it doesn’t sound that bad. There is no threat for folks to get excited about. Folks are more interested in the their mortage rates, climate change and how their team is doing this week. Lets see the Cricket World Cup is coming up and the footy season starts again shortly. I expect the election to be right around Grand Final time so between now and then only the few hundred thousand Australian’s who occasionally watch the ABC will even know about this stuff.
Daniel
danrhI was just looking at the bird and casting my mind back to the mid 1960s,just imagine if Australia had bought the TSR2 that was offered to us we might now be about to change them for the Typhoon instead of getting the Super Hornet to replace the F111. Ah if things had only been different, I wonder if the TSR2s would have lasted this long though.
Well if we’d had the TSR2 then wouldn’t have to put up with all these arguments about the F-111s great range 🙂
Daniel
danrhOk. Firstly, I don’t want a lot of loyalty crap (who does?) on, “YOU AMERICANS ARE **** AND YOUR AIRCRAFT SUCK *** AND blah, blah, blah!”
Then don’t start threads like this. Honestly, obviously you’re new but you don’t need to read too many threads to see where this is going to end up.
Daniel
danrhSadly could be applied to anything UK built..
Why did it never sell overseas?
I don’t know that it was ever an option. Being built on the Comet 4 airframe there was probably an issue with availability. Did/does the capacity o manufacture complete new build exist?
Daniel
danrhF-22s not suitable anyway: Nelson
* Cameron Stewart
* February 15, 2007THE F-22 Raptor was the wrong warplane for Australia and the nation’s security would not be undermined by the US decision not to export it, Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said yesterday.
But Labor called on the Government to press the Americans to reconsider the export ban, saying the F-22 was an important option for Australia’s future air defence needs.The Australian revealed yesterday that US Deputy Defence Secretary Gordon England wrote to Dr Nelson last month to confirm that the F-22 would not be sold to Australia.
The US decision makes it almost certain that Australia will opt to buy up the only viable alternative – the Joint Strike Fighter F-35 – in a deal worth more than $15 billion.
Labor defence spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon said the Government had poorly managed its search for a suitable replacement for the F-111 strike bombers when they are retired from 2010.
“It is important that we continue to press the US for access to the F-22, which would allow it to remain part of the purchase options mix,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.
But in a strongly worded statement, Dr Nelson said Labor’s attachment to the F-22 was wrong-headed because the plane was fundamentally unsuited to Australia’s strategic needs.
In an unusual attack on the F-22, the world’s most advanced and expensive warplane, Dr Nelson criticised the F-22’s stealth, its range and its variety of weaponry.
“The F-22 is primarily a single-role air-to-air combat aircraft,” he said. “It has limited strike capability and the budget would not acquire enough F-22s to sustain concurrent tasking.”
The yet-to-be-completed F-35 has been plagued by cost overruns and delays, but the Government maintains it is the best, most cost-effective option. The F-22 is widely considered the world’s most lethal fighter, but also the most expensive, at about $170million each – more than double the projected cost of the F-35.
The first F-35s are due to be delivered to the RAAF by 2014, but experts fear further delays.
The Government plans to buy 24 Super Hornet fighter bombers to cover any gap in air combat capability between the retirement of the F-111s from 2010 and the arrival of the F-35s from 2014.
Meanwhile, a Senate committee has heard that if the Government decided to cancel the troubled Seasprite helicopter project – as foreshadowed in The Weekend Australian on Saturday – it could recoup a small part of its $900 million outlay by selling the 11 aircraft for spare parts.
Defence Materiel Organisation chief executive Stephen Gumley said the return would be far less than what the project had cost.
“It would be small. Scrap is too strong a word,” Dr Gumley told the committee. “We are certainly not talking $500 (million).”
Dr Nelson’s options include persevering at additional cost or cancelling the project entirely.
Daniel
danrhI agree, Scoot. The timing of this, in the same week when the independent defence journal, ADA Defender, published a major paper on the suitability of the F-35 as our only frontline combat aircraft by a group of defence and industry officals under a pen name is highly suspicious.
Well yes I think the timing is funny too. Valentines Day. George’s special gift to John for his salvo at Obama and Democrast in general 🙂
Why would the USAF have conducted a lengthy and costly study, “The Molloy Paper”, which was initiated due largely to interest from the pre Defence Reform RAAF in the F-22, which identified Australia as a safe export target for the Raptor if they did not intend to export it? Furthermore, why did, as a result of the Paper, the Intergrated Product Team study different configurations of the Raptor which could be sold to Australia and identified a configuration in which certain sensitive features would be “turned-off” and only available to the RAAF in wartime? This sounds like an awful lot of effort to got to on an aircraft “not available for export” to define a process in which it could be exported to Australia.
LOL. Oh dear. It might have gone been better if you hadn’t posted the link to the “Molloy Paper”. Did you by any chance read the first couple of pages? “lengthy and costly study” indeed.
With all due respect to Mr England, it is not up him wether the F-22 would be sold for export or not. It would be up to Congress and ultimately, the President. Personally, I think the benefits to the United States of Australia operating the Raptor outweigh the negatives, particularly in terms of the security of the Asia-Pacific.
Yes of course Mr England is making his own personal statements to foreign governments, no way he would be representing the position of his boss. F-22 with Kangaroo roundels, not going to happen.
Daniel
danrh…and if an anti-ship weapon is such a big deal for the JSF why doesn’t the major customer, with two sea-going variants, have a solution for one? Says it all really.
YS
Well that would be because its not a bid deal for the major customer who has plenty of other options unlike those partner nations who will deploy the F-35 as their single type.
Daniel
danrhUS rules out deal on F-22
* Cameron Stewart
* February 14, 2007AUSTRALIA’s largest defence project, the $15 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, is now almost certain to go ahead after the US formally ruled out the only viable alternative warplane for the RAAF.
The US Deputy Defence Secretary, Gordon England, has written to Defence Minister Brendan Nelson saying the US will not export the world’s most deadly warplane – the F-22 Raptor – to Australia.The US statement ends a growing debate among defence experts about which plane should replace the RAAF’s ageing F-111 strike bombers and form the front line of the nation’s future air force.
It makes it virtually certain that Canberra will agree to formalise the acquisition of up to 100 F-35s when a final decision is due next year.
At more than $15 billion, the F-35 fleet will be the single largest purchase of any kind by an Australian government since Federation.
The yet-to-be-completed F-35 has been plagued by cost overruns and delays, but it has retained the solid support of both the RAAF and Dr Nelson, who says it is easily the best, most cost-effective option for Australia’s strategic requirements.
However, the Labor Party and some defence experts had been calling for the RAAF to buy the F-22, which is the world’s most lethal fighter but also the most expensive at around $170 million each – more than double the projected cost of the F-35.
A study of Australia’s air power released yesterday by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute recommended that the Government seriously investigate the purchase of the F-22.
“The fifth-generation F-22 Raptor is the world’s best fighter – its stealth and performance put it well ahead of the pack,” the ASPI report says.
Although the US has never exported the F-22, Labor and some defence experts believed the US might relax its restrictions with a close ally such as Australia.
Dr Nelson discussed the range of warplane options with senior Bush administration officials during the annual Ausmin defence talks in Washington in December.
But in a letter to Dr Nelson last month, Mr England clarified US policy once and for all.
“Regarding the F-22, our current position is that the airplane will not be made available to foreign military sales,” Mr England wrote.
The statement means Australia will have little choice but to hope that the F-35 is delivered on time and on budget with all of its promised capabilities.
The first F-35s are due to be delivered to the RAAF by 2014. Although the planes have suffered serious problems with weight and with software integration during their design, the first test-flight in December was a success and the RAAF believes the F-35 will be a potent warplane capable of matching anything in the region.
However, the price of the F-35s – currently estimated at around $70million each – is likely to rise further after the US air force recently reduced its orders for the plane, driving up the cost for other customers such as Australia.
The US statement on the F-22 reflects a continuing reluctance by the US to export cutting-edge stealth technology, even to its closest allies.
Both Australia and Britain have clashed with the US over access to stealth technology for the F-35.
The Pentagon plans to buy about 2500 of the Lockheed Martin-made F-35s and sell the plane to nine partner countries, including Australia.
In March last year, Australia threatened to pull put of the F-35 deal if the Australian version of the plane did not have the same sophisticated stealth technology as the US F-35s.
But in meetings in June between Dr Nelson and then US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Dr Nelson said he was “confident that all of our requirements will be met on the (F-35) JSF – the technology and data transfer”.
Britain has also threatened to pull out of the F-35 project if the US does not share its stealth technology.
The F-22 and the F-35 are the world’s only so-called fifth-generation aircraft, giving them high levels of stealth against enemy radar and infrared detection systems.
They also have highly sophisticated sensor systems allowing them to collect, process and share real-time battle data.
The Government has said it wants to replace the 1960s-era F-111s with a fifth-generation warplane rather than fourth-generation options currently in service around the world.
The Government has recently signalled its intention to buy or lease 24 Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet fighters from the US, to ensure there is no gap in air combat capability between the retirement of the F-111 from 2010 and the arrival of the F-35 from 2014.
danrhThe most important thing in that article is of course the fact of the procurement process. They are dead right about that. One would think there would be some kind of fly-off / competition between various jet makers.
Which ones? Considering the original requirement for a fighter to replace both the Hornet and Pig for the service from 2015 and for the next 25-30 years.
What options are there?
F-16 Block 100: small, old airframe, could be given latest systems and weapons and kept somewhat competitive in the A2A arena (relying of BVR) with support from JORN, Wedgetail and tankers. However by the middle of it service life it would probably be looking at OPFORs including advanced Flankers and Fulcrums, J-10s, Typhoons and Rafale’s plus probable early Pak-FA’s and JXX. Add to that the fact that AEW&C capability is slowly proliferating throughout the region and is also likely to continue.
F-15OZ: As for advanced F-16 but with better range and some performance figures.
F-18E/F: (not the interim buy as is currently promulgated but for the long term plans) Pretty much as above but with slightly better RCS figures.
If any of the above options was chosen then the RAAF would probably be looking for a replacement somewhat sooner than originally planned.
Typhoon and Rafale: Very capable, reduced RCS should have advantage over current crop of OPFORs and maintain such until the advent of PAK-FA/JXX class aircraft or until OPFORs deploy large AEW&C. Rafales Spectra system is interesting but just my personal observation is that it seems active systems are countered quicker and “easier” than passive ones (ie RCS reduction). Good aircraft but still a design and base tech that originates from the 90s and buy the end of the projected service life these could be facing more capable OPFORs and a rather different strategic situation to that which exists today.
F-22A: Top of the range, does pretty much everything the RAAF could want and should maintain at least parity with all platforms projected to be realistically in service in the next 30 years or so. So why not get these? Two reasons, a) Will the US sell? b) They are just too damn expensive. While replacing 100 Hornets and Pigs with 50-60 F-22s might work well for a small nation for a place the size of Australia it spreads the available forces far too thing. It does no good to have a superfighter if its 2000km from the fight.
F-35: Not quite in the same class as the F-22A but supposed to have RCS better than Eurocanards, range close to F-15 on internal fuel, adequate performance and some of the best available systems. The F-35 is also expected to be easier to maintain than the F-22A being a further generation along in the field of reduced RCS tech as well as sytems. RCS advantage improves chances of being able to counter current (possibly) aerodynamically superior types such as Flanker from BVR. While the type my experience some significant delays in IOC even if it doesn’t enter service until 2020 Australia has the time to play with. Its much less likely that the Australia strategic situation will change significantly in the next decade while beyond that is much harder to say. Once the US has lost its current position of pre-eminence things become more complicated for it close historic allies in the region. Spending time and money that we have available now to better secure our position further down the track seems like a decent trade off to me. The industry offsets that stand to come with the F-35 also mean that the money spent by defence is not as “dead” as it usually is.
Honestly there have been a large number of fly-offs already amongst the possible candidates for the the RAAFs next fighter. Generally speaking Australia has pretty good relationships with most of the nations under who’s auspices those fly-offs were conducted and should quite well informed on the respective merits of the types. The two candidates that best fit the RAAF needs would not have even been available for a fly-off. Australia has a landmass to defend about the size of the CONUS but only about 6% of the population of the US to fund and supply the military tasked with that defence. Its situation currently is pretty secure and it can afford to “waste” a bit of time and money now to try and secure its longer term future.
Daniel
Sign In
