In November 16th 1999, Sukhoi announced that it will register its interest with the RAAFs Air 6000 project. The aircraft on offer to the RAAF were the Su-30MK, Su-32 and Su-35. Other contenders at the time included the Typhoon, F/A-18E/F and the F-22A…………

Sukhoi even proposed that we could start our oven assembly line here in Australia… in order that sales to countries like Malaysia would be quicker and also a manufacturing licence was also offered so we could BUILD our own version of the Su…..

“”The Defence Department basically shut down the AIR 6000 program before the evaluation or study could be undertaken of the competitor aircraft (Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, SAAB Gripen, late-build Boeing F-15E and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the Lockheed Martin F/A-22 Raptor), as all competing aircraft are either in full-rate or low-rate initial production, one can only assume the decision to close down the AIR 6000 competition and go with the JSF was profit rather than quality driven.””

————————————–

On June 26 (2002) the Defence Minister, Sen Robert Hill, in a
joint press conference with Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane and Chief of Air Force AM Angus Houston, announced that Australia would buy into the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter development program with the intent to purchase the aircraft as a replacement for the F/A-18A and F-111 fleets, should the aircraft meet expected needs in 2006, the planned AIR 6000 decision time.

For all practical purposes, the government decided to pre-empt the planned AIR 6000 competition and opt immediately for the JSF, with qualifying escape caveats which may or may not be observed at a future date.

To those closely observing the Canberra defence debate, the move to buy into the JSF program was not unexpected, however the decision to effectively shortlist the JSF into the position of preferred contender was a surprise to most observers and has elicited considerable criticism in strategic
and informed media circles.

Thanks ss.

Hard to say. Too many things are in motion now. These two fighters will be fairly cheap to run once they are all fielded. F-22 uptimes are now better than F-15 uptimes. Even Buick of Stealth F-35 is better than none. We had more than a few F-16s dancing around in Allied Force 1999 and even the one B-1 (only B-1 airframe at the time had it on it) had to deploy it’s towed decoy. The older generation SAMs are still a serious threat, SEAD/DEAD support or not. At least JSF/F-22 helps reduce the threat to all of the older legacy generation SAM systems around the world and to hit the targets with less airframes. Super SAMs are another story I am sure but some stealth is better than none.
Be interesting to see if they really close off F-22 at the said number. Even if we are short of cash, as we always are now with Iraq/Afghan ops going on, I think you will just see F-22 go to a lower rate production. We will see.
I am not a fan of JSF. ( Too much money when there are other things to spend it on). However that is all water under the bridge because it will probably happen as the program is pretty well run ( class curve ).
Don’t forget it isn’t just F-22 and JSF. You have SDB, JASSM, JSOW ( Navy ), SLAM-ER, even JDAM limits older legacy SAM usefulness. Especailly when teamed up with the B-2 and the 80 JDAM smart racks. TALD, MALD and any number of other tricks…. ( 4 converted Ohio class with lots and lots of TLAMs). Then of course we are just now starting to learn what AESA can do. ( It’s not just a sensor ).
I think with the various HOGUP efforts we will always have A-10. So not such a bad thing. Right now we need a tanker that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg and put more money into getting C-5 in better condition. In 2006 the mission uptimes for the C-5 were as follows: A model 49%. B model 66%. That is a joke. More money needs to be spent to change that. The current upgrade effort is too damn slow. We do nothing without healthy tankers and airlift.

Can someone smarter than me do a simple summary of how this new fighter requirement came about for RAAF… and how the JSF selection was made?

My assumptions which may be wrong-
-The requirement was for a low observable 5th gen fighter?
-Australia being a JSF partner and not wanting to throw the money spent on that away?
-No 4th gen fighters would be accepted because they were not 5th gen?

Thanks in advance.

To all guys out there bull****ing around about the worthlesness of aircraft combat manouvers.

Amigos, sory to bust your “US-way-of-thinking” buble but not all future air engagements are going to look like Desert storm where there are 600 warplanes with the full cover of dozens of AWACS and ground air-controlers, against an enemy of 100 planes with no radar cover, no operational AA “umbrella” and so on. You are as near sited as all those bozos back in the 60s that created the F4B (No Gun), F102 (No Gun), F106 (No gun),…and so on, who said that you do not need a gun when you have such efficient missiles. Only to have the best Long range BVR combination in US inventory (F14+AIM54) to go through TOPGUN in order to learn close in combat tactics because the other planes had their buts kicked over the skies of Vietnam, by small agile cheap fighters with guns.

Do you think that in caase of a war between China and Taiwan with US intervention, you will have the clear skies situation you need for a clear BVR fight? Or in any smaller conflict senario of smaller nations : Greece – Turkey, India -Pakistan, China – India, etc. Over the Aegean, there is air combat taking place every day between HAF F16s and Mirage 2ks and THK F16s, and believe me, every THK or HAF pilot would drool to have a ride like a SU35 with all its pack of tricks. Unfortunately, global politics keep both countries from acquiring what they really need.

I bet you anything you want that if the F22 could fly backwards, all the US propaganda would describe that as the ultimate combat manouver by the thus best plane around. If a russian built plane could do flips and backrolls and fly backward and sideways….that would be “only airshow worthless manouvers that put the airframe to unecessary stress…………….”

Please, try not to be so subjective in your opinion…

F-22 has it’s own set of combat rules. Many of those a legacy aircraft can’t even compete with on an even playing field. Which is funny is that one of the major rules the F-22 uses is an old one. That being you have to know where the enemy is first. So far legacy jets haven’t been able to do anything to stop from being murdered in exercises that are just as tough as real combat. And not for lack of trying. Putting legacy jets up against the F-22 is pretty much the fini flight for the legacy pilot.

this has not been made public for a while, but it appears that the Belgian Defence/Air Component has ordered a second-hand Herc from the americans in november 2006 🙂 .

The aircraft is appears to be an Ex-USAF C-130 of an unknown type, but i assume its another H-model. according to aeronews of belgium, the aircraft was bought at the AMARC bone-yard. apparently they managed to pay for it with the insurance money they recieved (about $20.000.000)from SABENA-Technics, after a C-130H (CH02) was lost in a fire last year.

delivery date of this aircraft (to be serialed CH13) is still unknown.
Belgium has 10 C-130H aircraft of an original 12 bought in 1973, and they are a verry good but overstressed fleet and its starting to show its age dispite the intensive upgrades she recieved. and the first A-400M isnt expected here until 2018 🙁

As long as the wing box is in good order. And if it isn’t it can be refirb’d. There is at least one non-U.S. vendor- glass cockpit solution out there too for older herks.

Including for the U.S. tanker plan: Airbus wouldn’t be building it if Northrop Grumman won the bid. Northrop Grumman would be managing the program and Airbus would be a supplier of parts/components. Of course many componets of the KC-30 come from U.S. vendors too. Any failure in production would reflect on Northrop Grumman, which has a ton of other diverse defense contracts.

Is the KC-767 a “smaller, cheaper, more fuel-efficient tanker than Airbus can offer”?

Smaller, certainly.

Probably cheaper only if you count only the upfront sticker price.

More fuel efficient? “Northrop’s plane is larger and more fuel-efficient.” not least according to your linked article.

And crucially, if capabilities-to-cost evaluation metrics are included, the KC-30 will be shown to offer better value for money.

Which do the USAF want?

An inefficient, inadequate, small tanker with a lower sticker price, but with high running costs, and inferior capabilities

OR

A more efficient, more capable aircraft that offers lower running costs and which does the job better?

The $40m disparity in up-front costs will be more than made up for in reduced through life costs.

It’s like buying a two-door, 1.2 litre $12,000 car (based on a 1980 model) instead of a five-door, 2.0 litre $16,000 car based on a much newer model, even though the cheaper car will cost $12,000 more in operating and running costs over its life, burning more gas, and requiring more expensive parts and servicing.

More like buying a lexus when a buick will do. In this case we have to populate various tanker bases over time. We have very little money given everything else going on. If NG came in at the lower price it would get it. These days ( fighter aircraft not counted ) many things we are buying now are based on price even if the lower priced product barely met the requirements. If it was up to me, I really don’t care. There is equal if not more U.S. workshare with the Northrop Grumman solution. Here leasing could help. Problem is U.S. government couldn’t write a good lease to save their life. They have an obsession with doing the buyout after the lease is done to own the stupid thing ( pick any gov lease that has been done just about ). Which is dumb. After a lease runs out you write a new one based on need. Example: Years x thru y you have t amount of tanker hours. After the lease runs out a new one is done. The advantage here is you may find that you have LESS needed tanker hours for the next lease period. Any lease that isn’t written by government stooges can in this case save tax payers money. The advantage here is that you don’t have extra colors of money of government employee depot support etc. The vendor provides. Again though no government stooge would touch a lease now with the tanker deal seeing as the last attempt that failed was poorly written. We KNOW how many tanker hours and fuel off-load metrics will happen for the most part and can write a lease to fit this. Problem is you are dealing with a government vs. the commerical sector that has experience in writing leases to advantage.
Oh well. This one will be on price only. Again though NG has NO ONE to blame but themselves.
Someone help me out as I don’t know. If the A330-200 was going to be known to be too much price for the competition…. WHY was something like the A300-600F not considered? These in their freighter varient are still in production(Fed X new orders etc). And one would think would come in under price of the KC-767 and still meet the needs and meet them well.
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a300a310/a300-600f/specifications.html