Neither the aircraft involved nor any passenger onboard were American, that means it is obviously substantiated to make fun of it. :confused:

😮

You will find that joking about disasters is common, and pretty normal, in a more than a few non-European cultures. Why? Its all about being able to move on from setbacks. If you can joke about an event its psychological hold on you pretty much evaporates.

you should read about your own links

So JORN is the only defence project that had issues in its development? The F-35, Nimrod MRA4, the Littoral Combat Ship, Seawolf class have all been absolutely trouble free from start to finish?

JORN is operational and is by global standards a fairly unique capability. It’s benefits to the ADF are significant, and far above that which could have been obtained using technology available from overseas. Remember that was a wikipedia article, not a classified DoD document :rolleyes:

. Australlia has only ordered 2 aircraft. Now US orders are already more than 100 untill 2017. Now Australlia is deferring decision on 12 aircraft untill 2015. So there wont be any money for that untill 2015. so ur not likely to see that 12 aircraft untill 2020 in operational service. There is no such thing as ordering 100 aircraft at this point. Australlia may well be the second largest user of JSF on long term considering the trends in other countries.

The Aus DoD won’t confirm its F-35 orders until the US DoD is happy with the performance and supportability of the aircraft, i.e. that all identified issues have been resolved. To do otherwise is really just walking into a potential world of (extreme) pain for no purpose.

.

Mining is pretty much the only sector in Australlia. as the rest of sector merely servicing the mining sector. Every thing else is just assembling foreign brand. RSAF size is now almost 3 times of RAAF and still maintianing world 2nd largest trade surplus.
Australlia has very minor contracts in JSF supply chain.

So, for example, selling motor vehicles to the middle east and the US is only done to support the mining industry? Selling high speed catamarans to operators around the globe (Austal and Incat) is done for the same reason? And providing financial services across the south Pacific also?

Yes the Aus share of F-35 is small, but that’s not the only program local suppliers are involved in. Most are civil.

Is this an economics or geography forum?:(

The RSAF and the RAAF are structured in very different ways due to the very strategic circumstances of each nation. Aircraft such as the F-5 and E-2 don’t fit the RAAF’s agenda, but the more costly to buy and operate P-3, C-17 and 737AEW do. Also, the RAAF is happy to leave rotary wing aviation to the army (and navy). The Aus and Singapore navies are also structured very differently for the same reason.

Given the ongoing cooperation between the RAAF and RSAF I suspect each has a high degree of respect for the other.

well $4b is cut. and half of the cuts coming from JSF. I can only forsee Austallia buying JSF in small quanities of one or two a year. and that $40b Submarine programme will not see first Sub before 2025.
Australlia has joined Norway/Saudi resource based economy with complete dependence on external suppliers.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/bn-stripped-from-defence/story-fndbwnla-1226346325432
Budget 2012 $4bn stripped from Defence

The “cut” is in fact rescheduling those payments in what is known as the “forward estimates”. I don’t see an alternative given the US DoD program rebaselining. By way of background the Aus DoD regularly underspends its budget due to slower than expected payments for major projects as a result of schedule delays. The political overtone to the issue is that the government here has declared that the federal budget will return to surplus in 2012-13 after running comparatively (by OECD standards) small deficits for a few years following the global financial crisis.

Yes mining is a large sector of the Aus economy, as it is in countries like Canada and the US. Unlike Saudi Arabia though, Aus does have manufacturing and service sectors – cars, pharmaceuticals, aerospace components and assemblies, military ship building, education of international students. Sure the high value of the AUD is currently hurting those sectors, but once the global economy really begins to recover from the current economic situation that will change.

I see Australia are deferring ordering their first batch of 12 aircraft by a couple of years.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/australia-to-push-back-f-35-decision-by-two-years-371402/

Sounds like acceptance of the inevitable following the recent US DoD rebaselining of the project.

The 24 re-allocated slots were supposed to be replaced by the same number of additional ones added to the end of Tranche 2, but this was later (not at the time) cancelled.

You guys are chopping and scaling back programs so frequently over the last few years its easy to lose track…..;)

Who bought second hand Typhoons? Please state which country placed an order for second hand Typhoons. I think you’ll find that of the two orders placed to date, both were for new-build & not yet built aircraft.

Yes, Gripen has more export customers (though fewer aircraft sold) than Rafale or Typhoon. Not Super Hornet, which is your favourite. If it really is so great, why did Korea & Singapore prefer F-15? I’m setting aside Saudi Arabia, as the advantages of a common fleet of new & upgraded F-15s are obvious, & saying “F-18E wasn’t offered”, isn’t an argument, as it would have been offered if it was thought to have a better chance of a sale than F-15.

Re Saudi orders, yes your are right re the new builds, but the Saudi order did include airframes divested by the RAF as part of their plan to reportedly only operate around 100 of the roughly 160 contracted (and paid) for. Is Aus “second hand” is different to “used”. Anyway some of those issues are discussed, along with other interesting stuff at:

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1011/management_of_typhoon_project.aspx

I suspect that Korea and Singapore don’t mind an aircraft that still has a lot of 1960s/1970s technology to it. If that works for them, fine, but I suspect a lot of other air forces would rather invest in something more modern overall, and which benefits from technologies not available in that earlier time. The Super works well for the RAAF given where they want to go, where and how they intend to use it. On the day the “best” aircraft will be the one who’s strengths are able to be exploited and who’s weakness can be avoided or masked. That will depend on a range of factors, including what your adversary is or is not able to do. All the above have their -s and +s. But yes, i am of the view that the SH is far to quickly written off by some, because it is not “sexy” or the NIH syndrome.