Hard to defend the wisdom of Greek policy when the country is circling the drain and wouldn’t be if policy had been otherwise.

Still, hardly surprising that short term expediency (in this case unsustainable military spending) took precedence over long-term responsible governance. It’s a structural flaw in most democratic nations.

According to forum where I read the rumour, the speculation was that frigates involved were new Aquitaine-Class (FREMM) which would be leased to Greece as opposed to being delivered to French Navy.

No idea how reliable this rumour is. Greece isn’t exactly in a position to introduce new equipment.

My post here of some relevance I think.

I don’t see any foreseeable delay is a big deal.

Careful, with Tejas as example the foreseeable goes quite a long way. :p

Sergei Mikheyev, General Designer of the Kamov Design Bureau, claims Kamov did concept design of the WZ-10:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aa4ea89f3-93ec-4ad8-9955-732646b5a423

I can just hear the rage exploding across the Chinese internets now. :p

There are factions in Japan that benefit from these kind of incidents.

These are the growing pro-militarisation/rearmament. With Japan largely stagnant economically for decades now and China (and South Korea) ascendant, these pro-armament voices get louder and louder.

Chinese certainly aren’t lambs but neither are the Japanese.

Expect more idiocy on the high seas from both countries.

I have often felt that we are far less removed from the brutal nationalism of the early 20th century than is generally supposed, and that we could well witness its resurgence with dire consequences. In the case of East Asia, however, this is less an argument than simple observation!

All of which reinforces my perception that Australia should distance itself from these movements of great and regional powers lest it be swept away in the maelstrom.

Quite telling, if a 50% reduction in airbases, 30% reduction in flying hours and 7% reduction in aircraft, barely reduces the lifetime costs by 10%. That is a strange reduction.

Indeed; one wonders what the lifetime cost was like before the Norwegians decided to commit hara-kiri.

Realistically, what are the chances of MoD being able to sell Parliament on this?

Yes F-35 will sell lots of units no sh;t it has a home market of 2500+ orders

I doubt it’ll get past 1500, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see as low as 1200. The aircraft will not remain in production for US once F/A-XX enters service in early 2030s to replace F-15E and Super Hornet and in any case budget limitations will not allow the US to pump them out at anywhere near the rate necessary to achieve 2500 units before early build aircraft start to retire. :p

Something a lot of folks don’t get is that the delays in the F-35 program don’t just push things along a few years, they actively compress the available timeframe for the entire program. F-35 is bleeding orders today, having already shed hundreds from US Navy commitment. The US military doesn’t stop while the F-35 program catches up, let alone the rest of the world hit the pause button. :p

This is not like ATF in post-Cold War environment in which the rest of the world did virtually stand still; we have already moved far beyond the 1990s environment in which JSF was conceived; by the early-2030s the strategic environment will be nearly unrecognisable and continued F-35 production will make as much sense for the United States as F-20 did back in the day, i.e. none whatsoever. And so production will be curtailed at the earliest possible juncture in favour of F/A-XX and other long-range assets.

Indeed. If Australia planned a force of 100 aircraft comparable in purchase and operating cost to F-16 to meet its requirements after F-111 and Hornet retirement, ii seems somewhat unlikely that that it is going to raise the number of frames to 150. Firstly, that would result in a fighter/strike force 50% larger than planned with a capability greater than planned. Secondly, the cost of those aircraft would be double, triple or more than would be a fleet of 100 aircraft at F-16 cost.

Oddly enough, in the 2000 Defence White Paper (i.e. pre-F35) there was talk of a mild expansion in number of combat aircraft. By the 2009 White Paper such talk had disappeared. In 2013 I think they just holding on by their fingertips. :p

Still, to think of what could’ve been …. 35 F-15AUs and 75 Typhoons, complemented by 20 UCAVs in mid/late 2020s and replacing F-15s with NGAD/Euro5.5G in mid-2030s.