In September 2002, Government decided to go with JSF as it’s most likely solution and in October 2002 formally committed to the SDD program as a Level 3 partner.

Now this may make it seem like a fait accompli, but first pass approval (where defence is actually AUTHORISED to commence assessing capability options to put to Government) didn’t occur until 2006. Between 2002 and 2006, Defence was continuing to assess it’s options, including a Super Hornet based capability for a bridging solution if need be.

Second Pass approval was granted in November 2009. It has hardly been a “rushed” or “arbitrary” acquisition. Do you think Defence has been doing nothing but patting itself on the back ever since 2002, or have they actually been testing their decision, through simulation, war-gaming etc?

Seem like a fait accompli? the defence minister thought it was…. How about this from the defence minister which he stated at the press conference in 2002

QUESTION: Minister, can you, with this decision now, you’re in fact ruling out any open competition in 2006 for a replacement fighter? Is that what you’re effectively saying?

ROBERT HILL: Well, a sort of definite answer on that is a few years down the track. But, as I said, I think it would be unfair to competitors to hold out a carrot that I don’t think is really there. Our starting point in this project, this investment in the design and development phase, is our belief on the basis of information that’s currently available to us and the advice of the Air Force, that this is the aircraft for us in the future.

or even better

In relation to other manufacturers who would have liked to sell to us as part of the Air 6000, to be fair to them I think we’ve got to say what I’ve already said and that is that we are going into this project expecting it to be successful. We’re going into the Memorandum negotiation expecting the Memorandum to be signed.

We’re going into the development phase expecting it to lead to acquisition of aircraft. But the acquisition decision, as I said, we don’t expect to be finally made to around about the 2006 period.

So what where they actually comparing in 2002 re the JSF?, a $US40m dollar aircraft with a choice of two engines, even access to the sources codes as a ‘partner’, and a aircraft no different from the USA, etc…

Would you say that the ‘assessment’ has stood the test of time?, and don’t forget we still have the difficult bit to come.

Would you agree Its a bad career move to question the JSF in defence?, Gates assesment was no where near the rosie picture painted by our minister a few weeks before, have you got a reason for that?

Cheers

Do you work in the NACC project office? No? Then you actually have no clue WHAT they do.

I can only go on what I see and also what I hear from informed sources within the Eurofighter Program, Now I understand Eurofighter GmbH may feel slighted by the ‘assesment’, BUT –

Bit of background from the past…

The criteria was delivery in 2010-2012 something that Eurofighter would have found near impossible, with only around 5 extra airframes per year over and above what the partners were getting, coupled with a requirement for certain mission capabilities that were not programmed till after 2014-16.

This was apparently was a ‘factor’ because the JSF had the dates all in as per the criteria, no matter that it was just a paper aircraft at that time, so the decision was made that the JSF met the dates and the capability.

Now we find those dates were not that important, simply add AU$6Billion worth of F18E/E to cover the gap caused by believing a PP presentation.

History has a way of rewriting itself…. Try looking at what the NACC is mandated to do..

NACC’s Project Mandates and its Objectives

NACC has two key outcomes:

1: To deliver a new air combat capability commencing in 2012, which broadly replaces that currently provided by the F/A-18 and F-111 aircraft; and

2: To maximise the level and quality of Australian industry participation in the global JSF Program.

I suppose # 2 would have been much much harder if it involved other aircraft;). the NACC IPT was formed in Sept 2002 and in Oct 2002 the decision was taken for the JSF.:eek:

That has to be the fastest project team setup and ‘evaluation’ in history, I bet they were still unpacking boxes and choosing chairs. It was a government decision and The NACC IPT were not going to challenge that.

Source http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/news/ontarget/feb07/hl5.cfm

I have no problem the government choosing an aircraft politically, but I do have a problem if it cloaks it in a fair and thorough assesment of capability.

Cheers

Looks like there is similar attitude towards the F-35 like on this forum.. With the exception that F-35 fanclub there are folks who made the decision and now cover their backs at all cost.

Not one of them has answered the basic question of how much is too much..

What’s the price at which we say its too much, or the delay when we say that’s too late..

There is no plan B…:eek:

The are basic questions that should be easy to answer, however I fear the usual suspects will avoid trying.

cheers

i was told we flew them in the evaluation

Who told you that????

and if you want to claim that we didnt properly evaluate them to the 75% of work done, you will need better than an article, a .gov.au link would be ok
or we can shift this debate over to defense talk where a couple of members were involved in air6000

LoL you claim 75% huh… so there were 4 aircraft in the running.. which one wasn’t ‘assessed’ at all.:D

Its not me who’s claiming there was a ‘real’ assessment done, Air6000 was curtailed before any formal evaluation, as confirmed and quoted by the minister.

Its up to you to provide any link at all to bolster your claim, or just anything at all apart from your assertions.

Cheers

you’re just trolling or is it that you dont have a clue ?
air6000 was 75% complete and we had all specs and test flew, it was assessed the rafale, gripen, typhoon, f-15, f-18ef didnt measure up to the f-35 for our requirement and so it was chosen
if you have any fantasies that australia didnt properly evaluate the typhoon including the secret squirrel stuff, give them up

hmm the Typhoon was test flown was it?:confused: , I’d be very interested in any link to that.

Only force structure and costs were requested by Australia, I can’t recall the RAAF test flying either the Rafale or Typhoon, under the Air6000 project.

Source Flight Global

Hill claims the decision will save Australia A$600 million ($345 million) compared with selecting a fighter in an open competition. He says the government made the decision following an RAAF assessment of the eurofighter and Rafale, adding that sufficient technical and financial information was provided by BAE and assault to allow selection although no formal evaluation was made.

The then Australian defence minister Robert Hill seems to be calling you a liar.

cheers

ok, that explains it, youre an aussie who’s a typhoon fan
as to your f-35 is replaceable by ucav, going with your claim, the typhoon would be even more replaceable

For deep strike I would definitely send a UCAV or cruise missile, for air defence I’d go with Typhoon over JSF.

The UK and Italy are following this model, I think Australia should too.

List the JSF’s primary missions, compare to the raft of UCAV’s available now (let alone in 2018) and tell me If I’m wrong.

Cheers

Does anyone know why it’s so delayed? Is it the software, the airframe, or what?

To get a large project this size off the ground (pun intended), you need to sell the idea of it being cheaper, quicker, and better than the last.

This leads to a schedule that project engineers look at… and cry! (They know you can only ever combine any two of the following three:- quick, cheap, or good. and that’s the old project engineering triangle.)

But the project would never go the ‘GO’ if they were to say yes it will cost 35billion, take 15 years and only be marginally better.

So the real culprit is the people who vote in politicians who can’t take bad news, forcing program managers to be economical with the truth, in turn forcing engineers to come up with solutions that will inevitably bust budget and time constraints, which provides fuel for politicians to agitate the electorate who are then persuaded to vote in other politicians that can’t take bad news.

With regard to the JSF its mainly the airframe thats causing problems now, but it will be the software & avionics that’s now being developed that will be the big hurdle.

The airframe delay means the state of the art avionics is getting a bit long in the tooth (as IT lifecycles are much shorter) by the time the jet reaches service. so the engineers are faced with the problem ‘upgrade and throw away the previous work’, or continue and field obsolete equipment.

That little problem bit the F-22 hard, I can see the same thing starting to happen with the JSF, The latest JSF 13 months delay puts the testing firmly back in the loop, and hopefully will mitigate this somewhat (The F-22 was rushed into LRIP and made ~60 Frankenstein versions).

I think the biggest challenges will be the avionics, this will be where the JSF makes or breaks as a project, but never fear – there isn’t a plan ‘B’ so so it will take something quite astonishing to kill it stone dead, expect a large reduction in airframes and a reliance in a multitude of UAV’s to fill the gaps.

Cheers