New Aussie Gov may say No to superbug deal
-
Now the more conscious new Aussie government wants to re-examine the true capability of the F-18Fand may well lead to the suspension of its procurement. Well, as I questioned last time, Aussies should consider the eagles instead of the Superbugs.
Jet contract may be torn up
Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font Tom Allard
December 31, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/jet-contract-may-be-torn-up/2007/12/30/1198949675268.html
Advertisement
THE $6.6 billion purchase of 24 Super Hornets as a stop-gap fighter jet could be jettisoned by the Rudd Government as it reviews all aspects of the program to give Australia an edge in air-combat capability in the region.
Defence Department planners are believed to have been asked to present a detailed analysis on all the fighter jet options to the new Federal Government and how they stack up against likely adversaries — the first time such a study has been done for at least five years.
All projects in the $30 billion program will be carefully examined. That includes what aircraft are to be bought, in what numbers, when and at what price.
A senior Government source said: "Absolutely everything is on the table."
Even if contracts have been signed, as is the case with the Super Hornets, the Government is prepared to break them if the case is compelling. This marks a shift from previous Labor thinking.
The air combat program is supposed to deliver air superiority in the region — long regarded as a fundamental element of Australia's strategic doctrine, given its large land mass and geographical isolation.
As devised by the previous government, it came under sustained criticism from military aviation experts.
The coming year is looming as a critical one. A final decision must be made on the centrepiece of the air combat project — a $15 billion outlay on up to 100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. The high-stealth plane has been troubled by delays and is at risk of major cost blow-outs.
The prevailing view in the Government is that it makes sense for the air combat force structure to be re-examined at the same time. A defence white paper outlining the nation's long-term strategic priorities, to be prepared next year, is also likely to guide the review.
Writing in his local newspaper last week, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon made clear his concerns with the Super Hornets — a purchase pushed through with great haste by his predecessor, Brendan Nelson, now the Opposition Leader.
"Few decisions of the Howard government were more controversial than its commitment to spend more than $6 billion on 24 Super Hornets without proper due process or capability justification," he wrote.
Dr Nelson sold the Super Hornet option to cabinet's National Security Committee this year without the co-operation of defence chiefs or undertaking the detailed analysis that usually precedes acquisitions of such scale and expense.
Just months before Dr Nelson's pitch, RAAF planners had said an interim jet was not required. Defence analysts, meanwhile, have argued that the Super Hornet is the wrong aircraft anyway, lacking stealth and power.
The Super Hornet contract — like all those for foreign military sales — can be abandoned at a cost of about $300 million. If the contract is not dumped, the Government may seek to renegotiate its terms or buy fewer planes.
The Government's review takes place against a backdrop of rapid advances in Russian-made fighter jets, many of which are being sold to governments in the Asia-Pacific region. -
Maybe they are waiting for the F-35 and maybe even the more expensive F-22!
-
New Aussie gov should go with F-16 block 60s.
Good mud movers, good air to air interceptors. Single Engined, but reliable. -
Yea. I have no idea why they would want an aircraft which is massively overbuilt for naval landing when they have so much desert to land on anyway. They should have chosen F-16s from the start. Cheaper, more effective/efficient.
-
Is the range of F-16 Block 60s longer than the Superbugs?Originally posted by Shotgun:New Aussie gov should go with F-16 block 60s.
Good mud movers, good air to air interceptors. Single Engined, but reliable.
Maybe they are looking at having 2 engined planes as they have plenty of ocean and uninhabited land to cover. -
Even so. 6.6bn is quite an amazing price for an "interim" aircraft. Aircraft that is considerably less manueverable, and slower.
-
I am sad to learn the following links .
The Howard government rushed to decide to buy Super Hornets
which is supposed used in CV.
Now I find out why.
The ex- Liberal Party Andrew Pea c o c k, former boss of Howard in the party,
was the president of jet manufacturer Boeing Australia!!
He quickly stepped down after he struck the deal of A$6 billions !!
''The former Liberal Party leader Andrew Pea c o c k will take up the newly created position of president at the aircraft maker Boeing Australia''.Right after
he was Ambassador to US!!Tailored made for him.
Stepped down after stuck the huge deal in Dec 2006---www.theage.com.au/news/Business/Peacock-steps-down-from-Boeing-role/2006/12/20/1166290607749.html
1.The linksAndrew Pea c o c k,1983 - 1985,Leader of the Opposition
John Howard,1985 -1989,Leader of the Opposition
Andrew Peac o c k,1989 - 1990,Leader of the Opposition
John Hewson,1990 - 1994,Leader of the Opposition
Alexander Downer,1994 - 1995,Leader of the Opposition
John Howard,1995 - present,Prime Minister 1996 - Present
John Howard,the PM who decided to buy Super Hornets
at the last year while he was in office!!
''Party Leader 1995 - present,Prime Minister 1996 - (2007)''
Andrew Peac o c k ,President of Boeing Australia 2002 to 2006.
Ex-party leader of Liberal Party and colleague of Howard.
Maker of Super Hornet is Boeing.
the questionable deal
2.I cant say corruption involved.Neither can i rule out the possibility.
They even do not bother to show they have done research before
they decide the Super Bugs.
Look at the story then u know how fast they decided the deal,the
A$6 billion deal.If u include the life time expenses if the deal
go ahead,u have to add at least 200 %.
3.Former Air Commander and retired Air Vice Marshal Peter Criss said he..he was "'absolutely astounded" with the Super Hornet decision.
--Ian McPhedran,January 01, 2008,news.com.au
He said it was the wrong aircraft and he pointed to evidence given to the US Senate Armed Services Committee, that it was inferior to both the MiG-29 and the Su-30 Flanker. These aircraft are -- or will be -- flown by India, Malaysia and Indonesia.... -
Just for discussion, how about F-15D++ or typhoon...Originally posted by tankee1981:Is the range of F-16 Block 60s longer than the Superbugs?
Maybe they are looking at having 2 engined planes as they have plenty of ocean and uninhabited land to cover.
both planes are more capable as compared to the superbug, interm of speed, endurance, and load. -
if your country have big desert or ocean its better to have 2 engine AC
-
The only US aircraft with 2-engines for sale are F-15s and F/A-18s. The Strike Eagles are a good choice but lack maritime strike capabilities. Other than that, they are awesome candidates. But as an interim jet, its gonna be costly.
-
Does the Strike Eagle really lack maritime strike capability? I thought it was cleared to fire the Harpoon?
-
F-15K is Harpoon capableOriginally posted by Alvin.Yeoh:Does the Strike Eagle really lack maritime strike capability? I thought it was cleared to fire the Harpoon? -
who is this targeted against? i dont see who oz's have a beef with. however much like all other anglophone nations, they're pro yankee. this leads me to believe they'll procure usa made planes only and have a strong enough airforce to strut their strength.
-
the Indonesian maybe....
-
The latest eagle will still be more suitable for OZ in this case.
together with a nice weapon package, especially max stand off weapon...
else typhoon, but there will be some additional cost to the OZ in future development of AESM radar or weapon systems. -
Australia to review Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet purchase
By Emma Kelly
Australia's newly elected Labor government is to review the country's air power capability, in a controversial move that could see the previous administration's A$6.6 billion ($5.8 billion) order for 24 Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornets dumped, and the planned purchase of up to 100 Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters also face a fresh assessment.
Australia became the first export customer for the Super Hornet (US Navy F/A-18F pictured below) last March, with its two-seat fighters scheduled for delivery from 2010 as replacements for the Royal Australian Air Force's General Dynamics F-111s. The aircraft are also intended to provide a stop-gap capability until the planned introduction of Australia's JSFs from 2013 at the earliest.
The F/A-18F deal drew considerable opposition at the time, with claims that the then-defence minister and now opposition leader Brendan Nelson rejected expert advice before advancing with the order. Critics say the procurement was also conducted without strategic justification or comparative analysis, and insist it would be cheaper to extend the F-111's service life, or replace the Super Hornet and JSF purchases with an order for Lockheed's F-22 Raptor. However, one industry source notes that US Congress has so far blocked Japan's requests to buy the F-22, and says development of an export variant could cost up to $1 billion.
Australia's new defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon will launch a thorough review of the previous government's military spending as soon as possible, with this to include an examination of the RAAF's air combat options. He has also committed to develop a new defence policy White Paper to provide strategic guidance for capability and force structure planning.
Boeing declines to comment on speculation about the Super Hornet deal's possible cancellation, or on reports citing a possible $300 million charge for terminating the deal. "We are under contract, and the Australian aircraft are already in the production process," the company adds.
DATE:04/01/08
SOURCE:Flight International -
The USAF is losing Raptors over the recent F-15 structural integrity issues as well. Funding is being cut from their Raptor acquisition to "upgrade" the F-15s. At least thats what I thought I heard.
-
Now comes with a big twist.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/01/10/220724/australia-to-weigh-lockheed-martin-f-22-against-russian-fighters.html
DATE:10/01/08
SOURCE:Flightglobal.com
Australia to weigh Lockheed Martin F-22 against Russian fighters
By Siva Govindasamy
Australia plans to request access to the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, and will also consider Russian fighters such as the RSK MiG-29 and Sukhoi Su-35, as part of a review of its air power capabilities that could lead to the cancellation of a A$6.6 billion ($5.8 billion) deal to buy 24 Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornets.
The USA has refused even close allies like Japan access to the F-22 (pictured below left, with US Navy F/A-18E), and Congress has banned its export. But defence analysts say that if Washington changes its mind, Japan and Australia could be among the first to get access to the type. Lockheed is also keen to keep its Raptor production line open, but a major deterrent to a foreign sale could be a reported development cost of up to $1 billion for an export variant.
But Australia's new defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon appears unfazed in the search for a replacement for the country's General Dynamics F-111s (pictured below) and early-model F/A-18s. "I intend to pursue American politicians for access to the Raptor," he says. "We are well placed to talk to Democrats on the Hill about it, and I want it to be part of the mix." Fitzgibbon adds that all possible options will be studied before a decision, including the possible purchase of Russian aircraft. "The review should include a comparative analysis of everything on the market," he says. "I'm not ruling out any option."
Observers believe that domestic politics are behind the Labor Party's review of almost A$23 billion worth of defence projects, given that the Liberal Party which lost last December's general elections is now led by former defence minister Brendan Nelson. He was at the helm when Australia pledged to buy 100 Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, which are not expected to enter service until the middle of the next decade, and when it ordered its Super Hornets as a bridging measure.
Fitzgibbon charges that the latter decision was made without "proper due process or capability justification", while some military analysts have claimed that the aircraft lacks the stealth capability and power that the Royal Australian Air Force needs. The new defence minister has meanwhile warned that Canberra will not tolerate further delays or an increase in the cost of the F-35.
Another project under review is a A$1 billion programme to upgrade 11 Kaman SH-2G Super Seasprite helicopters. These were purchased in 1997 to operate from the navy's Anzac-class frigates, but have been plagued by technical problems and have been grounded for more than a year. Nelson said last year that the helicopters will be upgraded and available for use around 2010. -
well...they just brought back up to the air...ard 60% of the fleet....Originally posted by Shotgun:The USAF is losing Raptors over the recent F-15 structural integrity issues as well. Funding is being cut from their Raptor acquisition to "upgrade" the F-15s. At least thats what I thought I heard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/01/09/220717/us-air-force-clears-some-f-15s-for-flight.html
DATE:09/01/08
SOURCE:Flightglobal.com
US Air Force clears some F-15s for flight
By Graham Warwick
About 60% of the US Air Force's fleet of 442 Boeing F-15A-D Eagle fighters have been cleared to return to flight after more than two months of stand-downs and structural inspections.
The USAF has determined that a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C crashed during air-combat training on 2 November 2007 because of structural failure caused by cracking of a forward fuselage longeron.
Air Combat Command has cleared only those F-15A-Ds - 259 aircraft - that have passed all inspections and met longeron manufacturing specifications.The inspections, which are 90% complete, have uncovered nine F-15s with longeron cracks.
"Additionally, approximately 40% of inspected aircraft have at least one longeron that does not meet blueprint specifications," says ACC. These aircraft have longerons that are thinner in places than specified in the original manufacturing drawings.
ACC says each affected F-15 will have to be analysed to determine if there is sufficient strength in the non-specification longeron to allow the aircraft to return to flight, possibly with subsequent repetitive inspections for cracking.
The command says it has not decided whether it will repair the F-15s with cracked longerons and any of those that cannot be returned to flight after further analysis. A number of F-15s are scheduled to be retired in 2009 under the next round of base closures. "We need to determine the cost to fix and the return on that cost. That will take another month," says ACC.
Because of the prolonged grounding, about 75% of US Air Force and Air National Guard F-15A-D pilots have lost their currency. "Another week and it would have been 100%," says ACC. The F-15 grounding has been the longest for any USAF post-war jet fighter.
The critical requirement is landing currency, required for solo flight, the command says. Instructor pilots have retained their currency and now the grounding is lifted will take pilots up in two-seat F-15B/Ds so they can perform a single landing and regain their currency. Training to regain operational proficiency can then begin. -
DATE:14/01/08
SOURCE:Flight International
Australian firm offers life-extension checks for F-111 strike aircraft
By Emma Kelly
Australian technology company Structural Monitoring Systems believes its comparative vacuum monitoring (CVM) crack-detection technology could help extend the lives of the Royal Australian Air Force's General Dynamics F-111 strike aircraft if the country's new Labor government decides to scrap an order for 24 Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornets.
Ordered last year to replace the RAAF's 25 F-111s from 2010, the two-seat Super Hornets were planned to provide a stop-gap ahead of deliveries of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, following concerns over the structural integrity of the F-111's wing and airframe. Australia's new government opposed the F/A-18F purchase at the time, and has launched a review of the country's air power requirements.
Mark Vellacott, managing director of Perth-based SMS, wrote to new defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon late last month, saying that "Australia's world-class airframe life-extension capabilities and the potential benefit of new sensor-based structural health-monitoring technologies" were not taken into account during decisions to retire the F-111 and acquire Super Hornets.
Under development for 10 years, CVM detects and monitors structural integrity by using an inert sensor that is adhered to the aircraft or embedded in its fuselage, a vacuum source to apply and control a low vacuum, and a fluid flow-measuring device, which combine to detect sub-1mm cracks in metal surfaces. The technology has been tested on a number of military aircraft types and is being developed for new Airbus civil aircraft. SMS also has a commercial licence agreement with Boeing.
CVM could significantly decrease the burden of structural integrity maintenance inspections and reduce the potential risk of a major structural failure on the F-111, says Vellacott. This could involve the use of continuous in-flight monitoring employing instrumentation systems under development by SMS, he adds.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/01/14/220740/australian-firm-offers-life-extension-checks-for-f-111-strike.html -
Australia faces hard choice in fighter review
The Australian government faces a conflict in timeframes for its air combat review, development of a Defence White Paper and decision points for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter acquisition and Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet deal, according to defence think-tank, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI).
The country's new Labor government has launched a review of air power requirements, including the former government's order for 24 Super Hornets to replace ageing General Dynamic F-111s and the planned acquisition of the JSF.
The review needs to be rigorous and systematic and it should be conducted by an independent analyst with extensive experience in the aerospace industry, says Dr Andrew Davies, ASPI's operations and capability programme director.
He says the government has two options - continue down the path of the previous government but with possible changes in aircraft numbers and timing, or the "blank sheet of paper" approach which makes sense but will be time-consuming and expensive. A decision would be made easier with the government's proposed Defence White Paper, but that is not expected to be completed until late 2008 at the earliest.
Maintaining the former government's approach would see the JSF as the centrepiece for Australia's air combat capability. The country is due to make a decision on a A$12-15 billion ($11-13 billion) JSF acquisition late this year.
If the JSF timetable slips further there will be a problem in maintaining a viable number of frontline aircraft, says Davies. The upgrade programme for the RAAF's F/A-18 Hornet fleet will keep that aircraft flying until 2018, but if the JSF has not matured into a suitable frontline aircraft then Australia will require more bridging capability, he says.
The Super Hornet provides an improvement on the current Hornet fleet and a boost in capability at little project risk, but questions have been raised over its capability relative to other aircraft in the region, says Davies. "As a matter of priority, the review should examine hard data on relative performance and decide whether the Super Hornet is a viable bridging capability," he suggests.
If the government does cancel the Super Hornet order, Australia would be responsible for all costs accrued to the date of termination and a possible termination liability, with accrued costs increasing with time, says Davies.
The blank-sheet approach should include "top-down" and "bottom-up" analysis, including strategic aims and force structure coupled with aircraft capabilities, costs of acquisition and operations and programme risks, he suggests.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/01/17/220863/australia-faces-hard-choice-in-fighter-review.html -
- I have told u there are systematic problems in Aussie defense ,in procurements,trainings,operations etc
- read some of them here,plus 10 years of upfrade of M113 etc.Too many lah.I will fall asleep if i list all.
- why i so interested in aussie.Too many huys here said there so good,But the more i read, the more i find too many questions to be answered in eduaction,drugs,shootings...
- The problems are not created just by one party rulings.It has been formed for few decades of cultures------
- not doing right things at the first time.
How can u believe they bought Vietnam era choppers in 1980's ?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23129070-31477,00.html
''In truth, Fitzgibbon knows many of these procurement problems are systemic shortcomings within defence and that unless he can identify and solve the root causes, he will fail just like his predecessors have.''
This summarize the problems in ADF!!!
-
It's budget time, and Boeing must be smelling blood, because they're going for what they think may be the most vulnerable of the Pentagon's aircraft programs, the Lockheed Martin-built F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Boeing says it's got a nifty plan to offer something just short of a fifth generation aircraft-- a souped-up Super Hornet -- to tide everyone over till it can build a sixth-generation fighter. This would allow the Pentagon (and foreign militaries) to skip the fifth-generation F-35, which has many shortcomings, according to Boeing (the biggest apparently being that's it not built by Boeing):
What sixth-generation fighter you ask? I'll get to that later. This is Boeing's sales pitch, as Aviation Week reports:
The idea is that customers could buy 4.5-generation Super Hornets (perhaps 4.75-generation with the planned extra forward stealth and extra range of Block 3 aircraft) and then switch to a new, sixth generation faster than if they bought the fifth-generation Joint Strike Fighter. To be available circa 2024, the sixth-generation aircraft would feature a combat radius of more than 1,000 miles and stealth against a much wider spectrum of radars.
"The [Navy] C-version of the F-35 doesn't buy you a lot that the Super Hornet doesn't provide," says Bob Gower, Boeing's vice president for F/A-18 and EA-18G programs. "Our strategy is to create a compelling reason for the services to go to the next [sixth] generation platform. How do you bridge F/A-18E/F to get us there? We want to convince customers to stay with [Super Hornet] a few years longer -- by adding advanced capabilities and lowering price -- so that they can get to the sixth generation faster. If you go to JSF first, it's going to be a long time."
Another part of Boeing's argument is that the "Navy is comfortable with the Super Hornet against the highest [enemy] threat through 2024, with the [improved] capabilities we have in the flight plan," Gower says. "The ability to counter the threat gets you to about the point that [Boeing's] sixth generation is available."
There's a few problems with this marketing campaign. Actually, there are many problems.
The Super Hornet may be a fine aircraft, but if you kill the F-35, you'll have a lot of explaining to do to all the international partners that have invested in it and planned their Air Force modernization around it. That includes the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Australia and Turkey. Oh well, allies, schmallies. We'll always have the coalition of the willing.
More important, where the heck is this sixth generation fighter? Did I miss something in the budget cycle? The article quotes the Boeing official as saying: "The U.S. Air Force and Navy are now talking a lot more about where they need to go with sixth generation to get beyond JSF. It could be unmanned, but I think you will see a combination of missions -- some manned, some unmanned."
Talk is cheap, aircraft are expensive.
As far as I can see, Boeing is pitching one real aircraft and one imaginary aircraft, and hoping that this equals up to one developmental aircraft. Actually, if you weight the imaginary aircraft as a zero, a real aircraft as a one, and a development aircraft as a .5, Boeing might have a point. Maybe it's a wash?
Anyhow, all I know is that a sixth generation aircraft ain't going to happen by 2024.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/boeing-pitches.html
