F-35B recommended for Australia

[2RHPZ]

Australia considers STOVL Joint Strike Fighter

A report released by the Australian Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade has recommended that the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) considers splitting its proposed buy of Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) between the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) and short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variants.
[Jane's Defence Weekly - first posted to jdw.janes.com - 2 July 2004]

[Mark Sman]

Aside from the spare parts problem it makes sense.

Which variant was under primary consideration before?

I would think STOVL would fit Australia better. But hey its their money, odds are they will both be serviceable aircraft variants.

[Hellman109]

presuming the STVOL varient has extra costs or disadvantages, I would say the CTOL's were.

Here in Australia we dont have any close enemies, the closest threat in the next 10 years is atleast 3 hours flight to the north, not 50km away.

That being said maybe the STVOL is going to be used overseas in joint operations or something.

Maybe for the future amphibious craft we are going to get might have them. Or perhaps for future plans of getting Australia a carrier.

[digrar]

Anyone got a mini carrier like the USMC use, for sale?

[Flagg]

Anyone got a mini carrier like the USMC use, for sale?

We've got two...the north island and the south island...we just don't have any aircraft to deploy on them :roll:

I reckon you Aussies can afford a low-mileage WASP class.......someone's gotta look after us poor Kiwi's and our complete lack of combat aviation.

Or at least a platform with the growth potential to operate Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles.

I'm a big defense junkie....but I have to say....the M1 purchase with it's scramble to find a vessel capable of deploying them without sinking combined with the single engine F35 purchase plan leaves me wondering who's making the decisions?

The military or the politicians trying to cram further up the butt of the rich American cuzzies.

I don't care how flash the Mean Time Between Failure rate is on the new F35 engine.......it's still only got one unlike two on the current F18......and it can't strike nearly as deep as an F111.

[oldsoak]

Anyone got a mini carrier like the USMC use, for sale?

Ahem, how 'bout an Invincible class carrier ? Just like the one you very nearly bought years ago.... :D One careful owner called HM Queen, now lying idle in the Uk - the ship, not the queen.

[digrar]

I reckon we would be better off putting the money into a couple more Infantry Battalions. Although if we want to play with the big boys we need the tanks and some decent IFVs to keep up. Oh and some SP artillery. And a boat to cart them around the globe in. And something to replace the F111. And some extra planes to fly the Kiwi's around in seeing as they sacked their air force. :P The list is endless really, looks like we will have to continue to improvise, adapt and overcome.

[Hellman109]

Being a small country that oftens helps out in large conflicts does make purchasing difficult.

The M1A1's were a good buy, pretty cheap for what we got, a proven performer, and can work in with our main allies forces (being they make them and use em).

The F35/B will mean that we will retain air superiority over our area of the pacific, which is very important. Add to that the bomber capability and you have a very nice force for invasion or to repell invasion.

A carrier based out of Darwin I believe is the next big step we need to take. If we have a CBG (albiet, a smaller version to the USA's) it would basically lock off any sort of assault from the north. Any attack from the east/west/south would be a very long boat trip, we would pick up the force before they were ready to attack, where you could move planes to land bases for defense.

Then an amphibious attack force and were pretty set in our own defense needs, we could repel any enemy for 10 days pretty easily, and in that time an American carrier would be able to steam to us and basically destroy any armour or large assets of the enemies, destroying any chance at victory.

I just hope our pilots get all the training and practice they need with these planes before there required, and the weapons systems we purchase are suited to our needs.



The problem with all that is, the vast majority is almost useless in our peace keeping and intervention roles... a carrier and an amphibious assualt force generally isnt needed (East Timor could have used the amphibious attack in a limited role, fighter/bombers would have a hard time picking targets). This is where we need IFV's, logistical and SF personell, and well trained soldiers in peace keeping, we have this already.

Blah, my ramblings.

[Ballistic]

Anyone got a mini carrier like the USMC use, for sale?

Well I heard on the news that Minister for Defence (Robert Hill) and Minister for Finance (dont know his name) are at odds about the possible purchase of 2 aircraft carriers for a more mobile Defence Force.... lets see what comes of it.

[2RHPZ]

Air defence becomes political

From "The Australian"
Defence debate becomes political
By Robert Gottliebsen
July 12, 2004

THE debate over Australia's future air defences, which are pivotal to the nation's long-term future, has taken a new twist.

My article (The Australian, July 5) setting out some of the issues in the debate in preparation for the meeting of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence set for Monday August 2, has provoked a number of phone calls from senior people closely linked to the defence community and Parliamentary Liberal party.

I now realise that a great many top people, including defence personnel, fear that, given the arms race in our region, Australia is embarking on a very high risk course in downgrading its air defence capacity from the level set out in the 2000 white paper. The ALP has tapped into these fears and embraced a policy of maintaining Australia's air defences at the levels set out in the white paper.

Unfortunately, that makes the issue political.

Among the points made to me last week which are inflaming opposition to the defence chiefs' plan to scrub the F-111 and lower defence capacity below the white paper level are:

The F-111 is still the best long-range strike aircraft in the region and it is brilliantly placed to be re-equipped with modern technology and networked into the rest of the force. The F-111 problems which the defence chiefs allude to are as a direct result of lack of long-term maintenance and are easily fixed. Most have already been attended to.

There are grave fears that the Defence Department, in its determination to be rid of the F-111, may be already running down our F-111 capacity and robbing the country of its most important air strike capacity. (I simply can't believe they would do this.)

Defence claims that the F-111 costs too much are being seriously challenged.

The joint strike fighter (JSF) which the defence chiefs want to order will be an excellent aircraft but it will simply not be available in 2012 as indicated by the defence chiefs. The current date estimated by the Americans is 2014 but almost certainly it will be much later.

The Americans have unofficially informed the Australian defence network that the best aircraft now available – the F/A-22A – will be available to Australia at competitive prices.

This will give Australia a long-range strike aircraft to complement the JSF when the F-111 eventually retires.

The current plan to rely on the F/A-18A aircraft from 2010 (when the F-111 is scheduled to retired) to whenever the JSF is available is a huge risk. The F-15C, which is a superior but similar aircraft to the F/A-18A, either broke even or lost against the Russian-built Sukhoi operated by India. The Sukhoi has been purchased by India, China and Indonesia and our F/A-18A will simply be no match for it.

Australian defence chiefs say that the F/A-18A can be enhanced by networks and other mechanisms. That's true but the same techniques are also available for the Russian aircraft, so the Russian superiority is not affected. A Timor-style issue had better not arise after 2010.

I would hope that the arguments above are wrong and that the defence chiefs are right. Incredible as it may seem, the defence chiefs have become highly emotional about the matter – usually the sign of a weak case. Monday August 2 is their last chance, unless an election is called in the interim.

On the Standing Committee table are 49 allegations that they have made mistakes in earlier evidence.

The defence chiefs have to answer all those claims in a balanced and objective way. If they don't, then their argument has been lost and when the election is over, air defence strategies must be re-assessed by whoever is in power.

[Dread]

Isn't Robert Gottliebsen a bean counter? I always thought he was a financial reporter rather than a defense reporter...or am I thinking of the wrong bloke?

but I digress, I read today that the ADF is looking into a aquiring 2 27,000 tonne French built mini-carriers.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1151507.htm

Do you think the Aircraft Carrier HMAS Reg Regan would send a message to our neighbours?

:p

[obd]

Ah Flagg your a New Zealander!!!!!!! I hate to tell you this because I dont wanna ruin your whole day but Im gonna be visiting you soon!!! My aunt is an Aussie.....I will be visiting her for the summer and be spending some time in your beautifull country...........Gotta say, New Zealand is one of the most beautiful countries on earth!! The food sucks, but the people are cool and the scenery is first rate!! I have a friend over thier who's doing pergatory for assaulting a police officer (hell of a place to get exiled from America in isnt it!!!!!!)..........He got drunk and a cop grabbed him from behind and he twisted around and the cop fell on his ass....and he got charged with assault......so he decided to stay with his uncle in New Zealand and now I dont think he is ever going to leave hje loves it so much........Im not really the greatest of buds with him, but it gets me a free place to stay anyway......Hey, maybe I can stay at your place.........LOL.......

No really, but I will be touring NZ....I hear great things about the north island.......Any places you could recomend? (and please dont bias your recomendations based on places that are as far away from yourself as possible hehehe)........

[Falco]

Cool I wonder what Canada will get p-)

[usa320]

The F-15C, which is a superior but similar aircraft to the F/A-18A, either broke even or lost against the Russian-built Sukhoi operated by India.

This is incorrect...

The F-15C is not similar to the F/A-18A. Its primary mission is is air to air combat and has very little AG capability.

THe F/A-18A on the other hand is a multi-role fighter, with both AG and AA capability.

[Ballistic]

Isn't Robert Gottliebsen a bean counter? I always thought he was a financial reporter rather than a defense reporter...or am I thinking of the wrong bloke?

but I digress, I read today that the ADF is looking into a aquiring 2 27,000 tonne French built mini-carriers.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200407/s1151507.htm

Do you think the Aircraft Carrier HMAS Reg Regan would send a message to our neighbours?

:p

Hmm I've read a few of the stories around the internet about this, interesting news. Will these ships also accomodate the F35 STOVL (when and if we get that variant) plus a fleet of troop lift choppers ? I would have thought the Wasp Class would have been a choice aswell.

[Dread]

From what I've heard/read this class of ship doesn't really have the deckspace for fixed wing aircraft, the mini-carrier is pretty much a misnomer, it would be able to support helicopters though...how many I have no idea, but other suggest enough to lift a company at a time.

[Ballistic]

Waste of money then if we are going to be getting (maybe) a STOVL F35 variant which is basically designed for carrier deployment. And what protects the carrier if any sort of situation arises ?? The 12 helicopters (I think) on board and 2 Phalanx's ?? :|

[szr]

Waste of money then if we are going to be getting (maybe) a STOVL F35 variant which is basically designed for carrier deployment. And what protects the carrier if any sort of situation arises ?? The 12 helicopters (I think) on board and 2 Phalanx's ?? :|

Aegis to Australia? 11/11/2003 4:06:06 PM

AUSTRALIA EXPANDS SEA-BASED DEFENSES
New naval acquisitions now being considered by Canberra will substantially expand Australia's potential role in the Bush administration's proposed Asian missile defense shield. Japan's Kyodo news service (November 7) reports that the Australian Defense Ministry is currently eyeing the purchase of three new air warfare destroyers outfitted with the Aegis ship-warfare system, as well as the refitting of four existing missile frigates to carry the SM-2 interceptor missile. The acquisitions, according to Australian Defense Minister Robert Hill, are intended to bolster Canberra's defense needs in response to mounting regional threats and Australia's growing role in preventing international proliferation. "After reviewing our defense capabilities, the government has decided to provide the ADF (Australia Defense Force) with new assets, equipment and capabilities that will ensure it continues to be able to defend Australia and Australian interests in an uncertain and complex environ!
ment," Hill said upon unveiling the defense plan.


YOu may have heard, yes the RAN is definitely getting AEGIS. The new destroyers designs will be announced in 2006, to be built here in Australia (hopefully Melbourne!!!) There are three contenders:

USA - Gibbs & Cox - probably a modified/downsized Arleigh Burke design, a lot of clout, given the fleet agreement signed between the USN and RAN earlier this year.

Germany - Blohm and Voss - another MEKO design, probably a Saschen class or similar, with mods for AEGIS and SPY, etc. We're very happy with the ANZACs, a Blohm and Voss MEKO design.

Spain - IZAR - the Alvaro de Bazan (F100) class has requirements along the lines of what the RAN is after (crew requirements, and good price) AND they already have AEGIS and Spy. Another factor is that IZAR is the frontrunner in the RAN LHD/LST replacement program.

After the preferred is announced, there will be a tendering process for manufacturing here in Australia - Australia Defence Industries shipyards in Sydney, Tenix here in Melbourne (they built/completed the Anzacs), Australian Submarine Corporation in Adelaide will probably bid, too - the made 5 of the 6 Collins (Crappy Swedish workmanship the reason for a lot of the first's faults).

So, it'll be an interest couple of years. Whoever wins, Australia is in the select AEGIS club, and we're proud to be too.

http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/26-115.asp

[walford]

...Here in Australia we dont have any close enemies, the closest threat in the next 10 years is atleast 3 hours flight to the north, not 50km away.

In many ways it is unfortunate that countries with smaller defense budgets can no longer afford to develop their own military aircraft to suit unique needs. Instead, it is necessary to adapt an existing design. I recall that Canada had a couple of home-grown fighters that were designed to patrol large areas -- a similar situation for Australia I would imagine.
http://www.rcaf.com/1946_1968_coldwar/aircraft/fighters/index.htm
Question: The CF105 seems to have been a fine aircraft. Why did they only build 5 of them?

Nowadays Canada is also using U.S. designed aircraft:
http://www.rcaf.com/1997_2010_present/aircraft/fighters/index.htm

As an American, I'm happy that foreign funds are supporting our defense industry, but am concerned that the increasing responsibility to provide military aircraft for growing numbers of foreign customers will result in an impetus to design 'generic' aircraft. All things to everybody typically results in an overworked mediocre compromise. The F-4 Phantom comes to mind.

[Ballistic]

Waste of money then if we are going to be getting (maybe) a STOVL F35 variant which is basically designed for carrier deployment. And what protects the carrier if any sort of situation arises ?? The 12 helicopters (I think) on board and 2 Phalanx's ?? :|

Aegis to Australia? 11/11/2003 4:06:06 PM

AUSTRALIA EXPANDS SEA-BASED DEFENSES
New naval acquisitions now being considered by Canberra will substantially expand Australia's potential role in the Bush administration's proposed Asian missile defense shield. Japan's Kyodo news service (November 7) reports that the Australian Defense Ministry is currently eyeing the purchase of three new air warfare destroyers outfitted with the Aegis ship-warfare system, as well as the refitting of four existing missile frigates to carry the SM-2 interceptor missile. The acquisitions, according to Australian Defense Minister Robert Hill, are intended to bolster Canberra's defense needs in response to mounting regional threats and Australia's growing role in preventing international proliferation. "After reviewing our defense capabilities, the government has decided to provide the ADF (Australia Defense Force) with new assets, equipment and capabilities that will ensure it continues to be able to defend Australia and Australian interests in an uncertain and complex environ!
ment," Hill said upon unveiling the defense plan.


YOu may have heard, yes the RAN is definitely getting AEGIS. The new destroyers designs will be announced in 2006, to be built here in Australia (hopefully Melbourne!!!) There are three contenders:

USA - Gibbs & Cox - probably a modified/downsized Arleigh Burke design, a lot of clout, given the fleet agreement signed between the USN and RAN earlier this year.

Germany - Blohm and Voss - another MEKO design, probably a Saschen class or similar, with mods for AEGIS and SPY, etc. We're very happy with the ANZACs, a Blohm and Voss MEKO design.

Spain - IZAR - the Alvaro de Bazan (F100) class has requirements along the lines of what the RAN is after (crew requirements, and good price) AND they already have AEGIS and Spy. Another factor is that IZAR is the frontrunner in the RAN LHD/LST replacement program.

After the preferred is announced, there will be a tendering process for manufacturing here in Australia - Australia Defence Industries shipyards in Sydney, Tenix here in Melbourne (they built/completed the Anzacs), Australian Submarine Corporation in Adelaide will probably bid, too - the made 5 of the 6 Collins (Crappy Swedish workmanship the reason for a lot of the first's faults).

So, it'll be an interest couple of years. Whoever wins, Australia is in the select AEGIS club, and we're proud to be too.

http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/26-115.asp

Yeah I know about the AEGIS ships we are getting but would'nt having a carrier deployed fighter group of JSF's increase effectiveness and capability aswell as defence more so than a limited range of ship based defences ?? As Dread suggested, having a "mini carrier" with only an aerial capability of troop lift helicopters seems like a far cry short of what is really needed in a "carrier" group. If the RAAF want to get the STOVL variant aswell as the CTOL, what would be the point of having the STOVL if they werent to be deployed at sea ?

What is the size of an F35 compared to a Harrier ? Would the current choice of LHD's for Australia be able to fully support the addition of the F35 once they came into service ? Wasp's just seem like a better choice, but they are bigger, and more than likely more expensive than what Australia needs.

[Hellman109]

...Here in Australia we dont have any close enemies, the closest threat in the next 10 years is atleast 3 hours flight to the north, not 50km away.

In many ways it is unfortunate that countries with smaller defense budgets can no longer afford to develop their own military aircraft to suit unique needs. Instead, it is necessary to adapt an existing design. I recall that Canada had a couple of home-grown fighters that were designed to patrol large areas -- a similar situation for Australia I would imagine.
http://www.rcaf.com/1946_1968_coldwar/aircraft/fighters/index.htm

We use P3 Orion's to patrol our waters, mainly for human trafficers and illegal fishing. Most of them are to the north (exactly where they need to be). Ive never really looked into the P3, but it seems to be doing a good job, no one is jumping up and down for there replacement, so cant be all bad.

Like most of our costal defence, they are owned by the navy, coast guard is mainly closer inand tend to focus more on helping people in trouble then patrolling. We also dont have a national guard that is anything like the US, we have the SES (State Emergency Service) but there civilian and for helping out in natural disasters and police searches and rescues.

We have been working on "over the horizon" radar for a while to detect air and sea bourne vehicles, mainly from the north where they come from. Im not sure how far along they are with it, but I havent heard of any illegal immegrents landing on the mainland in a fair few months (there were a few a while ago... last election probably).

What we need is a reconnisonce plane for our northern waters that can patrol for long periods. It has to have good downward RADAR for sea vessels, it has to have good optics to see what type of ship it is (fishing, etc.) and heat detection (to give a rough number of people onboard - often illegal immegrants are 50+ or converted fishing boats, they are one way boats that are ditched when they land, often in very poor condition).

[2RHPZ]

ckheed Martin Greets New Chapter in F-35 Program with Innovative Management

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co.; Aug. 3, 2004

FORT WORTH, Texas --- The Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter team is expanding leadership responsibility to focus on the program’s two major elements: program-requirements integration and contract execution.

With the completion of the first 1,000 days of the program at the end of July, the JSF management team is repositioning to address the challenges of the next 1,000 days. Tom Burbage will lead a new organization as F-35 JSF executive vice president and general manager of Program Integration, responsible for the fulfillment of program requirements.

Concurrent with Burbage’s focused role on domestic and international customer requirements, Bob Elrod, formerly executive vice president for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Programs, joins the team as F-35 JSF executive vice president and general manager. In this role, Elrod will be responsible for contract execution. Elrod and Burbage assumed their new duties on Aug. 2.

“The JSF program is always looking to strengthen the team with the addition of ‘best athletes’. The addition of Bob, with very senior management skills, brings the opportunity to markedly improve the vertical and horizontal integration at the Air System level,” said Rear Admiral Steven Enewold, JSF Program Director. “Because of its size and complexity, the JSF program needs the organizational agility to keep pace as the program transitions from one phase to the next. Bob clearly brings new insights and deep understanding of aircraft development which will be invaluable as we build and fly our first F-35 and transition to low-rate production.”

Elrod is charged with successful execution of the program’s current System Development and Demonstration phase, and the transition to production and operational service. He also will be responsible for the program’s financial and technical health, as well as schedule performance. Elrod will serve as the contractor team’s principal point of contact for the Joint Strike Fighter Program Office and government-acquisition customers.

In his new role, Burbage will ensure that all F-35 customer requirements are defined and fulfilled. He will serve as the contractor team’s primary point of contact for senior U.S. government leaders, partner countries and worldwide industry as the program moves forward to production, and to the ultimate purchase of F-35s by an array of global customers.

In a joint letter issued to the F-35 JSF international program team today, Elrod and Burbage wrote, “We think this decision depicts the unqualified priority that the Lockheed Martin-led team places on this historic and long- term program and its successful execution in all areas. Collectively, we will represent a duality of leadership and will be inseparable in program coordination and execution.”

Elrod most recently served as Lockheed Martin’s executive vice president for programs, was president of the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works from 1999 to 2000, and before that led the world-renowned F-16 program.

Burbage joined the F-35 JSF program in 2000 as executive vice president and general manager, after serving as vice president and general manager of the F-22 program. He was also president of Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems Co. in Marietta, Ga., from 1999 to 2000.

The F-35 is a next-generation, supersonic, stealth strike fighter designed to replace current-generation fighters that are nearing the end of their service lives.

Lockheed Martin is developing the F-35 in conjunction with Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. Companies worldwide are participating in the F-35’s development. Two propulsion teams, led by Pratt & Whitney and General Electric, are developing separate interchangeable engines for the F-35.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin employs about 130,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture and integration of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2003 sales of $31.8 billion.

[East]

Cool I wonder what Canada will get p-)

:D I would put my money on....jack ****, as usual.

[Falco]

[quote="Hellman109Question: The CF105 seems to have been a fine aircraft. Why did they only build 5 of them?


Politics basicly

http://www.avroarrow.org/

You can look here if you want any other information about theis aricraft