[LINK] Joint Strike Fighter Senate Submission

[Frank O'Connor]

Mmmmm, it’s amazing what politicians will spend money on - and where they elect to ‘economise’ to pay for it. Abbott’s government did elect to buy another 12 (at a cost of $10-12 billion), despite the fact that they’re running so far behind schedule that they’re likely to be superseded by next-gen tech before they go into service (assuming that happens)...

The F35, since its inception, has been dogged by bad news and reports if failure.

As I said to David Boxall a few days back:

"But the government has gone and bought another dozen or so F35’s (the all purpose fighter that is still effectively non-operational and years … soon to be a decade ...behind it’s advertised availability) at a cost of another $10-12 billion, as well as a couple more squadrons of F18 Super Hornets (to cover the lack of the F35 which was supposed to go into service 5 or 6 years back) at a cost of $6 billion… so apparently money is no object.

The F35 apparently has the aeronautical capabilities of brick, avionics which still don’t work (there are so many issues here its impossible to enumerate them all - but weapons targeting, the dinky helmet mounted pilot HUD, combat systems integration and a host of other ‘features’ don’t seem to work), loses it’s ‘radar invisibility’ when you open its weapons bays (no worries, Sport … you’re radar invisible as long as you don’t fight), and has an engine that doesn’t seem to work very well, or for very long - amongst other problems.

We are supposed to get two of them next year. Word is that a raffle is being run inside the RAAF, with a thousand winners and two losers. Guess who gets to fly the F35?

For mine: Drones make so much more sense …”

Just my 2 cents worth …
---
> On 16 Feb 2016, at 9:23 AM, Stephen Loosley <stephenloosley at zoho.com> wrote:
> 
> Senate Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade 
> 
> Joint Strike Fighter Submissions 
> 
> Submissions received by the Committee ...
> 
> Number 8: Mr David Archibald (PDF 2400 KB) (snipped)
> 
> http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/Joint_fighter/Submissions
> 
> 
> A. Executive Summary
> 
> The F-35 has many deficiencies. Of those deficiencies, at least six are showstoppers that mean it will fail in its assigned role as an air superiority fighter for the RAAF:
> 
> 1. The F-35’s engine is failing at too high a rate and its reliability is not improving fast enough to be approved for operational use (page 23)1.
> 
> 2. The F-35’s requirement for an 8,000 foot runway limits its use to just five runways across northern Australia (page 18)2. It requires a 10,000 foot runway for training, putting it in the league of the B-52.
> 
> 3. The F-35’s operating cost in excess of US$50,000 per hour means that Australia won’t be able to afford to keep our pilots proficient enough for combat (page 26)3.
> 
> 4. Being designed as a light bomber, the F-35 is less manoeuvrable than fighter designs up to 50-years-old and will be shot out of the sky by modern fighter aircraft (page 29)4. For example, Indonesia’s Su-35s are expected to be able to shoot down 2.4 F-35s for every Su-35 lost5.
> 
> 5. The F-35 uses its fuel for cooling its electronics (page 21)6. The aircraft won’t start if its fuel is too warm, making deployment in northern Australia problematic.
> 
> 6. The F-35 has a logistics system that requires an internet connection to the United States (page 36). If this link is down, the aircraft can’t fly even if there is nothing wrong with it7. It is bizarre that Australia would even contemplate operating an aircraft under this arrangement.
> 
> 
> The F-35 was conceived more than 20 years ago, and the first flight took place 10 years ago. Though it is still in development, it is now apparent that the F-35, optimised for stealth against x-band radar, is a technological dead-end superseded by improved technology in other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. The United States Department of Defense is losing faith in the F-358 and is considering9 acquisition of F-15 and F-16 aircraft to fill its capability gap.
> 
> Fortunately for Australia, another aircraft is now available that is far more capable than the F-35, while being one third of the price and having an operating cost one tenth of that of the F-35. This is the Gripen E from Saab in Sweden (page 58). Brazil is assembling the Gripen E to supply its air force and for regional sales. Australia could also assemble the Gripen E, as we did with the F/A-18A and the Mirage III before it, which would substantially boost Australia’s defence capability. Australia should make this choice soon to avoid unnecessary expenditure on life extension for the F/A-18A fleet (page 62).
> 
> 
> B. Australia’s Future Air Defence Needs
> 
> Australia cannot be invaded if at least either of two conditions holds – that Australian submarines sink any invasion fleet approaching the Australian coast; or Australian fighter aircraft maintain air superiority over Australia and out to the Indonesian archipelago. The latter condition would mean that enemy surface forces, on sea or land, could be interdicted at will. Ideally we would maintain both capabilities to be sure and make the whole job easier. If we don’t maintain air superiority over northern Australia and its approaches then life, and staying alive, becomes far more difficult for the rest of our armed forces. So having the right fighter aircraft in the requisite quantity to achieve air superiority is one of the two major considerations in our force structure.
> 
> Australia is currently relying upon the F-35 to provide air superiority. The F-35 had its origin in the Joint Advanced Strike Technology programme established in January 1994. Australia announced that it would join the F-35 program on 22nd June, 2002. This was against the advice of the Department of Defence’s Investment Analysis Branch1 which concluded that there was not enough information about the proposed aircraft to determine its cost-effectiveness. The first flight of an F-35 was on 15th December, 2006. Australia started ordering F/A-18E Super Hornet aircraft in 2007 to offset delays in the F-35 programme. Almost a decade later, much the same situation prevails.
> 
> The inadequacies of the F-35 are now readily apparent. It was designed 20 years ago as a light bomber with air defence provided by other aircraft. It is still a light bomber that can operate only in uncontested airspace. The F-35 cannot be relied upon to provide air defence2. The United States may yet drop the F-35 programme. While momentum towards that decision is building, the F-35 programme is kept going in part by a perception that there is currently no alternative aircraft that could fill the void in the acquisition programme that would be created by the cancellation of the F-35. There is also a perception that a number of US allies would be left high and dry by cancellation of the F-35.
> 
> The optimum solution to Australia’s F-35 problem is the Saab Gripen E3. It is also the optimum solution for the United States’ F-35 problem. The Gripen E uses a US-made engine and many other US-made components. Saab’s partner in the United States is Boeing which makes the Super Hornet. The Super Hornet production line in St Louis is scheduled for closure 2017. It would be surprising if Boeing has not approached Saab on the subject of an American production run for the Gripen E using the St Louis production line. There are precedents for the manufacture of combat aircraft in the United States under licence. For example, the English Electric Canberra bomber was built in the United States as the Martin B-57. More recently the British Harrier jet was built as the AV-8B for the Marines.
> 
> The most capable fighter aircraft currently flying is the F-22. Production of the F-22 was truncated in 2011 due to its high capital and operating costs. The next most capable is the Gripen E. While the Gripen E is almost as capable as the F-22, its build cost is one quarter of that of the F-22 and its operating cost4 is one tenth that of the F-22. The latter attribute means that countries operating the Gripen E can train their pilots to a much higher level of proficiency than F-22 pilots. In combat, that would result in the Gripen E being more effective than the F-22. Lockheed Martin made the F-22 and is the manufacturer of the F-35. The Dassault Rafale is close to the Gripen E in capability as the aircraft are very similar in design philosophy. The Gripen E’s advantages over the Rafale include the fact that its acquisition cost and operating cost are one third of that of the Rafale and the fact that it can use a number of US-sourced missiles. The Gripen E has a slightly higher instantaneous turn rate than the Rafale and would be better at dodging air-to-air missiles, and thus is more survivable. The Gripen E’s other missile counter-measures are also very effective.
> 
> 
> With respect to the fighter aircraft of potential adversaries, Indonesia10 recently committed to taking 12 Su-35 fighters and has indicated that they would like to buy a further 12. Those 12 Indonesian Su-35s would shoot down 29 Australian F-35s before they would be shot down themselves. If the Indonesians build their Su-35 fleet to their desired 24 aircraft, they could shoot down the bulk of Australia’s intended F-35 fleet while retaining the rest of their air force. Indonesia would then have control over Australian air space as far south as Townsville from bases in their own territory.
> 
> The larger threat in our region is the People’s Republic of China (China). The People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) has some 250 Chengdu J-10 fighter aircraft. This is a delta wing with canards design similar to the Gripen E and Rafale. The PLAAF also has some 380 Su-27 aircraft and its more advanced derivatives. It is currently in the process of buying 24 Su-35 aircraft. China is also developing two aircraft, the J-20 and the J-31, with stealth shaping. While nominally a fighter aircraft, the J-20 may be optimised on delivering long range air-to-air missiles against higher value targets such as AWACS aircraft and tanker aircraft11.
> 
> The development of the three 3,000 metre long airfields in the Spratly Islands brings the PLAAF about 1,000 kilometres closer to Australia. From those Spratly bases, Su-35 fighters and H-6 bombers, without inflight refuelling, could deliver cruise missiles in an arc from Broome to Katherine. Of course they could range much further south with inflight refuelling.
> 
> During World War 2, Japanese Zero fighters based in Kupang, West Timor ranged as far south at Exmouth, 1,600 km away. If China gains control of Indonesia, as Japan did in World War 2, or co-opts Indonesia then PLAAF aircraft based out of Kupang or Merauke in West Papua would have control over Australian air space as far south as a line between Townsville and Exmouth without inflight refuelling. Air-launched cruise missiles could reach as far south as Sydney without inflight refuelling. This is based on Australia being defended by the intended fleet of 75 F-35s which are expected to last about three days in a conflict against an equal number of pure fighter aircraft derived from the Su-2712.
> 
> With respect to the quantity of Gripen E aircraft that Australia should acquire, Australia introduced the Mirage III into service in 1964 and had a total of 110 of these delta-winged aircraft introduced to service. It was built at Fisherman’s Bend in Melbourne. Australia’s population in 1964 was 11.2 million with a GDP per capita in dollars of the day of US$2,137 for a total US$24 billion. Australia now has more than twice the population it had in 1964 with a GDP of US$1,560 billion and a GDP per capita of US$67,500. In constant dollar terms, this is more than five times the GDP per capita that Australia had in 1964. Combined with the population having more than doubled, Australia’s economy is more than 10 times larger than it was in 1964 when we had 110 frontline fighter aircraft.
> 
> Choice and quantity of our fighter aircraft is an existential question for Australia. The appropriate number to aim for initially may be two to three times the number of Mirage 3 aircraft that we had 50 years ago. The midpoint of that range is 275 aircraft. (snip)
> 
> --
> 
> Cheers,
> Stephen
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link