The Australian Debate: Abandon F-35, Buy F-22s?

Feanor · 01-02-2008, 23:29 PM

Quote:

In their October 2006 article, "Rapped in the Raptor: why Australia must have the best," Australian newspaper The Age reported that:

"[Recently] Retired RAAF air vice-marshal Peter Criss has put aside usual conventions to openly question the wisdom of Canberra spending about $16 billion for the F-35 Lightning, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter. The Government committed an initial $300 million to become an early partner in the JSF program, with a final decision to be made by 2008. But Mr Criss says the RAAF should, in fact, consider buying the F-22 Raptor…"

Criss' disquiet was the first significant breaking of ranks by top military brass over this issue, but Australia's opposition Labor Party soon stepped into the fray with a formal statement, discussing the fighter gap that will exist between the F-111's planned retirement early in 2010 and the proposed F-35A LRIP purchase in 2013 or later.

A subsequent purchase announcement and follow-on contracts for 24 F/A-18F Block II Super Hornets have only intensified the discussion. While that F/A-18F purchase is very close to a fait accompli, Australia's F-35 purchase has moved from an assumed conclusion to a very serious debate – and now that the opposition Labor party will form the next government, the opposition statements and positions of new defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon take on added weight. DID's Spotlight article chronicles those positions, while offering links and background materials from both sides of the Australian debate. Recent developments include confirmation that the incoming government will review all fighter jet options, and that cancellation of the recent F/A-18F Super Hornet buy is under consideration despite the signed contracts…

The Dissenters

Retired Air Vice Marshal Peter Criss' full statement, forwarded to DID via email, reads as follows:

"Air Vice-Marshal Criss has called for an open debate between all interested Australian parties at a neutral location on all aspects associated with the selection of a replacement aircraft or aircrafts for the existing F/A-18 and the F-111 fleets. He said he had heard the Minister recently quoted as saying that the JSF may not be the aircraft for Australia but the F22 would not be a contender.

"The basis of this position must be divulged to the Australian public in open forum and be subjected to critical evaluation by interested Australians – not interested foreign contractors and Defence Department bureaucrats advising the Minister." From Air Vice-Marshal Criss's perspective, the decision to join the collaborative development team working on the JSF in the late nineties wascommendable; however, unfortunately some appear to have allowed this investment to incorrectly influence the potential procurement advice going to the Minster he said.

Air Vice Marshal Criss was present at discussions between the Chief of both the United States and Australian air forces in the late nineties when the F-22 was offered to the RAAF and it was dismissed out of hand by the Australian delegate. "At the time very little was known about either aircraft and the F-22 was being quoted as approximately fourtimes more expensive than the JSF so I thought the Australian position was understandable at that time".

"Today, and especially by the expected delivery time for the JSF in 2012 (or perhaps later), there appears to be very little if any difference in price between the two contenders and yet there is no comparison in capability, with the F-22 demonstrating proven performance well beyond anything the JSF is likely to deliver when it eventually comes off paper and into production."

Criss remembers well what Secretary of Defence McNamara sought in the early sixties with the intended multi-role F-111 – "we got an excellent bomber but a worthless fighter – the two roles are too incompatible for a common platform and I don't care how far technology has moved since the McNamara days."

"What concerns me is that if the Minister is now saying that the JSF may not be the aircraft for Australia, and I think he is right, and if the Minister is dismissing the F-22 out of hand without disclosing the basis for this decision, then the only other possible contender that could remotely fit the Australian requirement would be the Boeing Super Hornet, a slightly more advanced version of the aircraft currently in service with the RAAF, employing technology far inferior to any potential adversary in our region and incorporating technology far inferior to anything the JSF or F-22 has to offer."

Air Vice-Marshal Criss said that those advising the Minister must be prepared to have their advice examined and challenged in an open forum on neutral ground by appropriately cleared impartial Australian specialists:

"Frankly, it is not good enough to hide under the security classification bubble to protect the Minister and the Government from very close scrutiny of this critical national defence issue – the future generations of all Australians depends on getting the F/A-18 and F-111 replacement decision right, and up to now what I am reading is exactly that – a claim that one aircraft is better than another but I can't tell you why.

What I am seeing is a classic 'Yes Minister', and Sir Humphrey would be proud but I am not", the retired Air Commander Australia said."

Air Vice-Marshal Criss (ret.) has now penned a guest author article here at Defense Industry Daily, explaining his views in slightly more detail.

f the Australian government is approaching the F-35 decision as an internal debate, however, the deal's opponents are laying out their own thinking in very clear and detailed terms. For instance, we have a detailed analysis that argues for Criss' preference within a larger strategic framework [PDF format, 6.7 MB]. It connects Australia's strategic imperatives to regional developments and threats, before looking at aircraft capabilities and costs; all to make the case that RAAF F-35As are a mistake, and the F-22 a better option given Australia's needs. See also Australia's Joint Standing Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's "Inquiry into Australian Defence Force Regional Air Superiority" for shorter and less in-depth submissions from many other sources, as well as several from Australia's Department of Defence (which supports the F-35A).

Criss' remarks have also energized Australia's Labor Party opposition, which openly backed Criss' call for a re-examination of the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter purchase.

Robert McClelland MP, the opposition Shadow Minister for Defence and the Federal Member for Barton, New South Wales, has advocated an initial buy of F-22s instead of the initial F-35 tier for some time now – most notably in his address to the ANU Strategic & Defence Studies Centre on April 6/06 [PDF format]. He contends that this 2012 buy would fill the gap left by the F-111s, maintain Australia's regional air superiority over local SU-27/30 Flanker variants, and allow Australia to reduce both cost per aircraft and risk by buying later (and hence cheaper and more proven) production examples of the F-35 Lightning II. His most recent public statement, "Minding the gap – the Joint Strike Fighter and Australia's air capability," lays out his criticism of the current approach:

"...it was Hughes in 1925 who said:

"The aeroplane comes to us in Australia as a gift from the gods, for it places in our hands and within our resources an agency so exactly suited to our circumstances that we might well regard it as designed for our special benefit and protection."

And he was right…. Our neighbours are buying ever more advanced aircraft – this was no doubt one of the reasons the Howard Government signed up for the JSF project in 2003.

What the Howard Government failed to do – at the time or since – is have a plan B whereby an alternative aircraft would be available if the JSF was delayed. Singapore, involved in the same JSF project, has a plan B.

In fact so great is the Howard Government's faith in the JSF that the usual tendering processes for very large projects were thrown out the window. The JSF was taken on faith without having taken to the air.

There is another aircraft available, the F/A-22 Raptor. It costs more than the JSF on current indications although that price gap appears to be closing [DID: for early production F-35s, est. about $100-120 million vs. about $140 million for additional F-22As]. But this aircraft is a proven performer and its strike capability is being enhanced.

The worry is that the Howard Government and a goodly proportion of the defence establishment refuse to look seriously at the Raptor, and keep staring intently, perhaps wishfully, at the JSF. There is still no plan B to maintain our air superiority until delivery of the JSF.

Also there is simply no way the JSF will be introduced for service in Australia in 2012 – final testing is programmed to continue to 2013. Some pundits are betting this country will not receive its allocation of JSFs until 2020!

So with the F-111s to be rolled out of their hangars for the last time in 2010, Australia will face a big capability gap, the duration of which no one can be sure.

.... Australia's regional standing and influence has a direct relationship to our air combat capability…."

Other Australian Labor Party figures have tended to echo these sentiments.

The debate in Australia promises to become more and more interesting, not least given the existing US prohibitions on export of the F-22 Raptor. But what happens if two key US allies, Australia and a suddenly more prominent Japan, are both asking and both very serious? DID has updated our F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II/ JSF [2006 chronicle | current] FOCUS Articles accordingly.

Well what do you guys think? The F-22 is more expensive but far more capable and available right now. The F-35 will only be around in several years, is less capable, but far cheaper.

GGTharos · 01-03-2008, 01:22 AM

I think this had been gone over before, more than once ...
Australia isn't getting Raptors, period. The US isn't selling them. It isn't even up to debate in any way shape or form. Not gonna happen ... so F-35's it is

Expat Canuck · 01-07-2008, 00:06 AM

Australia can't afford the Raptor anyway not matter how much they think they can. To get them something else has to suffer.

Speedy · 01-07-2008, 03:07 AM

I thought the Raptors are closer to $300 million each not $140 million.

JA Boomer · 01-07-2008, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speedy

I thought the Raptors are closer to $300 million each not $140 million.

Loaded question...every article, document, spokesperson, salesperson, website, and thread will give you a different answer.

The Air Force Times recently stated a price of $195 million dollars per airframe not including R&D

The lastest USAF budget quote the next batch of F-22's costing $183 million per airframe.

Makes you wonder if anyones knows how expensive these planes are, and exactly where the money is going.

dave angel · 01-07-2008, 19:11 PM

given the current budget problems within the Pentagon, is it in anyway realistic to think that the Australians might get F-22 for its production cost only (the only way it could be remotely affordable)?

the USAF really needs to recoup cash - fast - from the R&D effort that went into F-22, but even if the Pentagon were to make a little profit from each 'Australian' F-22, can anyone really see congress allowing a deal where the US taxpayer pays $300 Million US for each airframe (a wild stab at production cost plus a slice of the R&D cost) while the Australian taxpayer pays a mere (!) $187 million US for the same airframe?

GAU-8 · 01-07-2008, 19:29 PM

Guys,

The F-22 isn't for export sale (in its present configuration) or at this time.

GGTharos's post is right on. The most important point is: The Aussies don't NEED the F-22. The F-35 is far more utilitarian for their needs AND it is more cost effective.

I'm sure I may be wrong. If anyone will point out under what conditions the U.S. would sell the F-22 a this time, please inform us all. If anyone could point out WHY the Aussies would NEED the F-22, please chime in.

The F-35 is going to be a good all around bomb truck and air-to-air platform for The Allies. The more that are made, the better price for all. The end user custom build aspect of the F-35 program enhances its cost effectiveness IMHO.

Allied countries tend to like that. $$$

gf0012-aust · 01-07-2008, 19:38 PM

This has been flogged to death already. Criss left the RAAF under a cloud - he was denied his pension. He has an axe to grind.

The RAAF is not getting the F-22. The Govt knows it and is engaging in colour and movement.

More importantly (and has been said over and over and over again) the F-22 doesn't suit our requirements - and more importantly is not wanted by RAAF at the practical level.

F-22 was evaluated as part of the prelim analysis for obvious reasons - and that was based on data and info provided by the US.

we don't need it. we don't want it. we won't get it.

if the defence minister thinks that he has a good relationship with the Dems and can leverage based on an idealogical brotherhood - then he needs to remember that Senator Obey is a Democrat.

Injecteer · 01-09-2008, 10:45 AM

Stolen from here:

Quote:

When asked by the Herald Sun if the Russian-built war planes would be considered, he said all options would be included.

"The review should include a comparative analysis of everything on the market," Mr Fitzgibbon said.

"I'm not ruling out any option."

That would include the latest Russian Sukhoi 35 and MiG-29 fighters, which compare favourably on performance and very favourably on price with US-built planes.

In the early 1990s Sukhoi offered the government a fleet of its Flanker aircraft for less than the RAAF spent upgrading its existing fleets.

Politics and the ANZUS alliance with the US prevented serious consideration of the offers.

Both Sukhoi, with its Su-34 and 35 attack aircraft, and MiG, with its MiG-29 combat fighter, are in service with air forces around the world including India, China, North Korea, Burma, Malaysia and Indonesia.
..............
The stealth aircraft, which are primarily designed for air superiority, are built by Lockheed Martin and Boeing and cost more than $150 million each.

The Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter is predicted to cost about $70 million a plane.

Mr Fitzgibbon said he would not tolerate any delay in the JSF delivery or any increase in costs.

looks like, if the US doesn't export the F22s, or something doesn't go smoothly with the F35s, there's a high probability for the RAAF to become another happy owner of Su aircrafts

gf0012-aust · 01-09-2008, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Injecteer

looks like, if the US doesn't export the F22s, or something doesn't go smoothly with the F35s, there's a high probability for the RAAF to become another happy owner of Su aircrafts

It pays to know the local players before assuming anything.

The comment is a stretched colour and movement issue at the political level to indicate the degree of displeasure that the Federal Minister has towards some stalling programs (Boeing and Thales).

The reporter involved has also made some cavalier statements without working out the implications of reality taking precedence over assumption.

I can assure you that the chances of sukhoi getting into the RAAF might get the likes of APA revved up - but there is a snowballs chance in hell of that happening.

It actually doesn't take much to work out that the news comment is rubbish (australia and the US co-operate in a number of military projects, and those projects have priority over anything. eg AI software for UAV/USV's, Hypersonics and UDT. The reporter demonstrates that he actually knows very little about the priorities in place.

Its a rubbish comment.

Feanor · 01-09-2008, 11:54 AM

Or maybe it's politics. Designed to, like you said, send a message that the Aussies are unhappy with the delays.

Stitch · 01-09-2008, 16:52 PM

A member on another forum I visit has said he's dealt with the Aussies before. he said they're great to deal with, until you piss them off; then they'll threaten to yank your contract and kick you out of the country.

gf0012-aust · 01-09-2008, 20:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

Or maybe it's politics. Designed to, like you said, send a message that the Aussies are unhappy with the delays.

exactly, its colour and movement. That does not detract from the fact that the previous Defence Minister "read them (Boeing) the riot act", and that the current Defence Minister is not going to be T boned by legacy problems.

Out of the 11 major projects that are poorly performing, Boeing are responsible for 5 of them.

There is certainly a mood in Govt that the Primes (Tier 1 Vendors) will be held to account and that there will be a decided lack of toleration for contract timeline failures.

We had a situation a few years back when we were going through some grief with fixing some of Kockums problems in the Collins Class - one of the vendors "tried it on" and was called on their bluff. They'll never get work in australia again (unofficially).

Khan_Han · 01-09-2008, 21:46 PM

I believe that if we do infact get pissed off we will opt for the Eurofighter or another European Alternative. It seems to be the trend here these days. Wasn't there talk about purchasing European Attack Helis as well? But I don't know if Kevin Rudd is very fond of the EU. He favours deeper relations with China for some reason. Probably because his son-in-law is of Chinese Heritage....

gf0012-aust · 01-10-2008, 00:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khan_Han

I believe that if we do infact get pissed off we will opt for the Eurofighter or another European Alternative. It seems to be the trend here these days.

Its early days - but what we won't be doing is buying sukhois. There are a raft of reasons for that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khan_Han

Wasn't there talk about purchasing European Attack Helis as well? But I don't know if Kevin Rudd is very fond of the EU.

we already have european armed recce helos - its the Tiger. That project is also suffering from lag

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khan_Han

He favours deeper relations with China for some reason. Probably because his son-in-law is of Chinese Heritage....

Actually, Rudds opening speech to the Parliament was explicitly clear that the relationship with the US is a cornerstone of our Defence and Foreign policy. Rudds capacity to speak chinese is a legacy of being a Diplomat for DFAT in his early years. All Diplomats are required to learn the language of their posting. They also don't (at his level at that time) get to choose their postings. As for his son-in-law being chinese - its a non event and has no bearing on these proceedings....

01-07-2008, 19:11 PM	#6 (permalink)
dave angel *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-05-04 Location: Glasgow Posts: 758 Country:	given the current budget problems within the Pentagon, is it in anyway realistic to think that the Australians might get F-22 for its production cost only (the only way it could be remotely affordable)? the USAF really needs to recoup cash - fast - from the R&D effort that went into F-22, but even if the Pentagon were to make a little profit from each 'Australian' F-22, can anyone really see congress allowing a deal where the US taxpayer pays $300 Million US for each airframe (a wild stab at production cost plus a slice of the R&D cost) while the Australian taxpayer pays a mere (!) $187 million US for the same airframe? __________________ before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

01-07-2008, 19:29 PM	#7 (permalink)
GAU-8 Old Cold Warrior *Military Professional* Join Date: 02-14-07 Location: Grapevine, Texas Posts: 453 Country:	Guys, The F-22 isn't for export sale (in its present configuration) or at this time. GGTharos's post is right on. The most important point is: The Aussies don't NEED the F-22. The F-35 is far more utilitarian for their needs AND it is more cost effective. I'm sure I may be wrong. If anyone will point out under what conditions the U.S. would sell the F-22 a this time, please inform us all. If anyone could point out WHY the Aussies would NEED the F-22, please chime in. The F-35 is going to be a good all around bomb truck and air-to-air platform for The Allies. The more that are made, the better price for all. The end user custom build aspect of the F-35 program enhances its cost effectiveness IMHO. Allied countries tend to like that. $$$ __________________ *When a prang seems inevitable, endeavor to strike the softest, cheapest object in the vicinity, as slowly as possible. --WW II RAF Instructor Pilot*

01-09-2008, 16:52 PM	#12 (permalink)
Stitch Regular Join Date: 11-14-06 Location: Patterson, CA Posts: 99 Country:	A member on another forum I visit has said he's dealt with the Aussies before. he said they're great to deal with, until you piss them off; then they'll threaten to yank your contract and kick you out of the country. Last edited by Stitch : 01-09-2008 at 16:55 PM. Reason: Punctuation

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Breaking News: British Troop Cut in Iraq	Ray	International Politics	43	07-19-2007 18:23 PM
Australia to buy Spanish warships	Parihaka	Naval Forces	4	06-22-2007 23:52 PM
Debate time? Who are the real terrorists??!!!	Punjab's Finest	Political Discussions	17	11-02-2005 10:36 AM

01-03-2008, 01:22 AM	#2 (permalink)
GGTharos Contributor Join Date: 10-06-06 Posts: 357	I think this had been gone over before, more than once ... Australia isn't getting Raptors, period. The US isn't selling them. It isn't even up to debate in any way shape or form. Not gonna happen ... so F-35's it is

01-07-2008, 00:06 AM	#3 (permalink)
Expat Canuck Homesick Fool *Military Professional* Join Date: 05-17-05 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 1,014 Country:	Australia can't afford the Raptor anyway not matter how much they think they can. To get them something else has to suffer.

01-07-2008, 03:07 AM	#4 (permalink)
Speedy Regular Join Date: 11-24-04 Location: Australia Posts: 105 Country:	I thought the Raptors are closer to $300 million each not $140 million.

01-07-2008, 19:38 PM	#8 (permalink)
gf0012-aust *Defense Professional* Join Date: 05-30-06 Posts: 394 Country:	This has been flogged to death already. Criss left the RAAF under a cloud - he was denied his pension. He has an axe to grind. The RAAF is not getting the F-22. The Govt knows it and is engaging in colour and movement. More importantly (and has been said over and over and over again) the F-22 doesn't suit our requirements - and more importantly is not wanted by RAAF at the practical level. F-22 was evaluated as part of the prelim analysis for obvious reasons - and that was based on data and info provided by the US. we don't need it. we don't want it. we won't get it. if the defence minister thinks that he has a good relationship with the Dems and can leverage based on an idealogical brotherhood - then he needs to remember that Senator Obey is a Democrat.

01-09-2008, 11:54 AM	#11 (permalink)
Feanor Banished Join Date: 06-12-07 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,385 Country:	Or maybe it's politics. Designed to, like you said, send a message that the Aussies are unhappy with the delays.

01-09-2008, 21:46 PM	#14 (permalink)
Khan_Han Banished Join Date: 11-16-07 Location: New South Wales Posts: 205 Country:	I believe that if we do infact get pissed off we will opt for the Eurofighter or another European Alternative. It seems to be the trend here these days. Wasn't there talk about purchasing European Attack Helis as well? But I don't know if Kevin Rudd is very fond of the EU. He favours deeper relations with China for some reason. Probably because his son-in-law is of Chinese Heritage....

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)