Air defence in a spin

[Doohan]

COMMENTARY
8:40 AM, 22 Feb 2010
| More
ROBERT GOTTLIEBSEN
Air defence in a spin
One by one, the jigsaw pieces are falling into place. It is becoming apparent that Australians have been subject the largest and most dangerous cover-up in the nation’s history. And what makes the cover-up so hard to uncover is that both our political parties are involved, so there is no incentive for the opposition to put pressure on the government.
I am, of course, talking about the biggest single purchase ever contemplated by an Australian government – the $16 billion to $20 billion plan to buy the so called Joint Strike Fighter or JSF (sometimes called the F-35).
On February 9, Business Spectator revealed that the updated version of Russia’s Sukhoi – the so called the PAK-FA T-50 – was far superior to the JSF, which would – in time – give India, China and Indonesia air superiority over Australia.
Ten days later, one of Australia’s top defence writers, The Australian’s associate editor Cameron Stewart, revealed significant pieces of the JSF cover-up. While Stewart is yet to be convinced that the JSF is a lemon, his revelations about cover-up mechanisms makes it almost impossible for Defence Minister John Faulkner and parliament to discover the real truth and whether the conclusions of Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon's independent Australian defence analytical group – Air Power Australia – about the superiority of the Russian aircraft are right.
This is what Stewart reveals:
– The warnings given by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates about the 'troubling performance record' of the JSF stands in stark contrast to everything the Australian Defence Force and the Australian government have told Australians about the JSF.
– To question the JSF project inside the Department of Defence is a dangerous career move, so there is a vacuum of critical analysts and alternative viewpoints. No other options have been seriously considered. (As I pointed out, there are clear air defence options, but they will not last much longer).
– The Defence Department and the government maintain 'a determined firewall of silence' about the setbacks in the $300 billion US led project and frequently deploy 'aggressive spin' to portray the troubled project in the kindest possible light. (This helps explain why almost none of the established defence writers have backed my writings about the JSF over the past five years).
Lets look at what that 'aggressive spin' has hidden from the public and the parliament. First, the cost of the project has ballooned from $40 million an aircraft to $200 million – we are going to order 100 aircraft. The JSF was supposed to be delivered in 2012 but, according to Cameron Stewart, will now not be available until 2020.
In that eight year gap, Australian will rely on upgraded Super Hornets where there is widespread agreement that the aircraft is no match for the earlier versions of the Sukhoi – let alone PAK-FA T-50, which will be available later in the decade. So, Australia will have no independent air defence for eight years. If the JSF is no match for the PAK-FA T-50, then for the next 30 years we would have no way of countering a PAK-FA T-50 flying to any city in Australia.
The Robert Gates statement has shown the Australian Defence Department’s previous statements as being simply spin. The Defence Department is now switching its spin into a new and even more dangerous line – that the JSF costs and delays are not that different to what happened with the F-111 which turned out to be one of the best military purchases ever made by this country.
If the JSF delivered air superiority in the region as the F-111 did, then over time the decision to implement the JSF would be vindicated. But the simple fact is that the JSF has serious problems which are incorporated into its structure and will be almost impossible for time and money to overcome. And even if they are overcome, according to Airpower Australia it will be a very poor second to the PAK-FA T-50.
I should emphasise that America is also basing a large chunk of its air defence on the JSF and their public and Congress has also been the subject of aggressive spin, which caused the decision that production of F-22 aircraft (which represents the only hope the US has to match the PAK-FA T-50) would be closed down. But Robert Gates has started to cut through the web of misinformation and lies that have characterised the JSF project.
The problem is that the JSF is so far along the track that it is almost too big to fail. Australia has two clear options. Air Power Australia says we need to invest heavily to restore our F-111 aircraft as an interim stage and plead with the Americans to allow us to buy F-22’s.
According to Cameron Stewart, because alterative views are blocked out from Defence Department analysis, these options can’t be examined. All we can hope is that the Robert Gates statement convinces John Faulkner to get some independent advice.

[Doohan]

Find it interesting that someone known for his financial commentary now considers themself a Defence expert !!!

[McDethWivFries]

Just wow . . .

[Marc 1]

Find it interesting that someone known for his financial commentary now considers themself a Defence expert !!!

And it shows...

"If the JSF delivered air superiority in the region as the F-111 did" - just one of the howlers...

How about that! I'll bet we all didn't know that the Pig could sweep the enemies from the skies as well as perform the precision strike role!

The problem is, he's well known and comsidered credible by the hoi poloi... I wonder whether he also thinks the government is also hiding UFO's at Pine Gap.

[JimWH]

I wonder whether he also thinks the government is also hiding UFO's at Pine Gap.
But they are aren't they?

[McDethWivFries]

No of course not . . . Pine Gap is used for mind control of the populus so we dont get out of hand and start trying to overthrow the Govt, its why i wear my tin foil hat (o;

[Simon9]

In that eight year gap, Australian will rely on upgraded Super Hornets where there is widespread agreement that the aircraft is no match for the earlier versions of the Sukhoi

The only places I know where there is widespread agreement on this all have "Dr Carlo Kopp" on the byline!

[Gubler, A.]

Every statement in that article is a factoid. Its so bad its funny:

"no way of countering a PAK-FA T-50 flying to any city in Australia"

Wow this aircraft now must use some sort of alternate energy source that enables it to fly huge distances without the need for fuel...

[JimWH]

No Abe, it refuels off the UFOs at Pine Gap. Honestly, were you born yesterday :p

[ADMk2]

This latest effort from the Hoon and Goop has descended into pure insanity. Whatever relevance they mighb have once had has completely evaporated with this.

They are completely crackers...

[McDethWivFries]

I submit to you again, proof that Goon & Co are 100% accurate in their statements



and to further back that up, the following clearly shows how ineffective the JSF is at attacking anything

[Gubler, A.]

This latest effort from the Hoon and Goop has descended into pure insanity. Whatever relevance they mighb have once had has completely evaporated with this.

They are completely crackers...

If you’re referring to their ‘capability surprise’ NOTAM, the latest in a series of hagiographies, then despite its foundation of nonsense assumptions I thought it was pretty mild. I mean there were no references to Wall Street sock market collapses / World Trade Centre 9-11 crossovers if the USA wasn’t to buy more F-22s (like the last one). I expected them to follow that trend with some kind of Roland Emmerich “2012”, “Independence Day” / PAK-FA, FLANKER crossover. I’m sure they have modelled that on their Microsoft Flight Simulator simulator…

[ADMk2]

Nah, this garbage:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html

[Gubler, A.]

Nah, this garbage:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html

Ohh yeah that's pretty bad. Interesting that they had drawn ALL of those conclusions about the T-50 before it had been unveiled...

[Doohan]

Relax, our air defences are fine
by Sam Roggeveen - 8 March 2010 6:45PM


Robert Gottliebsen of Business Spectator (which occasionally carries Interpreter posts) recently wrote a column about what he called 'the largest and most dangerous cover-up in the nation's history'. That's quite a claim, and it deserves some scrutiny.

'Largest' might be literally true, in that Gottliebsen is referring to the Government's intention to purchase up to 100 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) in what would be Australia's biggest ever defence contract. But 'most dangerous'? That's a matter of perspective.

Gottliebsen is very concerned about how our air force will stack up against the new Russian Sukhoi T-50 fighter, which just made its first flight:

...the updated version of Russia’s Sukhoi – the so called the PAK-FA T-50 – (is) far superior to the JSF, which would – in time – give India, China and Indonesia air superiority over Australia.

And because the JSF could be eight years late, the situation is even more dangerous:

In that eight year gap, Australian will rely on upgraded Super Hornets where there is widespread agreement that the aircraft is no match for the earlier versions of the Sukhoi – let alone PAK-FA T-50, which will be available later in the decade. So, Australia will have no independent air defence for eight years. If the JSF is no match for the PAK-FA T-50, then for the next 30 years we would have no way of countering a PAK-FA T-50 flying to any city in Australia.

In a sense, the situation is worse than Gottliebsen allows.

First of all, India and China already have air superiority over Australia, and have done for many years. They are bigger countries with larger air forces, and if we ran a computer-simulated air war against either of them, with the respective air forces lined up like opposing rugby teams, we'd probably get thumped.

As for Indonesia, it does indeed have a handful of Sukhoi fighters in its inventory which, according to some experts, would outperform our F/A-18 Hornets in one-to-one air battles. But again, things are actually worse then Gottliebson says. Indonesia bought a dozen F-16s in the late '80s which were also a pretty good match for our Hornets. And back in the '60s, Indonesia even had a squadron of Russian Tu-16 bombers with the range to strike our cities.

So how has Australia coped for so long with such shoddy air defences?

Let's first put the Indonesia situation into perspective. The one-to-one comparison Gottliebsen relies on in his piece ignores the fact that our fighter fleet is far larger than Indonesia's; they have fewer than 20 modern fighters, while we have more than 70. Our air force is also better trained, and unlike Indonesia, we have surveillance and aerial refuelling aircraft coming online which will improve our air defences markedly. With the Super Hornet also entering RAAF service, our degree of superiority over the Indonesian air force will actually grow.

Not that we should be complacent about Indonesia. As Hugh White says in today's Australian, the day may not be far off when it has a larger economy than Australia's, and we should expect Indonesia's growth to be accompanied by greater strategic weight. When that day arrives the question will be whether it is desirable or even affordable for Australia to maintain the military capability edge it enjoys today. I have argued that it is not.

The question of maintaining a capability edge over China and India has long been settled. We simply don't have one, and we have to rely on the Americans to give us an edge we could never afford to maintain on our own.

It's pretty unlikely we would ever go to war independently against China or India, but even then, neither can presently reach Australia with large numbers of fighters. In any case, air defence of our cities is a bit of a red herring. You wouldn't need an advanced fighter to penetrate the airspace around Australia's major cities; our landmass is so large and our air force so small that our cities are essentially undefended. The only way to solve that problem is to buy fighters in plainly unaffordable numbers.

But that doesn't mean the JSF decision is unimportant. To again cite Hugh White, Australia must decide whether it wants to be able to participate in coalition air operations against major powers. If we do, then the JSF is really the best of a bad lot. Gottliebsen's solution of continuing to lobby for the F-22 fighter would be higher risk, since production has been capped and is very unlikely to restart.

If you ask me, there's no urgent need for the RAAF to have the capability to join the US in a fight against a major power (better to give that job to the navy's submarines). We have a sufficient margin of air superiority over our regional neighbours, so we could afford to skip the JSF altogether and wait for a future generation of stealthy unmanned combat aircraft.

Photo by Flickr user Peacock Mondern, used under a Creative Commons license.

[McDethWivFries]

Now THAT is an interesting article . . . wonder how Cost Co would read that one?

[ralphbuttigieg]

G'day,

Skip the F-35? The F/A-18s are getting long in the tooth and need to be replaced. If the JSF wasn't available wouldn't we get more Super Hornets to replace them? I'm unaware of any unmanned Combat aircraft currently available that could do the job. Am I wrong?

[ADMk2]

G'day,

Skip the F-35? The F/A-18s are getting long in the tooth and need to be replaced. If the JSF wasn't available wouldn't we get more Super Hornets to replace them? I'm unaware of any unmanned Combat aircraft currently available that could do the job. Am I wrong?

Not really. In fact I'm starting to wonder whether or not it might be a better idea to replace the F/A-18A/B's early, directly with Super Hornets Block II's/Growlers and only purchase a single strike squadron of F-35A's anyway. I know that's not ADF's preferred idea, but so what? Such a force in conjunction with Wedgetail, KC-30A, Vigilaire, JORN etc will still massively outmatch any potential regional adversary for the forseeable future. We still get a low observable air defence and strike capability, we get genuine airborne EA capability, we replace our old Hornets early with a much greater capability and we avoid most of the mess that the F-35 program is becoming... Where's the downside?

[Gubler, A.]

Not really. In fact I'm starting to wonder whether or not it might be a better idea to replace the F/A-18A/B's early, directly with Super Hornets Block II's/Growlers and only purchase a single strike squadron of F-35A's anyway. I know that's not ADF's preferred idea, but so what? Such a force in conjunction with Wedgetail, KC-30A, Vigilaire, JORN etc will still massively outmatch any potential regional adversary for the forseeable future. We still get a low observable air defence and strike capability, we get genuine airborne EA capability, we replace our old Hornets early with a much greater capability and we avoid most of the mess that the F-35 program is becoming... Where's the downside?

I wouldn't be so quick to write off the F-35. It has suffered in cost and schedule but this seems to be the norm in any major defence development program these days. Its the degree of rightwards movement not that it happens that is important. And none of this has affected the capability of the F-35. The Block 2 Super Hornet will still be only ~60% as capable as the F-35 and it won't have the later's growth paths into the 2020s, 30s and 40s. The RAAF's C/D Hornets are the best in the world and more than capable against FLANKERs and the like. The Super Hornets provide both a huge boost in capability and a safety check to any problems with C/D airworthiness. If anything another batch (24) of E/Fs would be a good idea if there is something on the threat calender before 2018 (Iran?). Otherwise a 80% E/F, 20% F-35 force structure would just create a huge burden on the RAAF in constantly requipping platforms. Look at the mess in SRG trying to juggle AP-3C, Peacemate, P-8, Heron, Global Hawk and whatever will replace the Peacemate (ELINT).

[Weasel]

COMMENTARY
8:40 AM, 22 Feb 2010
| More
ROBERT GOTTLIEBSEN
Air defence in a spin
One by one, the jigsaw pieces are falling into place. It is becoming apparent that Australians have been subject the largest and most dangerous cover-up in the nation’s history. And what makes the cover-up so hard to uncover is that both our political parties are involved, so there is no incentive for the opposition to put pressure on the government.
I am, of course, talking about the biggest single purchase ever contemplated by an Australian government – the $16 billion to $20 billion plan to buy the so called Joint Strike Fighter or JSF (sometimes called the F-35).
On February 9, Business Spectator revealed that the updated version of Russia’s Sukhoi – the so called the PAK-FA T-50 – was far superior to the JSF, which would – in time – give India, China and Indonesia air superiority over Australia.
Ten days later, one of Australia’s top defence writers, The Australian’s associate editor Cameron Stewart, revealed significant pieces of the JSF cover-up. While Stewart is yet to be convinced that the JSF is a lemon, his revelations about cover-up mechanisms makes it almost impossible for Defence Minister John Faulkner and parliament to discover the real truth and whether the conclusions of Carlo Kopp and Peter Goon's independent Australian defence analytical group – Air Power Australia – about the superiority of the Russian aircraft are right.
This is what Stewart reveals:
– The warnings given by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates about the 'troubling performance record' of the JSF stands in stark contrast to everything the Australian Defence Force and the Australian government have told Australians about the JSF.
– To question the JSF project inside the Department of Defence is a dangerous career move, so there is a vacuum of critical analysts and alternative viewpoints. No other options have been seriously considered. (As I pointed out, there are clear air defence options, but they will not last much longer).
– The Defence Department and the government maintain 'a determined firewall of silence' about the setbacks in the $300 billion US led project and frequently deploy 'aggressive spin' to portray the troubled project in the kindest possible light. (This helps explain why almost none of the established defence writers have backed my writings about the JSF over the past five years).
Lets look at what that 'aggressive spin' has hidden from the public and the parliament. First, the cost of the project has ballooned from $40 million an aircraft to $200 million – we are going to order 100 aircraft. The JSF was supposed to be delivered in 2012 but, according to Cameron Stewart, will now not be available until 2020.
In that eight year gap, Australian will rely on upgraded Super Hornets where there is widespread agreement that the aircraft is no match for the earlier versions of the Sukhoi – let alone PAK-FA T-50, which will be available later in the decade. So, Australia will have no independent air defence for eight years. If the JSF is no match for the PAK-FA T-50, then for the next 30 years we would have no way of countering a PAK-FA T-50 flying to any city in Australia.
The Robert Gates statement has shown the Australian Defence Department’s previous statements as being simply spin. The Defence Department is now switching its spin into a new and even more dangerous line – that the JSF costs and delays are not that different to what happened with the F-111 which turned out to be one of the best military purchases ever made by this country.
If the JSF delivered air superiority in the region as the F-111 did, then over time the decision to implement the JSF would be vindicated. But the simple fact is that the JSF has serious problems which are incorporated into its structure and will be almost impossible for time and money to overcome. And even if they are overcome, according to Airpower Australia it will be a very poor second to the PAK-FA T-50.
I should emphasise that America is also basing a large chunk of its air defence on the JSF and their public and Congress has also been the subject of aggressive spin, which caused the decision that production of F-22 aircraft (which represents the only hope the US has to match the PAK-FA T-50) would be closed down. But Robert Gates has started to cut through the web of misinformation and lies that have characterised the JSF project.
The problem is that the JSF is so far along the track that it is almost too big to fail. Australia has two clear options. Air Power Australia says we need to invest heavily to restore our F-111 aircraft as an interim stage and plead with the Americans to allow us to buy F-22’s.
According to Cameron Stewart, because alterative views are blocked out from Defence Department analysis, these options can’t be examined. All we can hope is that the Robert Gates statement convinces John Faulkner to get some independent advice.
Question: When did Australia start breeding stupid people?

Oh, I get it. It is a joke. This guy is one of you guys using a pseudonym, right?

Why is an India/Australia match up mentioned? Seriously. How many years would it take for relations to turn so bad that you had to have a slug fest to resolve your differences? Let's be generous and say 50. In that 50 years do you think a concerned government of a free democracy wouldn't ramp up defense spending?

China? I know lots of intelligent, personable people in China and unfortunately (hate to break it to you) most of them don't even know where Australia is. It doesn't even register on the radar in the day to day hubbub of working life. Most are more concerned about solving energy problems or saving to buy a car, or finding new ways to build cheap housing that doesn't collapse, etc, etc.

I guess while we are at it lets go for Russia. Why didn't he mention fighting off the Putinites? Lack of print space? Australia is a great place for Russia to invade. Plenty of sun, NO SNOW, or at least the magnitude of snow you get in Russia and Australians are reknowned for their hospitality. The very worse thing that could happen to the invading horde is that they would realize what a great place it was and become Australian and forget about Putin and do things, like, I dunno, play tennis. That is always a good one. Russians like tennis. Oh, Oh and Volley ball!

I also stumbled across the APA Notam thingy with surprise parties as the headline. Holy crow. It isn't about chocolate cake recipes (which I had hoped). It is about assumption after assumption based upon previous assumption. It was a nightmare of analysis and quite frankly I cringed with ever growing embarrassment, not for me, but for the author. I can tell you right now that the Board on which they so blithely butcher and manipulate their findings would be a wee bit pissed if they were not so dismissive. To quote: "Peter Goon? Don't you mean Peter Sellers of the Brit radio show, right?". Ummm no. Forget I mentioned it.

Reading that paper was like watching a slow train wreck, or an old "Frank Spencer" sitcom. At least Benny Hill made you laugh.

I'm just stunned. I'm upset, I actually thought, you know, that it might be worth reading. My curiosity demanded it of me and in the end I needed to do that like a hole in the head.

cheers

w

[Riđđu]

Question: When did Australia start breeding stupid people?


Stupid is such a strong word. Maybe they are just misguided, mentally ill or using psychedelic drugs. Once you understand it´s a sickness it becomes easier to accept.

[Weasel]

Stupid is such a strong word. Maybe they are just misguided, mentally ill or using psychedelic drugs. Once you understand it´s a sickness it becomes easier to accept.
There is a great beltway saying riddu. "You can't fix stupid".

Just give me a few days and I think I will recover.

cheers

w

[Gubler, A.]

Just give me a few days and I think I will recover.

You might need a few more.

I just innocently followed a web link to the AWST webpage thinking it was about a new story about the Danes wanting to buy SH over JSF (been around for a while and all about the $$$) and was confronted with the anti-F-35 brains trust arguing strongly for a new "Super F-16" based on the F-16XL to replace the F-35!

Now if we enter bizzaro world for a moment and the F-35 was to be cancelled and its Super F-16 program replacement was to face its inevitable schedule and cost slippage would this mean these guys would then be arguing for a Super Super Sabre (F-107)?

[ADMk2]

I wouldn't be so quick to write off the F-35. It has suffered in cost and schedule but this seems to be the norm in any major defence development program these days. Its the degree of rightwards movement not that it happens that is important. And none of this has affected the capability of the F-35. The Block 2 Super Hornet will still be only ~60% as capable as the F-35 and it won't have the later's growth paths into the 2020s, 30s and 40s. The RAAF's C/D Hornets are the best in the world and more than capable against FLANKERs and the like. The Super Hornets provide both a huge boost in capability and a safety check to any problems with C/D airworthiness. If anything another batch (24) of E/Fs would be a good idea if there is something on the threat calender before 2018 (Iran?). Otherwise a 80% E/F, 20% F-35 force structure would just create a huge burden on the RAAF in constantly requipping platforms. Look at the mess in SRG trying to juggle AP-3C, Peacemate, P-8, Heron, Global Hawk and whatever will replace the Peacemate (ELINT).

I wasn't really meaning that we should write it off, but I don't see that there's any need to rush into it. There is a need to replace the legacy Hornets though and I think that the Super Hornet Bk II AND the Growler will more than suffice for our air combat capability needs until the F-35A has matured and is ready to take over. I don't think that a delayed purchase by us will effect the program in any significant way, but I don't see the need for us to be buying LRIP aircraft that will undoubtedly have many bugs that need ironing out, like virtually every combat aircraft ever produced. I agree that in the longer term the F-35A and probably a UCAV force will be needed to handle increasing threats, but I don't see the Super Hornet "running out of legs" in the next 15-20 years either.

And the Super itself is bloody cheap for what we can get with it...

The thing about the RAAF force structure is a fair point I agree, but I don't see that it will be such a huge issue when both other services maintain various platforms that cover similar roles and that expense is justifiable. Why is the RAAF immune from this? I do see issues with buying early F-35's that may very well require significant expense to rectify when there ARE options available to us, that allows us to avoid this, but still acquire the capability inherent in the platform...