Australia to buy 58 new F-35 fighter jets

[Indos]

Those picture above are the reasons why Australia need to buy F-35 more than 100 pieces....

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Even US can bomb Japan with surprise right after Pearl harbor which many in Japanese camp would think it's impossible, nothing is impossible. it's a matter of imagination and a will to make it come true. Now I am not saying any country would act suicidal and bomb us with a one way trip like that. But that is a scenario we would not want to discount when it does matter.

Agree 100%. The Doolittle Raid was a one-way trip. If people have the will they will not hesitate to do what it takes. For instance I would expect an air attack against an aircraft carrier to be a one-way trip. Not because of air defense but because the ship would be so far out in the ocean an attacking craft wouldn't have the fuel to get back.

 

[waz]

It's a decent defensive force, and to be honest for the time being that is enough for Australia's needs.

 

[tranquilium]

How many potential enemies do they have who can project airpower onto Australian shores? I suppose China, once it has carriers, can do so.

One of the funny joke regarding to Australia's navy is that the purpose of Australia navy is to protection Australia's ship lane to China from China. The distance from China to Australia is in excess of 3000 kilometer, which put it farther away than middle east and just shy of Hawaii. Of course, the sea route is different from land route, but the point stands.

Though 11.5bn USD? That's about 50% of the Australia's total military budget. Quite an impressive amount.

 

[janon]

One of the funny joke regarding to Australia's navy is that the purpose of Australia navy is to protection Australia's ship lane to China from China. The distance from China to Australia is in excess of 3000 kilometer, which put it farther away than middle east and just shy of Hawaii. Of course, the sea route is different from land route, but the point stands.

Though 11.5bn USD? That's about 50% of the Australia's total military budget. Quite an impressive amount.

Their military budget per year is about A$ 25 billion. The amount for this purchase will be spread out over a few years, not paid for in one go.

 

[tranquilium]

Their military budget per year is about A$ 25 billion. The amount for this purchase will be spread out over a few years, not paid for in one go.

Of course, even if it is paid in one year, there is simply no production capacity to make that many F-35 in a year (without national mobilization for war anyway). It is still quite a large purchase though.

 

[janon]

...
Problem with a small air force (Australia have a small air force) it's not just air space monitoring would be a problem, but also sea lane and even law enforcement effort on our EEZ would also be hindered.

The question itself should not be "Are there any air power can reach us?" But rather "If there are, can we detect and counter them on time?"
...

Maybe Australia would be better served by buying a larger number of cheaper aircrafts? You could get three times as many super hornets for that amount of money. Maybe change the force structure to a large number of super hornets and a very small number of F-35s (to take on stealth threats in future)? So instead of having 36 super hornets and 100+ F-35s (as you said above), maybe it should be the other way round - get 250 SHs and 36 F-35s, for the same money (roughly)?

No matter how great the F-35 is, if it cannot reach a threat on time, it is as good as not having it. So if a larger number of super hornets can cover the entire airspace continously, wouldn't that be a better solution that having 100 or so F-35s?

Of course, even if it is paid in one year, there is simply no production capacity to make that many F-35 in a year (without national mobilization for war anyway). It is still quite a large purchase though.

I just noticed that the 11.5 billion is only for 58 jets. That sounds way too expensive. I wonder if it also includes other associated costs.

 

[Indischer]

Don't gloat about it to me - I'm Indian, you know what that means as far as neighbours go.

No, Australia shouldn't disband its forces, they may need them some time against someone. What I'm saying is that even if they have enemies in future, nobody can project aerial power onto Australian shores, barring the USA. No air force has the reach or range to threaten Australia, "down under". So the small number of very high quality jets they have may be enough, even though it is a large country. India is about the same size geographically, but needs eight times as many just to be safe from potential threats.

Why build a large air force if no other country's airpower can reach them?


Get back? They will make a frigging helluva profit, as they always do with their succesful military hardware.

Small correction. Australia is more than twice the size of India.

 

[tranquilium]

I just noticed that the 11.5 billion is only for 58 jets. That sounds way too expensive. I wonder if it also includes other associated costs.

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised that it is only for the jets. 11.5billion for 58 jet basically means each jet will cost about 200 million USD, which is actually the asking price for F-35 last year. F-35 is expensive with a capital E. Now, if there is tech transfer, then it may be worth it, but I honestly don't see that happening.

 

[Mighty Caty]

It doesn't have to be russia or china, their fighters are sold to many other countries.

I think the point he was trying to make was that we should try to get something else too. F35 on their own won't cut it!!

Then you have modified the argument..

If that's not China and or Russia themselves, then what you need to look at a few possible master scenario too,

1.) Would Russia or China sell their Primo tech to any country??
2.) If so, in what kind of quantity?
3.) And what kind of quality?

Problem with defending a country like Australia. We are an Island Nation. So there are only a limited approach to invade or attack Australia. Since you cannot build an airfield in the middle of Ocean, any air threat can only come out from a land base or from aircraft carrier.

If you look at land base air stripe, there are only a few country that can theoretically reach Australia without the need for aerial refueling, either from East Timor (831 KM from Darwin - one way) or From PNG (918 KM from Darwin - one way), now let's not talk about Mid-Air refueling as beside the US, there are currently no country can actually pull off a global mid-air refueling on this planet. And for argument sake, we are not talking about a full on US invasion to Australia

Now, What you essentially got at hand is 2 different location, with 2 different solutions, now for argument sake, let's pick any nation as a potential threat, what they need to do is, they either need to have a large Navy (At least half the size of USN) or they will have to land their troop and planes somehow on PNG or East Timor to take effect on Air Cover. Otherwise they cannot put their plane at their origin to Australia and fly CAP.

Now you have 2 scenarios. Either the country in question, invade either PNG and East Timor and use their airfield against Australia. Or the country in question negotiate a deal to use their base as a staging area to attack Australia. You have a third scenario, that is that country in question would use their naval force against Australia, Without touching the land bases.

So, the question is here, would the country in question have access to latest Chinese/Russian Technology?

The best aircraft the Russian have currently is Su-35, no export customer yet (Although Chinese is rumored to buy them) and the current Chinese best fighter is J-15 (Also without export)

Now, bear in mind Both country have 5th generation jet in development, But the question remain, what kind of 5th generation jet will Russia and Chinese available to export?

Now Russia only have 1, and chance are they are not going to sell them to anyone other than China or India. Other country would not be able to afford them as you are looking at is Vietnam, North Korea,Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia, African Nation, Syria, Iran and some South American Nation. Most of the customer beside India and China, if you would agree, either cannot afford 5th generation tech from Russia or can only afford a tiny garrison that render the acquisition useless.

Now if you look at China, China have a designated domestic superiority fighter, J-20 and an export version, J-31, No doubt, J-20 win F-35 hands down if you use one to one. But J-20 most likely is not for sale or just to Chinese closest allied. And it would be too expensive to afford anyway (As in the case of PAK-FA). So, J-31 is the only choice.

Now, let's look at J-31 vs F-35 Now, I don't see anything that will point to J-31 have any edge over F-35, albeit I will not say they are any better or worse, but J-31 is on Par (Not over-par or sub-par) to J-31. So whatever country that is going to invade Australia, they would need to field J-31 at least as much as Australia Fielding F-35, or using offensive-defensive theory from principle of war, any defense force would enjoy a 1:3 superiority, and hence under this theory, the attacking force would require to field 3 times as much to the defender to overcome their defense. In this case, you are looking at 450-500 J-31

Then let's look at the second master scenario. The quantity. Now, we have established that under the Clausewitz principle of war, the attack force would require 450-500 J-31 to run down the Australian 150 or so fighters. But the problem is, you cannot use your 100% strength to attack a country, especially when you are attack over the horizon. So, in that sense, that mean you would need to leave some J-31 or whatever Fighter behind for mainland defense, incase Australia counter attack. That mean you are now looking at a country that have at least 700 fighters, in which 500 of those are the latest J-31. Now, what you need to think is, would Chinese export 500-600 J-31 to a single country, and if they could, would there be any takers??

Looking at the buying pattern around the world, apart from the really rich customer (Japan, RSA and Korea, etc you know who I refer to) There are no way any country that usually go for Chinese weapon would have the ability to afford such a big order. Again, you are not talking about 10 or 20 millions per J-31, which mean the defense budget for that country to achieve that level of stock would have a defense budget of about 30-40 billions annually.

The calculation is stem from the assumption that...

1.) 1/4 of the total defense budget (7.5 -10 billions) gone to the air force, 1/4 to naval force, 1/4 to ground force, 1/4 for Personnel and Research
2.)J-31 cost 75 mil per planes (Half of what F-35A cost, which believe me, a very generous figure) 600 J-31 would require 45 billions investment, Excluding Parts, Spare, Personnel, Training and Maintenance
3.)cost of buying and maintaining is span out for 10 years.

So when you look at the current defense spending only 12 country in this world suit this profile. US, China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, Germany, the UK, India, RSA, Germany, Italy and Brazil. Now, which one of those would supposedly buy 500-600 J-31?

Now come to the third item. Would the Chinese sell J-31 in original status? The answer is, probably no. On the other hand, the F-35 Australia buy is a joint venture, so you get what you pay for, no watering down or anything. So in the end, you are looking at J-31 as the real alternative and they are either on-par or most likely, sub-par to the F-35.

Unless the goal for Australia is to attack or fend off a full on attack with the aforementioned 12 country, 100 F-35 + 24 option is more than capable to defend the country, We only need better equipment if we decided to go up against the big dog like China, Russia or even US ourselves.

What we need is more in number, so to speak to put us on a safety level.

Agree 100%. The Doolittle Raid was a one-way trip. If people have the will they will not hesitate to do what it takes. For instance I would expect an air attack against an aircraft carrier to be a one-way trip. Not because of air defense but because the ship would be so far out in the ocean an attacking craft wouldn't have the fuel to get back.

They teaches you in any defense institution.

You better off preparing for unthinkable situation and not use them rather than when the unthinkable happen and leave you hang out to dry.and basically caught with your pants down.

IT's always better to be the former than the latter.

Maybe Australia would be better served by buying a larger number of cheaper aircrafts? You could get three times as many super hornets for that amount of money. Maybe change the force structure to a large number of super hornets and a very small number of F-35s (to take on stealth threats in future)? So instead of having 36 super hornets and 100+ F-35s (as you said above), maybe it should be the other way round - get 250 SHs and 36 F-35s, for the same money (roughly)?

No matter how great the F-35 is, if it cannot reach a threat on time, it is as good as not having it. So if a larger number of super hornets can cover the entire airspace continously, wouldn't that be a better solution that having 100 or so F-35s?


I just noticed that the 11.5 billion is only for 58 jets. That sounds way too expensive. I wonder if it also includes other associated costs.

Not being in the Air Force, I cannot tell you if the substitution is what it should have been done.

But I do know about one thing, if we instead op for 240 SH and 40 F-35, we would have 280 fighter planes on our hanger, which is roughly 3 times as large to look after than if we have 100 F-35 and 36 SH. Then we would have require 3x more personnel to look after that, and 3 x more space and airfield to field them, as well as 3x more weaponry, spares, and logistic support would need to be 3 times larger.

If we can do the same things with lower number, that's should always be what we are heading, and that is not just Australia.

However, as i said, can you get the same result with 240 SH and 40 F-35 as in 100 F-35 and 36 SH I cannot say, as I am not an air defense expert. I push number and do planning in the military, I don't know if you get more SH would be better off or worse off than you get more F-35. But all I know is, if they are 1 : 1, which mean it was not any better or any worse, then I will always go with the smaller number solution.

 

[Beidou2020]

Then you have modified the argument..

If that's not China and or Russia themselves, then what you need to look at a few possible master scenario too,

1.) Would Russia or China sell their Primo tech to any country??
2.) If so, in what kind of quantity?
3.) And what kind of quality?

Problem with defending a country like Australia. We are an Island Nation. So there are only a limited approach to invade or attack Australia. Since you cannot build an airfield in the middle of Ocean, any air threat can only come out from a land base or from aircraft carrier.

If you look at land base air stripe, there are only a few country that can theoretically reach Australia without the need for aerial refueling, either from East Timor (831 KM from Darwin - one way) or From PNG (918 KM from Darwin - one way), now let's not talk about Mid-Air refueling as beside the US, there are currently no country can actually pull off a global mid-air refueling on this planet. And for argument sake, we are not talking about a full on US invasion to Australia

Now, What you essentially got at hand is 2 different location, with 2 different solutions, now for argument sake, let's pick any nation as a potential threat, what they need to do is, they either need to have a large Navy (At least half the size of USN) or they will have to land their troop and planes somehow on PNG or East Timor to take effect on Air Cover. Otherwise they cannot put their plane at their origin to Australia and fly CAP.

Now you have 2 scenarios. Either the country in question, invade either PNG and East Timor and use their airfield against Australia. Or the country in question negotiate a deal to use their base as a staging area to attack Australia. You have a third scenario, that is that country in question would use their naval force against Australia, Without touching the land bases.

So, the question is here, would the country in question have access to latest Chinese/Russian Technology?

The best aircraft the Russian have currently is Su-35, no export customer yet (Although Chinese is rumored to buy them) and the current Chinese best fighter is J-15 (Also without export)

Now, bear in mind Both country have 5th generation jet in development, But the question remain, what kind of 5th generation jet will Russia and Chinese available to export?

Now Russia only have 1, and chance are they are not going to sell them to anyone other than China or India. Other country would not be able to afford them as you are looking at is Vietnam, North Korea,Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia, African Nation, Syria, Iran and some South American Nation. Most of the customer beside India and China, if you would agree, either cannot afford 5th generation tech from Russia or can only afford a tiny garrison that render the acquisition useless.

Now if you look at China, China have a designated domestic superiority fighter, J-20 and an export version, J-31, No doubt, J-20 win F-35 hands down if you use one to one. But J-20 most likely is not for sale or just to Chinese closest allied. And it would be too expensive to afford anyway (As in the case of PAK-FA). So, J-31 is the only choice.

Now, let's look at J-31 vs F-35 Now, I don't see anything that will point to J-31 have any edge over F-35, albeit I will not say they are any better or worse, but J-31 is on Par (Not over-par or sub-par) to J-31. So whatever country that is going to invade Australia, they would need to field J-31 at least as much as Australia Fielding F-35, or using offensive-defensive theory from principle of war, any defense force would enjoy a 1:3 superiority, and hence under this theory, the attacking force would require to field 3 times as much to the defender to overcome their defense. In this case, you are looking at 450-500 J-31

Then let's look at the second master scenario. The quantity. Now, we have established that under the Clausewitz principle of war, the attack force would require 450-500 J-31 to run down the Australian 150 or so fighters. But the problem is, you cannot use your 100% strength to attack a country, especially when you are attack over the horizon. So, in that sense, that mean you would need to leave some J-31 or whatever Fighter behind for mainland defense, incase Australia counter attack. That mean you are now looking at a country that have at least 700 fighters, in which 500 of those are the latest J-31. Now, what you need to think is, would Chinese export 500-600 J-31 to a single country, and if they could, would there be any takers??

Looking at the buying pattern around the world, apart from the really rich customer (Japan, RSA and Korea, etc you know who I refer to) There are no way any country that usually go for Chinese weapon would have the ability to afford such a big order. Again, you are not talking about 10 or 20 millions per J-31, which mean the defense budget for that country to achieve that level of stock would have a defense budget of about 30-40 billions annually.

The calculation is stem from the assumption that...

1.) 1/4 of the total defense budget (7.5 -10 billions) gone to the air force, 1/4 to naval force, 1/4 to ground force, 1/4 for Personnel and Research
2.)J-31 cost 75 mil per planes (Half of what F-35A cost, which believe me, a very generous figure) 600 J-31 would require 45 billions investment, Excluding Parts, Spare, Personnel, Training and Maintenance
3.)cost of buying and maintaining is span out for 10 years.

So when you look at the current defense spending only 12 country in this world suit this profile. US, China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, Germany, the UK, India, RSA, Germany, Italy and Brazil. Now, which one of those would supposedly buy 500-600 J-31?

Now come to the third item. Would the Chinese sell J-31 in original status? The answer is, probably no. On the other hand, the F-35 Australia buy is a joint venture, so you get what you pay for, no watering down or anything. So in the end, you are looking at J-31 as the real alternative and they are either on-par or most likely, sub-par to the F-35.

Unless the goal for Australia is to attack or fend off a full on attack with the aforementioned 12 country, 100 F-35 + 24 option is more than capable to defend the country, We only need better equipment if we decided to go up against the big dog like China, Russia or even US ourselves.

What we need is more in number, so to speak to put us on a safety level.



They teaches you in any defense institution.

You better off preparing for unthinkable situation and not use them rather than when the unthinkable happen and leave you hang out to dry.and basically caught with your pants down.

IT's always better to be the former than the latter.



Not being in the Air Force, I cannot tell you if the substitution is what it should have been done.

But I do know about one thing, if we instead op for 240 SH and 40 F-35, we would have 280 fighter planes on our hanger, which is roughly 3 times as large to look after than if we have 100 F-35 and 36 SH. Then we would have require 3x more personnel to look after that, and 3 x more space and airfield to field them, as well as 3x more weaponry, spares, and logistic support would need to be 3 times larger.

If we can do the same things with lower number, that's should always be what we are heading, and that is not just Australia.

However, as i said, can you get the same result with 240 SH and 40 F-35 as in 100 F-35 and 36 SH I cannot say, as I am not an air defense expert. I push number and do planning in the military, I don't know if you get more SH would be better off or worse off than you get more F-35. But all I know is, if they are 1 : 1, which mean it was not any better or any worse, then I will always go with the smaller number solution.

LOL

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Of course, even if it is paid in one year, there is simply no production capacity to make that many F-35 in a year (without national mobilization for war anyway). It is still quite a large purchase though.

Actually they were talking about 240/year. This is a multi-nation plane and you can't do it slowly like the 24/yr of the F22.

Lightning Rod: F-35 Fighter Family Capabilities and Controversies
"Production will continue to ramp up year-to-year, and by the time the F-35 is expected to reach Full-Rate Production, the program intends to build 240 F-35s per year."

 

[tranquilium]

Actually they were talking about 240/year. This is a multi-nation plane and you can't do it slowly like the 24/yr of the F22.

Lightning Rod: F-35 Fighter Family Capabilities and Controversies
"Production will continue to ramp up year-to-year, and by the time the F-35 is expected to reach Full-Rate Production, the program intends to build 240 F-35s per year."

Hmm, that's kinda surprising. 240 per year is high, very high. Take F-15 for example, a total of 1198 F-15 of all variants were built and that is over the course of four decades. 4500+ F-16 were build, but that is also over the period of 40 years. Both the above fighters are also multination planes and 240 per year is still pretty high.

 

[Tshering22]

That's a nice decision to commit to the project that has already seen such a massive investment initially. IMHO Australia is one of the few countries in the world which has absolutely no enemies, considering that all the immediate regional military forces, Indonesia, India, China and Russia have cordial relations with them. While Aussies take American assistance in defence, they are a friendly country generally to all.

However, they are rich in resources which is what puts them at the risk of getting 'democratized and given freedom' .

While no one can predict enemies, it is always best to take precautions. And for Australia which has such a robust economic structure, they should invest in at least 150 JSFs and consider more of missile defense.

Look at the Chinese for example; while they lag behind USA in terms of defense platforms despite their rise, they chose a smart and cost effective method to circumvent the strategic gap: tactical missile, a whole storm cloud of them. If it is a carrier attacking, rain missiles. If is in a US Navy squadron attempting to infiltrate into Chinese airspace, rain cost-effective short-medium range SAMs.

It is a smart way of ensuring that they have the baggage to attack but very few will risk their necks invading your country. Even with a small air force, if you invest in tactical missile technology, it can get you a lot of long term results. While anti-missile systems are available, the can be overwhelmed with a barrage of them. That's what the Chinese have done and that is very appreciable; something I'd personally love to see our military adopt: A blanket of SAMs, SSMs, SShMs along all our peripheral regions.

You being an island nation, should consider SAMs and SShMs heavily for now.

150 jets may be enough to hold someone off but these days you never knew how alliances turn into enmity.

All the best.

 

[Hack-Hook]

240 plane per year , well it's intresting . it seems they are gonna make F-35 into the 21st century equivalent of F-5 .
only one small technical difference , F-5 was Cheap and F-35 is 200m a piece .