on 23-04-2014 07:05 AM
We are about to spend $12.4billion dollars on 58 stealth fighters with another 42 coming. Bringing our air combat fighting capacity up to 100.
Plus we need to send another $1.6billion improving base facilities to house them.
Now whilst I can understand the need to replace our existing aging defence planes because of unreliability, 100 seems just a tad excessive.
on 23-04-2014 09:48 AM
I understand where you are coming from.
Yes the F35is is an unproven platform and still has a long way to go. But so was, in its time, the F111.
That is, I can still recall the heated debate about purchasing THAT aeroplane (the F111) every time one of them crashed – with the main argument being it’s too advanced for its time. I also can also still recall that, when final production was delayed to such an extent as to impact on our defence capabilities of the time, we had to lease some F4’s to fill the gap, resulting in considerable pressure, to simply scrap the F111s and buy the F4’s, which luckily we didn’t do. The result, once he teething problems had been sorted out, we ended up with one of the best ground strike aircraft ever built, one that gave us over 3 decades of reliable service, with the consensus being they were worth every penny we paid.
Now the F35 is at the very cutting edge of current technology, and whether it is a bridge too far, is yet to be seen. As for me, I think it’ll turn out to be another F111. Highly controversial in the beginning but given time, well worth the effort and cost.
Of course we could go the other way, Buy something off the self with a proven track record as we could have done with the F4. However, had we purchased the F4, we would have had to replace it at least twice in the 30 year service life of the F111.
on 23-04-2014 09:48 AM
''
Parts coming off the aircraft 'too frequently': Bogdan
Ms Sanchez says the F-35 is currently four hours between "critical failures" rather than 13 hours as expected, and at that rate the program will not even meet its reliability goal of 50 per cent.
Lieutenant General Bogdan said with more planes in the skies, program bosses now know parts are coming off the aircraft "too frequently" for maintenance.
"The problem here is you're not going to see results in the next two to three months," he said.
"It's going to take months and months and months of constant efforts to see this improve.
"Our goal is by 2015 to see the aircraft at 60 per cent (reliability)."
Ms Sanchez said the reliability target is a "critical price to this program".
"You and I need to keep an eye out and ensure this reliability continues to go up, rather than stagnate as it is," she told the hearing.
The committee heard countries like Australia may risk paying millions of dollars more per aircraft because Italy, Turkey and Canada have or are considering delaying their purchases.
on 23-04-2014 09:52 AM
these things are duds . the other potential buyers appear to have gone cold on the idea of buying them. i'm not opposed to replacing fleets, i merely wish they'd make a better choice.
on 23-04-2014 09:55 AM
Guess we’ll just have to see.
But then if the Collins is anything to go on you might just be right
on 23-04-2014 09:58 AM
maybe the next generation of subs will be better
on 23-04-2014 10:08 AM
I still can't let a tap left dripping
DEB
on 23-04-2014 10:12 AM
@lakeland27 wrote:these things are duds . the other potential buyers appear to have gone cold on the idea of buying them. i'm not opposed to replacing fleets, i merely wish they'd make a better choice.
Wouldn't/shouldn't they be cheaper if other countries are not going ahead with their orders; regardless of the work that may be needed to adjust them to our requirements.
DEB
on 23-04-2014 10:29 AM
Couldnt be worse.
on 23-04-2014 11:53 AM
pointles waste of money, China now ownes half the place now so I am sure they will help if the need arose
on 23-04-2014 12:11 PM
Yep which political figure seems hell bent on giving them the rest of it.