{"id":24772,"date":"2016-03-15T11:00:40","date_gmt":"2016-03-15T00:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=24772"},"modified":"2016-03-11T16:34:29","modified_gmt":"2016-03-11T05:34:29","slug":"f-35-keep-calm-but-have-a-plan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/f-35-keep-calm-but-have-a-plan\/","title":{"rendered":"F-35: keep calm but have a plan"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>The Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee is holding an<\/span> inquiry into the planned acquisition of the F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)<\/span><\/a>. ASPI has had a keen interest in this project for over a decade, so we made a submission (available here<\/a><\/span>).<\/span><\/p>\n

The public discussion of the F-35 is a curious mix of diametrically opposed views\u2014either the F-35 is the biggest folly ever to attract funding, or it\u2019s a game-changing platform about to turn traditional notions of air combat on their head. It\u2019s fair to say that the<\/span> public submissions to the inquiry<\/span><\/a> are heavily weighted towards the former. Those views can\u2019t both be true (though they can both be wrong).<\/span><\/p>\n

For a couple of reasons, we decided not to enter the debate about the merits of the F-35 as a platform in our submission. First, and in common with the most vociferous critics of the aircraft, we don\u2019t have the data required to do so. Second, and more important, there aren\u2019t a lot of options in any case. It\u2019s either the F-35, or something from an earlier generation of combat aircraft design\u2014an unappealing option for an air force looking to recapitalise an ageing fleet of 1980s built Hornets.<\/span><\/p>\n

We note that some of the public submissions suggested that the answer lies in the USAF\u2019s F-22 Raptor. While it\u2019s impressive, it\u2019s expensive to maintain (with costs per flying hour<\/span> about the same as a B-52<\/span><\/a>), suffers from low (<\/span>but improving<\/span><\/a>) availability, is<\/span> long out of production<\/span><\/a>, and is<\/span> not available for export<\/span><\/a>. And if that\u2019s not impossible enough, the<\/span> RAND Corporation estimates<\/span><\/a> that new build F-22s could cost US$276 million each (2019 dollars) compared to a projected US$90 million for an F-35 in 2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

Having limited choices isn\u2019t great, but it\u2019s a direct consequence of Australia\u2019s precipitous decision to go all-in for the F-35 back in 2002, shutting down a study into future air combat options that was in progress at the time. If it hadn\u2019t been for then Defence Minister Brendan Nelson\u2019s<\/span> 2007 intervention<\/span><\/a>\u2014<\/span>despite advice to the contrary from the RAAF<\/span><\/a> (PDF, see p.71)\u2014to buy an \u2018interim air combat capability\u2019 in the form of 24 F\/A-18F Super Hornets, today\u2019s RAAF\u2019s air combat force would be much less capable, given that the F-111 was retired six years ago.<\/span><\/p>\n

ASPI last<\/span> looked at the F-35 acquisition in detail<\/span><\/a> back in 2014, when the Abbott government<\/span> approved the purchase of 58 aircraft<\/span><\/a>. At the time our best judgement was that the F-35 had put many (not all) of its development problems behind it. We judged that the timetable for an Australian acquisition had enough leeway to allow for a few more hiccups and still deliver before the A\/B model Hornets reach the end of their lives in the early 2020s.<\/span><\/p>\n

We still think that\u2019s the most likely outcome, despite some disappointing observations from the Pentagon\u2019s most recently released<\/span> Directorate of Operational Testing and Evaluation report<\/span><\/a> (PDF). Even a sympathetic reading of the report (and the predictably upbeat<\/span> response from the F-35 program office<\/span><\/a>) suggests that significant issues remain, and that further slippages in delivery of full operational capability are possible. That\u2019s why our submission reaches these conclusions:
\n<\/span><\/p>\n