Third strike in a defence debacle

Premium content

To access premium content, please log in or set up a subscription. It's quick and easy.

More from Business Spectator

Comments

Please login or register to post comments

Comments Policy »
Robert, in days gone by, you could easily estimate any project after 90 per cent design completion to within 5 to 10 per cent (Third strike in a defence debacle, December 16). Today, with new technology coming online sometimes within months, things like the F35 simply can't keep up.
The problem with the F35 development was the US stupidity in committing to build approximately 3000 units. Such a program hooked the US economy into a disaster and, alas, any US allies wanting he latest version of flying.
This is the lesson of today, economies: you simply cannot commit to such major developments and NOT expect science and cost to over take it. Just wait until the NBN comes on line and watch how fast science kills old industries that can't keep up.
The Japanese voted a few days ago to purchase the JSF. They are not silly. If there was anything to worry about they would have spotted it. (Third strike in a defence debacle, December 16)
The Japanese plan to buy has been delayed by a week. http://defensetech.org/2011/12/15/japan-delays-fighter-decision-by-a-week/ It may not happen at all (Third strike in a defence debacle, December 16).
The Japanese spent remarkable amounts of money on re-inventing the F-16 (the F2) to include more local content and came up with a fighter that cost 10X what was originally planned and 4x what they could buy off the shelf from the USA. (Third strike in a defence debacle, December 16)
It is not unusual to have 500 or 1000 changes during an engineering development program as the test programs are designed to break things (Third strike in a defence debacle, December 16).
We are unlikely to know the context of the changes without being part of the development team. If Japan have recently assesed the airframe structure and the systems and placed a purchase order the overall program may be very sound.
No matter what happens, as I understand, the JSF will not be as good as the F-22. Why are we buying it when there is a cheaper and better option? Why isn't there more debate? I think we should have the ambassador, Bomber Beazley, in the Pentagon asking for an explanation and putting the hard word on the US. They want Marines in the NT; we want the F-22 at Tindal Air Force base. They want to control the skies over Asia, what better platform than a formidable Australian Air Force equipped with the F-22 (Third strike in a defence debacle, December 16)?
It would seem that the concept for the F35 was largely bassed on the success of the F16 and here the plan ends. The F16 was designed as a fiarly simple light day fighter built around a very large engine. As time went on this excelent basic design went on to become through advances in technology intergrated over time a world beater in its class.
The F35 on the other hand was dreamed up as three separate aircraft in one the needs of each one detracting in some way from the others not a good place to start. I think there is much more to say but most of it can be found elswere, however this never was nor could be the best aircaft for us (Third strike in a defence debacle, December 16).
And it will still be inferior to any likely opposing craft (Third strike in a defence debacle, December 16).
Japan has not committed to the JSF yet. They have the same concerns that are outlined in this article (Third strike in a defence debacle, December 16).
To get a really balanced view of the progress of the JSF one must compare what has been found against other projects such as the F15, F22, etc. From what I have heard, the problems identified are not that different. The only real issue being the concurrency. So if anyone has looked at the comparison maybe lets us know. In the end the report did say that the project should continue. Ultimately that is a statement on the project itself (Third strike in a defence debacle, December 16).
Not to worry, given our exemplary track record in Defence Projects and Procurement. Oops. (Third strike in a defence debacle, December 16.)