Australia may only buy 60 JSFs to pay for 3 new destroyers

Report decries need for destroyers

By Max Blenkin
June 08, 2005
TheAustralian.com


"AUSTRALIA runs the risk of buying advanced warships it doesn't need, with the $6 billion cost forcing cuts to other key defence programs, a top defence analyst has warned today."

"Hugh White, a former defence official, said defence was apparently considering cutting the proposed number of new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters from 100 to 60 to meet the cost of the three new air warfare destroyers (AWDs)."

"In an analysis released today by the Lowy Institute for International Policy, Mr White said there was no compelling strategic reason to buy the AWDs or to build them in Australia."

Entire article



At least they'd still buy some JSFs...

There is some logic in OZ buys the AWD if there expecting to fight a blue water war with one of there next door friends.

But the power mix is nasty for example 3 new ships and 4 old one's I'd take 2 new and one old as fleet and landing defense. And leave to rest on the routes to OZ to defend against incomming attacks.

The 60JSF worries me a little as that is very small in number usless of they decide to upgrade the FA18's or buy some new buy cheaper planes e.g. the Typhoon or the Gripen.

But if the reason for the AWD is bluewater then 60JSF and a Typhoon / Tornado GR4's mix with CASOM's would be the way to go.

OR fitting cruise missiles to the subs and frigates would be the other way.

OR buy the F117A's tht the USA is getting rid of,

It all depends on the assumed theat that the OZ's are currently foresee, but the Hell the is US /UK Daego Garcea (Big spell) is but that far away and I'm show the B2 would have no problem causing anyone that messes with the OZ's a VERY bad day :-)

RAB

[edit on 10-6-2005 by RAB]