Review into Australia's Air Combat Capability

Right. Time to put your money where your mouth is! There has been plenty of debate on ATS about the the merits of the Super Hornet and JSF for Australia, as well as the pros and cons of F-111 retirement. Now you have the opportunity to formalise your thoughts. Defence has announced an Air Combat Capability review.

The review will be conducted in two stages. The first stage will assess:

A) Australia’s Air Combat Capability requirements in the period 2010 to 2015;

B) the feasibility of retaining the F-111 aircraft in service beyond 2010;

C) a comparative analysis of aircraft available to fill any gap that may be left by the withdrawal of the F-111; and

D) the status of plans to acquire the F/A-18 Super Hornet.

The second stage of the review will consider trends in Asia-Pacific air power until 2045 and the relative capabilities of current and projected fourth and fifth generation combat aircraft such as the Joint Strike Fighter. The review will also examine the case for and against acquiring the F-22. Public submissions will be called for in regard to stage two.

The review team will also consider industry issues relevant to the development of Australia’s future air combat capability.

Details can be found here, including the terms of reference. An unclassified executive summary will be released after the classified report is produced and considered by the government.

This is as good an opportunity as you'll ever get to say your piece. Good luck!

hmmmm if they find the ordering process for the SH was illegal then theres 1 nice get out clause for cancelling ;


anyway - i say actually send the F111`s to afghan and use them!

I don't think the legality of the Super Hornet purchase has ever been an issue. The issue has been around the rigour of the analysis that formed the basis for the acquisition (ie it relied on Boeing, with little consideration of other platforms). So the way I read it, the review will determine (with rigour) two key things. The first is whether there is a capability gap to 2015. If there is a gap, what can fill the gap. And what is the effect of extending the life of the F-111 with regards to any gap. The end result may be that the Super Hornet is indeed needed. Though I doubt Carlo and his team will ever believe this to be the case.

So, are there any members of ATS that plan on making a submission? I'd be disappointed if there weren't given some of the excellent understanding and points of view that have been posted on here. Even the ones I don't agree with!

by legality i mean if irregularities have been found in the ordering process then the entire order can and will be cancelled and if irregularities are found boeing can sing for any money they want for the `cut metal ` they have allready done.


been done recently in india over the helicopter deal which bypassed usual channels.

reply to post by Willard856
Oh I would dearly love to make a submission Willard. However I dont think I can afford the time to do it the justice it deserves. Perhaps a number of contributors might wish to make a collaborative effort?

On another note the review today had director of the DMO Stephen Gumley state that any delay in the decision to scrap the SH puchase (IF it is scrapped) would as of this week cost up to A$400m and could acrue additional costs of 80-100m per month. Seems the pressure is on from the pro SH to let the deal stand. It's going to be very interesting times around this part of the world in the next few months.

Interestingly the CDF today reiterated that ALL options were going to be looked at. He even went so far as to use a (presumably) hypothetical example of the air combat capability being perhaps filled by a combination of F-22 and F-35.

Yeah, interesting times indeed.

LEE.

At $400 million just to cancel the contract, its expensive either way.

www.abc.net.au...

Quite a conundrum.

all this talk about ` now costing $400 million` - well if the deal has irregularities and is deemed illegal then boeing can sing for that so called payment.

Anyone see the Four Courners episode "Flying Blind" last year. Newbie here so i have not worked out how to link yet but if you search the ABC site for it it will pop up.

Ah, What a shame that it is already decided!

Does anyone here honestly believe that the Rudd government would initiate an inquiry that might bring back a finding that the former Defense Minister - now Leader of the Opposition - made the right decision !

Sure they're going to praise Brendon Nelson's judgment and foresight and make the Rudd government look like a bunch of idiots for having an inquiry - in your dreams they are!

The golden rule for lawyers and politicians is - Never ask a question that you don't know the answer to, or that you don't want to hear the answer to!

The inquiry will return the answer that Kevin Rudd wants to hear - and I'm betting he doesn't want to hear that Brendon Nelson is a genius! It's really that simple! Otherwise Kevin Rudd would not have initiated the inquiry.

Call me cynical, but I feel that we have given the subject far more serious thought than is going to come out of this inquiry. It's just the way the world works, unfortunately.

The Winged Wombat

reply to post by Harlequin


There was absolutely nothing illegal about the Super Hornet deal. If there was, don't you think the then opposition would have pounced on it? They didn't because there wasn't, the only issue has been one of robustness of analysis and comparison with other options. Which may have been stupid, but certainly isn't illegal.

reply to post by atlasastro


Hi atlasastro, welcome to ATS. To link, simply hit the symbol of the world that you'll find in the row of buttons when creating a post. A dialogue box will prompt you to create a name for your link. This can be anything really, though the gist of what you are linking (ie ABC report on Super Hornet purchase) is always a good idea. After you do this, another dialogue box will open, and you will be prompted add the URL of the site you want to link. Simply cut and paste the URL into this box (tips for new players - the box automatically has http:// at the start, so if you cut and paste the whole address, make sure you paste over this, otherwise you'll end up with two http:// and the link won't work).

We have discussed the ABC report previously (with some vigour), you can find it here:

RAAF Super Hornet Purchase Problems Exposed on TV

reply to post by The Winged Wombat


You're such a cynic, WW! I've talked to a few people, and what I've heard is that everything is on the table. And now that the new Government have been able to see some info that they may not have been privvy to before, their opinions on the purchase may have changed slightly. In fact, I seem to recall seeing a news report where Fitzgibbon said he was more comfortable now that the Super Hornet isn't such a bad option, but he still wants the deep analysis to back up this point of view.

Let's be real here......

If a politician, or government really wants to know something, they quietly ask their advisers - that's why they employ them.

If they want some documentary backup for a planned action they call for an inquiry.

Certainly the people conducting the inquiry and those contributing feel that they are doing everything that they can to reach a reasoned and correct conclusion, however, the fact that it is such a public inquiry leads to the conclusion that there is no possibility of embarrassment for the government.

And as I said, the government did not set up this very public inquiry just so that they could vindicate Brendon Nelson's decision. That would be ridiculous, now wouldn't it.

So right, wrong, or logic just doesn't come into it - the fact that the inquiry is so public means that it can only come to one conclusion. And that must be that Nelson was wrong and SH is not for us.

Consider that if the government really wanted SH, then they would go after Nelson on (probably) the 'old boys' deal rather than question the suitability of SH.

If the Rudd government even remotely agreed with the SH solution, then there would be no inquiry (with the potential of lauding Brendon Nelson's skills as Defense Minister), now would there! In that case the matter would quietly be dropped and the purchase would go ahead.

Alternatively they could come to the conclusion that SH is the correct solution, but that would just show that the Rudd government was 'weak' and ill-informed - sorry, I cannot see the Rudd government initiating an inquiry that could return such a result.

Therefore, I logically conclude that the result of the inquiry is already determined and that it is not good news for the SH.

By all means show me where this reasoning is faulty.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 20/2/08 by The Winged Wombat]

The logic isn't faulty - for a cynic. I prefer to believe that no decision has been made either way. And that may make me naive, but so be it. Time will tell either way.

And using reverse logic, if they already know the answer, why conduct a review? In many ways I see that as worse than the Super Hornet decision. I'd rather the Government had the balls to say that there may be a gap and do something about it, than conduct a paper review that is pointless (or, more worrying, unduly influenced by the Government to arrive at the decision they had already made in an attempt to legitimise such a decision). I'd rather they come out and say there is no gap, we aren't getting it, we're extending the life of the F-111 (shudder), and that's the way it is.

And if it is so cut and dry that Super Hornet is going to be axed, why would Rudd wait to axe it given the mounting cost of contract withdrawal? Sorry, even for images sake, this would make zero sense.

IF there is a gap, AND the decision is made to get an interim fighter, I would be surprised if the Super Hornet isn't the choice given the current status of the contract.

So I assume WW you won't be making a public submission?

No, not a public submission - mine was private and done quite some time ago - when it mattered.

The inquiry is needed, politically, to justify the cost of cancellation and place the blame for the whole affair exactly where Rudd wants it - on Nelson's shoulders.

Nelson, by going it alone, without a valid researched or recommended requirement has left himself open to political destruction - and that is what we are now seeing happen.

If Rudd were to cancel without an inquiry, he would be doing the same thing that Nelson did in buying - doing it without a 'justifiable' reason. The inquiry is simply the documentary justification!

And yes, you are naive to think that this has anything to do with aircraft or Australia's defense. Welcome to the 'real' world.

The Winged Wombat

So let me get this straight. The Rudd Government has made a decision, but need to put on a show to legitimise this decision, a show that has absolutely no purpose. They are also conducting this show at the expense of cancelling the Super Hornet now, thus costing the tax payers money (both in terms of contract cancellation fees and the cost of running a public review). And you see this as somehow better than the Nelson decision, which misguided as it may be, at least had a level of genuiness about it? If such a fraudulent process was possible, I'd be quite disappointed. Fortunately I think you are a long way off reality, so it doesn't bother me too much.

Considering the CDF has come out and said that he believes the review will vindicate the Super Hornet decision, you'd have to expect that Houston will go pretty soon after the review. And knowing Gus for the fairly astute political player he is, I'd be surprised if he would take such a gamble if a decision had already been made.

So, by saying this has nothing to do with aircraft or Australia's defence, you are basically insinuating that the whole thing is simply to dump on Nelson? Which given Nelson's current unpolularity with the electorate, seems to be a monumental waste of time and effort if this is indeed the reason. Or is there some other reason I'm missing?

As for the 'real' world, this stuff is my world, more so than many armchair enthusiasts on this board. Seeing as you seem to have decided that nothing is going to come of the review now, I'd be interested to hear what your previous submission was about. Surely there is no harm in discussing that?

The show IS the purpose - the political purpose! This is the very thing that Brendon Nelson didn't do.

Ultimately as far as the Rudd government is concerned, it doesn't really matter what the inquiry recommends, they will be politically justified in following those recommendations. Therefore the result will be what the Rudd government wants to do - it makes no sense to hold a public inquiry to tell you to do something you don't want to do.

And there is really only one political reason to hold such an inquiry - to reverse Nelson's purchase - any other intent does not require an inquiry.

Without any other information, it is clear that the Rudd government is hostile to the SH purchase. So the aim of the government is to cancel SH and place the blame on Nelson's shoulders. Believe me, the principle of not kicking a man when he's down does not apply to politics, or indeed warfare.

In considering what the CDF may or may not say at any time, please consider that his job is two-fold.... to give advise to his political masters (in private) and to take the government line in public (just the same as any other senior public servant).

As I said my submission was private - I'll keep it that way, thank you.

Certainly, Willard, I understand your situation and your field of expertise, but remember that even military matters are subservient to political matters - always!

Like it or not, the military is still only a tool of the politicians.

The Winged Wombat

In considering what the CDF may or may not say at any time, please consider that his job is two-fold.... to give advise to his political masters (in private) and to take the government line in public (just the same as any other senior public servant).

Going by that logic, if the Government line is that Super Hornet is going to be canned, why did Houston say the review will justify the decision?

Ultimately as far as the Rudd government is concerned, it doesn't really matter what the inquiry recommends, they will be politically justified in following those recommendations. Therefore the result will be what the Rudd government wants to do - it makes no sense to hold a public inquiry to tell you to do something you don't want to do.

Actually it very much matters what it recommends - if the intent is to justify an already made decision (which you believe is that the Super Hornet deal will be scrapped). What makes no sense is having a public inquiry to justify such a decision. Politically it would be smarter to have a closed inquiry, claim that analysis of classified scenario based capability options testing showed that the Super Hornet was unnecessary, and there's your answer. You can still maintain the moral high ground (more analysis than Nelson), but get your decision faster, cheaper, and without so many pesky questions from the public.

As I said my submission was private - I'll keep it that way, thank you.

Fair enough. I Guess it didn't get the response you were looking for?

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. While I understand the political game a little better than I think you give me credit for, I don't subscribe to the extreme view of this review being purely to smash Nelson. There are much better ways to do that than this review.

Yes, you have a point regarding the recent show of support for SH, but this could merely be a fall back position if Rudd's preferred option is not available. And the F-22 option is very much a matter for conjecture. Also remember that any muted support for the SH would be negated by the simple statement that the F-111s can be maintained until introduction of F-35 - SH, no matter how good, then becomes 'irrelevant'.

Never did I suggest that the main purpose of the review was to smash Nelson.

As you rightly point out, the decision could be made to cancel SH by using 'internal advise', however, this would still reflect upon the Rudd administration for the costs incurred.

It is stated policy on the part of the Rudd government that the SH is not their preferred option. The use of a public review allows for the cancellation and shifts the blame for the costs incurred away from the Rudd government, it is actually coincidental that it is at Nelson's feet that the blame will fall (but he brought that upon himself by his actions).

So it is a matter of political tactic that the 'reason for cancellation of SH' must be presented in a 'public' rather than 'private' way. Suggesting that all available expertise is in agreement - which of course, we know is not going to be the case, as we (among many others) have different views about what capabilities we as a nation need / want to maintain. The result of the public review will be a single set of recommendations, rather than the range of solutions that might be expected from informed debate on our real needs. If you like, the 'public' review will appear to show consensus, when of course we both know that will not be the case.

Alternatively, the holding of a public review seems to me to be an extremely clumsy and embarrassing way to change one's stated policy regarding SH, wouldn't you agree.

I simply answered your question regarding a submission - I don't think I inferred at any point that I have any more influence over the Rudd government or its decisions or policies than anyone else.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 20/2/08 by The Winged Wombat]

Well, the Super Hornet versus F-111 debate is one we have already had. You know my point of view - the SH was never meant to 'replace' the F-111 in the truest sense. And if you believe that Rudd has a solution in mind already, how is he any different to Nelson (other than in being smart enough to at least create an illusion of public consultation)?

It is stated policy on the part of the Rudd government that the SH is not their preferred option.

Is it? I thought their policy was that there was insufficient analysis to back the decision to purchase an interim fighter of any kind. I don't think I've ever seen anything that suggests they have a preferred option. Can you supply a link?

Never did I suggest that the main purpose of the review was to smash Nelson.

Well, you did say:

And there is really only one political reason to hold such an inquiry - to reverse Nelson's purchase - any other intent does not require an inquiry.

which in the way I read the intent of your posts, if the only reason is to reverse Nelson's decision, then there are other ways to do it rather than the somewhat public path they have taken. Ergo, the sole purpose is to humiliate Nelson for his decision. Hence my "smash Nelson" comment.

As you rightly point out, the decision could be made to cancel SH by using 'internal advise', however, this would still reflect upon the Rudd administration for the costs incurred.

How could the costs be blamed on the Rudd government? Simple spin is they saved us $5.6 billion by cancelling a pointless Howard government project, even if it does cost $400 million. I don't see the logic here.

Alternatively, the holding of a public review seems to me to be an extremely clumsy and embarrassing way to change one's stated policy regarding SH, wouldn't you agree.

Absolutely. And one of the reasons I think it supports the argument that no decision has been made.

I simply answered your question regarding a submission - I don't think I inferred at any point that I have any more influence over the Rudd government or its decisions or policies than anyone else.

And I don't think I inferred that you did. I simply wanted to get a feel for where you are coming from. Your reaction seemed a little sensitive, suggesting your submission either was ignored, or was followed with poor results. Either way, it gives context towards your perception of the public review.