Well, an 18 billion $ fighter, who do you think that's for? by chrisisall

Okay, it's pretty late and I'm a tad sloshed, but Chris, I don't quite understand what you meant by your comments.
i) It's $18 billion for a fleet of fighters, not a fighter;
ii) Australia is buying the fleet, China wasn't mentioned in the article; and
iii) "We must be second to none"... huh? I agree with the sarcasm, but I don't see the relevance to the article.
I'm probably being dense and missing every damn thing. Off to bed and sleep the whole of Sunday...

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 6, 2006 9:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Sassalicious:
I think it's cute how governments of the world seek to find better, faster, and more expensive ways to annihilate the human race.

Of course, they call it "national defence".

Don't know what Australia needs those super-high-tech fighters for anyway. I can't see any nation attacking them, the only worry they have is terrorism (mainly because of their role in helping the US and GB in Iraq), and one can't defend against terrorism with fighter jets.

Then again, maybe I'm thinking too much along the lines of using fighters as defensive options. If they're important to Australia because of their offensive capabilities, that just means Australia is planning on getting involved in a couple of other squirmishes at some point.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 7, 2006 12:24 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Okay, it's pretty late and I'm a tad sloshed, but Chris, I don't quite understand what you meant by your comments.
i) It's $18 billion for a fleet of fighters, not a fighter;
ii) Australia is buying the fleet, China wasn't mentioned in the article; and
iii) "We must be second to none"... huh? I agree with the sarcasm, but I don't see the relevance to the article.
I'm probably being dense and missing every damn thing. Off to bed and sleep the whole of Sunday...

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

From the link *** "We currently estimate the planes will cost around $100 million each, but then you have servicing, maintenance, training and other costs on top of that - which you can usually estimate to double the cost of the plane - which then brings you up to around the $18 billion to $20 billion mark for Australia," he told Fairfax.***

These planes are being SOLD to Australia, from Lockheed Martin and the USA. There are 100 planes, not 1 18 Billion $$ plane. ( That'd be some awesome plane! ) Also, six other countries, including Italy, Britain, Canada and the Netherlands, are also considering the jet.

Don't know what the discussion about health care and what not have to do w/ anything. Those planes being built, and sold have created jobs, high paying jobs where employees get good benefits , pay mortgages , pay their taxes ,send their kids to schools and generally contribute quite nicely to the economy. You have a problem w/ that ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 7, 2006 3:59 AM

Okay, it was late, and I happened upon that piece just before bed, and wanted to post quickly, knee-jerk that I am

We build them, sell them, then borrow them to fight China if and when necessary. Or sell them with the condition that Australia use them at our beck and call.
The Aussies don't need them; something fishy is here.

Yes, the jobs it will create here will be good, but they will most likely be assembled in Mexico. My point is that the R & D put into developing war toys should be spent investing in the country's kids to secure the future for us all.

Sorry, control of the Middle East and it's oil will do that for us, I forgot.

Iran-mushroom-watch Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 7, 2006 4:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

ii) Australia is buying the fleet, China wasn't mentioned in the article; and

That's my idea, China needs some equalizing, their army is too big for comfort, and with Iran and North Korea on the drawing boards, who knows how China will respond when our troops are spread thinner than at any other time in history?

Just continuing a late night thought...Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 7, 2006 6:49 AM

Auraptor:

Yeah, I got that, but Chris said "18 $ billion fighter", not fighterS. I had the impression that he was under the impression that it's just one fighter.

Chris:

Okay, that China comment makes sense now. I had a bit too much to drink and couldn't think that far ahead.

Of course, it assumes that the West will have a war with China, which I highly doubt since most consumer-oriented economies depend on cheap imports from China.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 7, 2006 6:55 AM

Periodically you have to replace your fighters because every minute in the air puts wear and tear on the airframe. After a while you need to either completely rebuild them or build new ones. JSF is an attempt to get most NATO countries standardised on the same aircraft in order to allow economies of scale and share the cost of R&D. The planes Australia is buying now will probably still be flying in 20 or 30 years.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 7, 2006 7:04 AM

But why is it necessary to buy absolute state-of-the-art? Why can't one just replace the fleet with a model that's couple of years older and therefore a couple of million $ less?

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 7, 2006 7:17 AM

Because they are going to last 30 years. To military planners it makes sense to buy the new shiny toy now so that you can still fight with it in 30 years.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 7, 2006 7:32 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
The Aussies don't need them; something fishy is here.

Sometimes the 'roo population gets a bit out of hand and these JAF's would do just GREAT at reducing those numbers.

Seriously, how does one determine what another country needs or doesn't need when it comes to its own military ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 7, 2006 7:44 AM

When I say older, I of course don't mean used, just an older model that's maybe not so state-of-the-art, so unless there's a specific reason for the JSF to last longer than older models, I don't see why those models wouldn't also last 30 years.

In a couple of years time the JSF is not going to be state-of-the-art anymore either, so it's not really an issue of having "the best" for the entire duration of the fleet's active life. At some point (relatively soon) both an older model and the current best model are going to be outdated.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 7, 2006 7:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Seriously, how does one determine what another country needs or doesn't need when it comes to its own military ?

Well, by thinking about what such a purchase tells us we can sort of infer what Australia needs when it comes to its military. If the Aussies feel the need to buy a fleet of JSFs, it's either a case of out-of-control military spending or they need it for a specific purpose. Since, as said, it's highly unlikely that it needs it for its own defence, one has to wonder what the US has up its sleeve for the 2010's for which it needs the help of the Aussies.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 7, 2006 7:59 AM

I see what you are saying but in practice you want to have state of the art for at least part of the 30 year service life.

The reason for having them is almost definately China, because irrespective of how things look now Australia has to consider the long term needs and potential threats.

I've said it before and I mean it, military spending is a lot like buying insurance, it is hellishly expensive and a waste of money if you never need to use it. The question is, can you afford to be without it if something bad happens?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 7, 2006 8:14 AM

Personally I'm having a tough time envisaging a war with China since for most Western countries, being consumer-based economies, that's going to be akin to economic suicide (because the cheap products from China are what makes consumer spending as high as it is). Of course, there's always the possibility that China actually starts a war, who knows.

The fleet is supposed to be in place by 2013 if I remember correctly, so if the US has something nasty planned for the middle of the next decade I guess the fleet would still be in its state-of-the-art condition. Whether it's China or not, something's planned for that time and that almost certainly has to be the reason why the Aussies are spending such an extraordinary amount of money on new fighter planes.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 7, 2006 8:36 AM

Not nescessarily. We had a big discussion in the 1980's about the need to replace the UK's Polaris subs with Trident ones. It included a lot of the same things you are suggesting such as was this really an independent deterent or where the Brits just paying to "own" part of the US war machine?

If we had followed the same logic then you would have assumed that the US had something big planned for the '90's and we'd have used them by now. In the event that didn't happen. In an odd way actually thinking there is some great plan in motion is reassuring, otherwise it just appears to be a great waste of money.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 7, 2006 8:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
In an odd way actually thinking there is some great plan in motion is reassuring, otherwise it just appears to be a great waste of money.

Lol, that's true.

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 7, 2006 9:09 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Okay, it's pretty late and I'm a tad sloshed, but Chris, I don't quite understand what you meant by your comments.
i) It's $18 billion for a fleet of fighters, not a fighter;
ii) Australia is buying the fleet, China wasn't mentioned in the article; and
iii) "We must be second to none"... huh? I agree with the sarcasm, but I don't see the relevance to the article.
I'm probably being dense and missing every damn thing. Off to bed and sleep the whole of Sunday...

Yeah, what's he got against Australia. We build, they buy...good for them, good for us.

Maybe he's really from Australia and fears a continuation of their aggressive and confrontational foriegn policy.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 7, 2006 9:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Maybe he's really from Australia and fears a continuation of their aggressive and confrontational foriegn policy.

No, they're gonna us them internally, against the native kangaroo population, and claim it's collateral damage, or over-population control for their own good, or some such euphemism.

Mad Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 8, 2006 4:13 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
No, they're gonna us them internally, against the native kangaroo population, and claim it's collateral damage, or over-population control for their own good, or some such euphemism.

Crikey!

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 8, 2006 7:51 AM

SICKDUDE

Hey, guys, I'm not quite sure what the hoopla is about. Being a follower of military aviation (although my subscription to Air Forces Monthly has expired

), I thought I'd chime in. This project has been in the works for quite a while, and is really not that much different than most of the defense programs.

The JSF was going to be a joint development and production program that was being shared by the USAF, USN, USMC, RAF, Royal Navy, and the RAAF (Australian Air Force). That means they shared a large portion of the inital program development and production costs. I'm sure Britain and the US are in for a lot more than $18 billion! For Australia, the plane will be a stealth replacement for the F-111, the F-18 (not the Super Hornet), and probably the F-16 also. Like most other US developed fighters, lots of units are sold to our NATO allies and numerous other friendly countries. Remember that Australia is actually one of the bigger and more militarily powerful NATO members- probably fourth or so on the list. Off the top of my head, I think we sell the F-16 to something like 50 different countries.

As to buying the most modern capability, this is kind of a necessity. Simply put, newer planes radically outperform planes that are a deacde or two older, or have less capability (i.e.are cheap). This is getting even more pronounced, especially with stealth. One JSF will do what many F-16s do, and do it better. Now, that does beg the question of needing a smaller air force. But, that probably is already a factor. In other words, they are probably replacing 100 planes with 70 JSFs or something. Going into combat with a lesser plane is not nice to the pilots, and a good way to lose wars in the future. Remember, other countries air forces are also getting more advanced.

"I am your father, Luke. Give in to the Dark Side, you nob!" - Doug McKenzie

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 8, 2006 7:56 AM

SICKDUDE

By the way, I'm not even going to start to argue that we should spend less on military defense, and more on domestic programs. Or that the military industrial complex is bloated. Completely agree on that.

"I am your father, Luke. Give in to the Dark Side, you nob!" - Doug McKenzie

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 8, 2006 8:46 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

More about the JSF!

It can be launched from Aircraft carriers, or from standard runways. It can be outfitted for pretty much any mission.

Our F-14's and F-15's are about 30 years old now. (Originally developed in the 70's.) The British Harrier is from the 80's, and had VSTOL capability. The JSF has VSTOL capability. So the new het can fill all three roles. It also has significant stealth capability, perhaps making the late 80's early 90's era dedicated Stealth Bomber and Stealth Fighter redundant.

The JSF is probably the most logical and cost-effective military jet of the past 50 years. It really can do anything, and pretty well, too. If you had to pick just one jet to stock up on for the next half-century, it would be the JSF.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 8, 2006 8:51 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
No, they're gonna us them internally, against the native kangaroo population, and claim it's collateral damage, or over-population control for their own good, or some such euphemism.

Don't F*ck with Kangeroos Chris:
http://www.baetzler.de/humor/killer_kangaroo.html

Quote:
"I usually conclude the story by reassuring the audience that we have now disarmed the kangaroos and it is again safe to fly in Australia."

Or have they?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 8, 2006 9:00 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
The British Harrier is from the 80's, and had VSTOL capability.

The Harrier was originally developed in the 50's.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 8, 2006 9:19 AM

SICKDUDE

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It can be launched from Aircraft carriers, or from standard runways. It can be outfitted for pretty much any mission.

Our F-14's and F-15's are about 30 years old now. (Originally developed in the 70's.) The British Harrier is from the 80's, and had VSTOL capability. The JSF has VSTOL capability. So the new het can fill all three roles. It also has significant stealth capability, perhaps making the late 80's early 90's era dedicated Stealth Bomber and Stealth Fighter redundant.

The standard, STOL and VTOL versions are going to be three different versions. As such, the country procuring them will have to decide which version to purchase.

Also, the B-2 is highly unlikely to have a replacement any time soon.

The main point to my post was... well.. what was your point, Cisall?

"I am your father, Luke. Give in to the Dark Side, you nob!" - Doug McKenzie

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 8, 2006 9:20 AM