Second best JSF

Fighters the `next best' from
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au...55E911,00.html


22jun04
AUSTRALIA will not get "top of the range" stealth fighters in the $15
billion deal for the new generation US-built aircraft.

The Australian version of the Joint Strike Fighter will not be
equipped with the best weapons systems and will be missing other
crucial war fighting sensors.

Michael Cosentino, international programs director for Lockheed
Martin's JSF project, yesterday confirmed the RAAF would be sold
so-called Block 2 aircraft and not the Block 3 type provided to the US
Air Force.

Mr Cosentino rejected claims Australia would get a "dumbed down"
version of the JSF when it signs up for the nation's biggest ever
defence contract.

The $15 billion will buy the RAAF 60 fighters which are due to be
delivered in three instalments from 2012 to 2020.

They will replace the RAAF's 24 F-111 strike aircraft and 77 F/A-18
fighters.

Mr Cosentino said the Block 2 version would be a war-ready fighter but
would not be fitted with more sophisticated weapons, software and
other systems available in Block 3 planes.

"Block 2 is a go-to-war, stealthy, survivable, lethal aircraft," he
said.

Mr Cosentino is in Canberra for a major defence industry conference
and to update the Government and RAAF on the project.

He said the aircraft was "about 80 per cent designed and tracking to
all of its performance requirements".

The US Government and Lockheed were acutely aware of the "strategic
gap" between when the F-111s were retired in 2010 and the JSF
delivery.

US Ambassador to Australia Tom Schieffer told a Parliamentary Inquiry
yesterday Australia would get as much technology as any country
outside the US could get.

"We have given assurances to Australia that we will give you the
absolute maximum that we can with regard to that technology," he said.

"Having said the airplane will not be exactly the same airplane as the
US . . . it will be a stealth fighter, it will have stealth
capabilities."



Hmmmm, I thought Australia was a close 'friend' of the US.

Cheers


John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

"John Cook" wrote in message
...

Hmmmm, I thought Australia was a close 'friend' of the US.

Yeah, but it could be that the govt, having made the decision to axe the
F-111, has now suddenly realised it can't actually afford to replace it.
Which it can't. Even the F-35 Block 3 is no replacement for the F-111.
Nothing currently flying can replace the Pig one-for-one, except maybe the
F/A-22.

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:19:44 GMT, (Damian
Kneale) wrote:

Once "Neil Gerace" inscribed in stone:


"John Cook" wrote in message
. ..

Hmmmm, I thought Australia was a close 'friend' of the US.

Yeah, but it could be that the govt, having made the decision to axe the
F-111, has now suddenly realised it can't actually afford to replace it.
Which it can't. Even the F-35 Block 3 is no replacement for the F-111.
Nothing currently flying can replace the Pig one-for-one, except maybe the
F/A-22.

I am not in a position to comment on the technology transfer issues
(that's all political) but I do have a couple of comments. First is
that Block 2 sounds a lot like the tranche 2 of Typhoon. Meaning you
get the available technology/build specs at the time. If you want
Build 3 you wait for it. Of course, they may be using the build
numbers to hide the monkey versions, but I hate to crucify without
evidence. :-)

Second is that the Australian Defence Force had given up on a 1 for 1
replacement for the F-111 a long time back. Flying low into any sort
of air defence system is out of fashion this week. Stand off
munitions are intended to fill the gap, with all the tradeoffs that
implies. And despite all Carlo's figures, the F-111 will go earlier
rather than later, and few to mourn the loss (other than at airshows,
where it will be felt most!).

That said, I don't have a high regard for those who negotiate and
oversee contracts in the ADF, so we may yet be called upon to assume
the position after finding out we are paying full price for the cut
down version. But to be fair about 50% of the time we (Australia) get
screwed, its at least partially self inflicted.

Heres the political angle from the UK... seems even the UK may get the
'JSF Lite' version....

There does seem to be some genuine concerns that have yet to be sorted
out, the reference to the attack helicopter and not getting the code
is a good example, if the Apache has 'restricted access' to the
UK/MOD, then the JSF looks like being the same......

Security of supply would require a second aircraft with full
unfettered access to ally those fears, e.g. the Typhoon. ;-)

The JSF Lite may produce several export orders to governments that
can't or won't totally rely on the United States good will, that said
the final comment by Sir Peter Spencer may be secure enough for the
UK, but not for others.

Begin Quote:-

"UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 572-ii

House of COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE

DEFENCE committee
DEFENCE PROCUREMENT
Wednesday 12 May 2004
Source
http://www.publications.parliament.u...er_first_match


Witness: Sir Peter Spencer, KCB, Chief of Defence Procurement,
Ministry of Defence


Q142 Mr Cran: Just a few questions on access to technology in relation
to the Joint Strike Fighter. Sir Richard Evans, when he came along to
see us on 5 May, a meeting I referred to before - never a man who is
backward in coming forward - was very explicit. He said, "I think JSF
is a classic example. It is no good when you have signed up and paid
your cheque over and trying to go back to negotiate the release of
technology." Not really well put but his point is very, very clear.
Therefore the question I want to put to you is, why in heaven's name
did we sign up before we concluded any deal on the release of
technology? Maybe this was before your time, I do not know, but I am
sure you have looked at it.

Sir Peter Spencer: It was considerably before my time as the Chief
Executive of the DPA. What I would say here is that this Committee has
been extremely supportive of ministers and of the Ministry of Defence
in discussing in the United States the general concerns about access
to technology, and the results of that were the prospective Buy
American legislation which was passed last year was a good deal less
problematic than it might have been, and I am grateful to all of those
who helped to persuade people the other side of the Atlantic to
reconsider. It is also the case this is an extremely sensitive area
for the United States - you do not need me to tell you that - so
confronting the United States in public over these issues and in the
run-up to an election does not seem to me to be necessarily the most
effective way of dealing with this. We have had the personal
involvement of the Prime Minister with the President about unlocking
the sort of flow of information which is needed in procurement as well
as in other areas of defence. We have set up the bilateral Defense
Acquisition Committee, which is chaired by Sir Kevin Tebbit with Paul
Wolfowitz, and the first cabinet met in February, we have identified
the specific areas which need to be followed through, including the
Joint Strike Fighter, and a great deal of progress gets made quietly
by dealing with these things fairly discretely and not having them as
headlines, which this year of all years would be counter-productive.
So far as access to technology which is needed by British Aerospace to
discharge its responsibilities as subcontractor to Lockheed Martin on
Joint Strike Fighter, we have been getting there. We have been arguing
it through. We have been doing our utmost to help industry over this
to create the right of sort of openings with the DoD and the State
Department. There are still some areas which are going to be more
difficult than others. I believe that by working together in close
harmony as UK Limited on this we will continue to get access to the
information which we need, but it is not going to be easy and we are
going to have to be very careful about the way in which we conduct the
dialogue. I am not sure that it would have been possible to have
demanded this as a condition of entry from the outset. If I look at
the Attack helicopter as another example, we have found a way of
meeting our requirements to certify the software of that aircraft for
safety purposes in ways other than having access to the code within
the UK. We can deliver it in a slightly different way. We need to look
at what consequence we need to have and think carefully and
diplomatically with our United States' colleagues as to the best ways
and manageable ways of doing it. I do not blame the company for
feeling apprehensive over this, it is quite right to signal to me and
my people that we have a part to play in ensuring that we get
continued access because the challenge in the United States, as you
well understand, is the sheer scale and complexity of their
organisation and making sure that there is a commonality of message at
various levels within the State Department in particular.

Q143 Mr Cran: Can I just ask the question in a slightly different way.
When and if we have a major purchase from the United States in the
future, how far up the MoD's list of priorities is the access to
technology? Is it high up there? I do entirely concede that you cannot
just bash the table and say, "No order unless we get access to
technology" because circumstances may not allow for that. Is it high
up the list of priorities?

Sir Peter Spencer: It is high up the list. We are a level one
supplier. We actually contributed $100 million at the very early
stages of the technology demonstration, so we already have unrivalled
access to technology compared with other nations, the question is how
much do we need. It is fundamental in the considerations of dealing
with projects through life. I work extremely closely with Sir Malcolm
Pledger, the Chief of Defence Logistics and one of his major concerns,
quite rightly, and mine, is to make sure that we do not just look at
the procurement being up to the point of taking delivery and handing
it over, we have to understand how cost effectively and operationally
effectively we are going to make use of that equipment through life.
Technology is a key component of that in terms of upgrades, in terms
of dealing, as we invariably have to, in a live operation when you
push the performance envelope to somewhere you have never been before
and you find something which needs to be done quickly, and that is a
point which is well understood by Mike Quinn, who is my opposite
number. We need to know that we can operate this thing effectively in
operations, not join a queue and get the thing fixed six months later.

Q144 Mr Cran: Are you concerned about reports - and I have to admit
they are only reports and I guess you could very easily say "I never
comment on reports", but let me try this - the reports being that the
US is developing anti-tamper technology on the Joint Strike Fighter to
protect Stealth and it is not going to share that technology with
anybody. Does that concern you if it is true?

Sir Peter Spencer: I would not comment on that specific example.

Q145 Mr Cran: I would just like to know why.

Sir Peter Spencer: Because we are a tier one supplier of the United
States.

Q146 Mr Cran: Why does that preclude you from giving me an answer to a
fairly simple question?

Sir Peter Spencer: Because it is not a simple question.

Q147 Mr Cran: I do not care how complicated it is, we have got all
night if you want.

Sir Peter Spencer: If you would like to clear the room I will tell
you.

Q148 Mr Cran: That is a separate issue. If you are saying you do not
want to share it with the public that is another matter.

Sir Peter Spencer: I am very happy to send you a note.

Q149 Mr Cran: If it is confidential we understand.

Sir Peter Spencer: I am sorry; I should have made it clear.

Q150 Chairman: One of our concerns thus far with Stealth and Joint
Strike Fighter, which is essential because we do not have resources to
make too many systems now, is if the US does not give us full access.
We know about the ITAR waiver, which is unclassified information, but
when it comes to a crisis, and we require in a war lots of things to
be done, if we do not have access to all the information necessary it
is a question of joining a queue but we need something, we will not be
able to get out the nylon stockings and hammer and bang on the kit any
more and tie something around it, it would require access to
sophisticated arrangements. I should imagine in any war where we
decided to go on our own, if there will be such an occasion, we will
need American support. The more you rely on others, the more veto
power they have over you. We know from our experience, Sir Peter -
Belgium in 1991, Switzerland in 2003 - we know the problem. Do you
have any concerns about it? Is it inevitable the more you procure from
abroad the more in hock you are to other people's goodwill and
willingness to supply you with what you require in an emergency?

Sir Peter Spencer: I think the general point is well made and on the
specific point about the Joint Strike Fighter, and I touched on that
slightly earlier, I might say Mike Quinn my American counterpart is
very clear on what our concerns are and what we will need to be able
to satisfy ourselves on in terms of security of supply and the ability
to mount operations successfully. Lord Bach is extremely engaged with
these issues in all of the procurement projects which we have -
security of supply - for the reasons that you just gave. That said, I
would have to point out that virtually all of the equipment which we
produce in the home industry at the whole system level is dependent on
overseas supply of key components, so we are operating in a global
village here and there are a number of ways in which we protect
ourselves against the possibilities of being held to ransom, as it
were, by other people, including in simple cases making sure you
stockpile enough of the stuff if it is that important to you or making
sure that you have access perhaps to certain design information so you
could become self-sufficient, albeit less cost-effectively, in
extremis. Security of supply is a factor which needs to be dealt into
the decisions and there is not a single way of answering it.

Q151 Chairman: I can understand that but resource accounting and
budgeting and financial constraints forbid the government from holding
too many supplies and then you are reliant upon the "just in time"
concept that may or may not deliver. There is this appalling dilemma
that the more kit you hold in the event of somebody letting you down
the more the financial penalties there are involving suppliers.

Sir Peter Spencer: But we do have a long-standing agreement with the
United States generally in terms of security of supply which to date
they have always met. "





Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

Just a quick recap on the JSF Blocks, a Block 2 aircraft does seem to
fit the bill as a JSF Lite!.


With JSF, the US forces will have a block approach:
* Block 1: basic capability with JDAM and AIM-120
* Block 2: more refined mission software, more weapons certified
* Block 3: 100 per cent of mission software, all the hardware
certified


Cheers

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

"John Cook" wrote in message
...
Just a quick recap on the JSF Blocks, a Block 2 aircraft does seem to
fit the bill as a JSF Lite!.


With JSF, the US forces will have a block approach:
* Block 1: basic capability with JDAM and AIM-120
* Block 2: more refined mission software, more weapons certified
* Block 3: 100 per cent of mission software, all the hardware
certified

Duh. Never heard of "spiral development", eh? Oddly enough, the USAF will be
using all three blocks as well; which kind of knocks the whole "JSF Lite"
argument off its bogeys...

Brooks



Cheers

John Cook

"hobo" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Cook wrote:


With JSF, the US forces will have a block approach:
* Block 1: basic capability with JDAM and AIM-120
* Block 2: more refined mission software, more weapons certified
* Block 3: 100 per cent of mission software, all the hardware
certified

I can understand not wanting to sell TURKEY or even Israel top of the
line equipment, but if we can't trust Oz and the UK then we should just
say screw it and go home.

It is not so much a matter of not trusting/allowing them access to
technology as it is a matter of it being a spiral development effort. The
first US aircraft will be Block 1, followed by Block 2, then ultimately
Block 3; spiral development gets the aircraft into service earlier, albeit
without it having its ultimate capabilities realized. As more capabilities
are realized, they are incorporated into the production blocks. If it were a
*trust* issue, why is the *US military* also going to have Block 1 and 2
aircraft serving in our own forces?

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"hobo" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Cook wrote:


With JSF, the US forces will have a block approach:
* Block 1: basic capability with JDAM and AIM-120
* Block 2: more refined mission software, more weapons certified
* Block 3: 100 per cent of mission software, all the hardware
certified

I can understand not wanting to sell TURKEY or even Israel top of the
line equipment, but if we can't trust Oz and the UK then we should just
say screw it and go home.

It is not so much a matter of not trusting/allowing them access to
technology as it is a matter of it being a spiral development effort. The
first US aircraft will be Block 1, followed by Block 2, then ultimately
Block 3; spiral development gets the aircraft into service earlier, albeit
without it having its ultimate capabilities realized. As more capabilities
are realized, they are incorporated into the production blocks. If it were
a
*trust* issue, why is the *US military* also going to have Block 1 and 2
aircraft serving in our own forces?

The indication is not that it is a "when you buy it" issue (otherwise
countries would have the option of delaying or staggering purchases), no
specif reason is given by the US ambassador, but he does indicate that there
is a full "US only" version and a lite version.

The fact that the US military will also operate some lite versions does not
change the fact that nobody outside the US will get to operate the full
version.

As I recall the F16/79 did not sell real well, it will be interesting to see
how the JSF lite goes.

"L'acrobat" wrote in
:

The fact that the US military will also operate some lite versions
does not change the fact that nobody outside the US will get to
operate the full version.


RAF/RN? I suspect they will "get" to operate the full up version.

--
Regards
Drewe
"Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled"

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

Duh. Never heard of "spiral development", eh? Oddly enough, the USAF will
be
using all three blocks as well; which kind of knocks the whole "JSF Lite"
argument off its bogeys...

Not at all, if the RAAF doesn't have access to the whole enchilada.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

It is not so much a matter of not trusting/allowing them access to
technology as it is a matter of it being a spiral development effort. The
first US aircraft will be Block 1, followed by Block 2, then ultimately
Block 3; spiral development gets the aircraft into service earlier, albeit
without it having its ultimate capabilities realized. As more capabilities
are realized, they are incorporated into the production blocks. If it were
a
*trust* issue, why is the *US military* also going to have Block 1 and 2
aircraft serving in our own forces?

Eventually they'll get Block 3, whereas it looks like the RAAF never will.
That's the difference.