if the US under Sol smacked a ban on tech transfer for JSF and related, then we're in far more trouble in other areas over the RAAF.

kiss goodbye to special access to comms, access to special ops shops goodies, goodbye to UDT, goodbye to NAVSEA and DARPA, goodbye to hypersonics participation (although the japanese would be grinning at the opportunity), goodbye to BAMs tech, goodbye to CEC technology, goodbye to participation in new comms and warfighting widgets such as Link22, goodbye to participation in about 20 annual exercises, goodbye to currently the highest executive sanctioned  access out of any other US allies (except UK).

in short, losing access to JSF ITARs flagged tech is less important than any of the above. 

why would we even bother considering with any US product under those circumstances.

denial of that plane means looking at the integrity of the relationshop.  It would mean that the Typhoon would get in with a fight, and we wouldn't have to worry about getting snowed by Boeing on any aircraft anymore - be it Seagle or be it Shornet.

We could save money all around.  Get rid of NACC, get rid of BACC, and give back the Shornets we got snowed on as well.

Pity a change of relationship would stuff up RAN and Arny who actually do real jobs.... :) 

Silent Eagle

 

More weapons, longer legs, Israeli stuff, others in the region have some and no haggling between governments over minute developments.

Tranche 3 Typhoon > F15SE

 

 If Aegis gets taken off the table i guess that means the only options would be the PAAMs system from the T45 or the S300/400 system from the Russians.

 M1's would probably need to be replaced since parts would become a problem, leaving the Leopard II as the only option since Challenger 2's are out of production and the costs to restart production would probably be high.

 

ESSM on the frigates might be an issue if the change in policy includes currently operational weapons systems.

 

Remember that  Trujillo thinks we are all racist for wanting him gone, when it was really the fact that he did an absolutely sh*t job at Telstra. He should have been fired years ago, instead they gave him millions in bonuses, crazy.

 

Remember that  Trujillo thinks we are all racist for wanting him gone, when it was really the fact that he did an absolutely sh*t job at Telstra. He should have been fired years ago, instead they gave him millions in bonuses, crazy.

It's Telstra, everyone hates Telstra. Inevitable that someone would throw in "he's Mexican".

denial of that plane means looking at the integrity of the relationshop.  It would mean that the Typhoon would get in with a fight, and we wouldn't have to worry about getting snowed by Boeing on any aircraft anymore - be it Seagle or be it Shornet.

Haven't you heard? Nobody will get the F-22 anymore, not even US. D--- that fool, Gates.  

 

Herald

 

 

Oh I've heard but this probably isn't the thread to go to how the F-22 would be cheaper, more capable and still in production if the US had allowed exports to close allies.

Oh that is all I have to say on the subject. This is an AUSTRALIAN board.

 

Herald

I was being sarcastic....basically I agree with you. If the US had been smart they would have made the F-22 too good a deal for Australia, Japan and Israel to refuse. By all means down grade and sanitise is in some areas but leave enough there to allow it to operate with US forces as required and to still maintain a significant edge over everyone else. Maybe the export version could replace some of the really tricky US only bits with less restricted F-35 bits that would make it a better strike platform.

 

Nice to dream.

 

As to the original comment, I suppose I'd grudgingly opt for the Tiffy under the circumstances, but I'd wonder why we could acquire F-15, but not more of the Super Hornets that we've already bought???

 

As to this post Volkodov, you are kidding aren't you? Second best? At what? Air to air at the present time, I grant you, but F-35 will be better at EVERYTHING else than the F-22. 

 

Especially when it comes time to upgrade, try to develop new software and find that no-one knows how to program in archaic languages anymore...

 

As to cost, non-partner export customers will have to pay FMS fees, (running to hundreds of millions) we won't. THEY will have to pay their share of development costs. We won't. THEY do not have access to development of the aircraft, we do and even have a say in the development of and capabilities of the aircraft, commensurate with the level of investment we have committed (Level 3 partner). THEY do not.

 

Can you honestly state that a non-partner export nation will "know" the capability of the F-35 better than a partner nation who has had staff embedded in the project for 9 years already and more by the time production aircraft are delivered?

 

Even the likes of Eric Palmer doesn't go that far... 

AD who owns the IP? Who decides who has access to ITAR? Who makes the most money from additional sales to non partner nations? Who can market and sell to non partner nations? Who decides the workshare for non partner nations?

 

At the end of the day the F-35 is a US project for a US aircraft to serve the US military the partnership exists primarily to reduce the program costs for the US. If the US decides to sell variants of the F-35 to Japan and India etc we have no say in it. If the US decides it is in their national interest to allow Japan and India to assemble them locally or manufacture components there is nothing we can or would do to stop them. If the US decides to transfer 120 F-35's to Israel free of charge and provide them with source codes so they can upgrade them with indigenous technology, again we have no say.

 

Do not make the mistake of believing that we are a partner in the true sense of the word, there is no comparison between our involvement with the F-35 and say the partnership within the Eurofighter Consortium. We do not own the design and have no real say in what the US does with it.

Oz has a bargaining chip.