The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Hypothetical: F-35 lame duck
DropBear    5/30/2009 12:13:27 AM

It is 2013-14ish, Solomon Trujillo is the POTUS.

He has decided that Australians look funny and smell bad too, therefore he has passed a law similar to the Obey ammendment that stops foreign military sale of the F-35 to countries he doesn't like.

Australia is forced to make a decision between the Tranche3 Typhoon and the newly developed and service entered "stealthy F-15".

In this scenario, you have to decide which one of these will be the new face of RAAF's Air Combat Group. There are no other choices allowed.

Gentlemen, which one is it to be...
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2
Aussie Diggermark 2       6/13/2009 2:15:09 AM

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.


And whoever said we did? The idea of others, non-partner nations getting them cheaper than us is ridiculous however and whilst outrageous scenarios such as the ones you have thought might exist, it makes no real difference for us, does it?
 
Any non-partner nation that BUYS them, will have to go through FMS etc. We at least have avoided that...  
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       6/13/2009 2:46:44 AM

Any non-partner nation that BUYS them, will have to go through FMS etc. We at least have avoided that...  
IIRC the UK has veto rights anyway due to the percentile of input they own in the program,
I also can't see Oz letting some of our developments for JSF be handed off to non partner countries without some serious discussions.
as much as we like the Israelis, I also can't see us being too keen about passing on some of our material science developments - they're still too close to china for a few of the partners liking (although in their defence they're arguing that they aren't giving china any contemp sensitive material anymore - they could quite happily point out how germany and UK have given over dubious dual use capability.)
 

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       6/13/2009 2:53:26 AM
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...
when the 30 year rule expires for all the fluffery surrounding the decision to buy the F-22, people will be seriously greatful that we dodged a bullet with that decision.

the US can carry the airframe and development under current circumstances, but geez, if it had been exported they would have compounded their own support problems.  I don't envy them, they have huge problems being generated over the next 15 years whith trying to make spiral developments not look like the alpha centauri version of scope creep...

I'm happy for others to whinge and wail about not getting it. As for Australia? well we dodged a serious bullet. 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       6/14/2009 10:52:59 AM

when the 30 year rule expires for all the fluffery surrounding the decision to buy the F-22, people will be seriously greatful that we dodged a bullet with that decision.



the US can carry the airframe and development under current circumstances, but geez, if it had been exported they would have compounded their own support problems.  I don't envy them, they have huge problems being generated over the next 15 years whith trying to make spiral developments not look like the alpha centauri version of scope creep...




I'm happy for others to whinge and wail about not getting it. As for Australia? well we dodged a serious bullet. 

The whole idea that we are having to settle for "second best" is rubbish anyway. F-15 WAS offered to us in the 70's when we had to replace the Miracles and IT was the top dog A2A fighter. 
 
RAAF didn't want a bar of it then or at any time later, notwithstanding of course that it was and is a superb fighter and later on a strike fighter, when it comes down to it.
 
But the F-15 A-C models never provided the multi-role capability the Hornets provide and the F-22A provides little more.
 
JDAM drops yes, but we can already drop JDAM. We need MORE in our replacement aircraft...
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy