Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Global Hawk and 4th AWD axed, JSF delayed a year
Aussiegunneragain    3/3/2009 4:59:43 AM
Some big cuts had to happen given the revenue projections I guess, the only thing that I'm happy about is that our potential adversaries will be in the same boat. What do people think about the choices of kit to go? What else do you reckon will get the axe? My bet is Land 17, which will make me even madder at the dickheads who canned the cheap Dutch Pzh-2000 purchase last year because it wasn't to be conducted according to the procurement process. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Global financial crisis stalls billions in Defence spendingFont Size: Decrease Increase Print Page: Print Patrick Walters and Mark Dodd | March 03, 2009 Article from: The Australian THE global financial crisis has forced the Defence Department to shelve plans to buy billions of dollars' of military equipment, including a new $5 billion maritime surveillance system. The economic downturn will also mean the navy will not exercise the option to acquire a fourth air warfare destroyer worth $2 billion, and could force a one-year delay in plans to spend $16 billion on 100 F-35 joint strike fighters. While Defence is putting the final touches to its long-awaited white paper, the rapidly deteriorating global economy could dictate further delays in its publication beyond the May budget, according to senior government sources yesterday. The white paper, designed to chart Australia's defence strategy to 2030, is due to be published next month, but doubts are emerging that cabinet's national security committee will sign off on the document in time. It was originally planned to be released in December. The RAAF had hoped to replace its 32-year-old fleet of Orion AP-3C maritime surveillance planes with a combined mix of unmanned aerial systems and a new patrol aircraft, the Boeing P-8A Poseidon. The Rudd Government yesterday effectively ended hopes for the early acquisition of the $1.5billion Global Hawk Unmanned Aerial System, part of an ambitious 15-year project to revolutionise maritime surveillance requirements. Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon said: "Introducing such an advanced new aircraft at this time would have caused incredible workforce pressures on the Australian Defence Force." This was particularly the case given the requirement for the air force's AP-3C Orion fleet to be replaced by a new manned surveillance aircraft in the same period. Australia was jointly cooperating with the US Navy in its development of a broad area maritime surveillance program based on the unmanned Global Hawk, a high-altitude long-endurance aircraft. The Global Hawk's makers, Northrop Grumman, claimed the aircraft was versatile enough to take high-definition imagery of a submarine periscope from a cruising altitude of 22,000m. It was equally capable of switching to civilian missions such as mapping bushfires or using its state-of-the-art electro-optical sensors to photograph the licence plates of suspect arsonist vehicles. Mr Fitzgibbon said the earliest delivery schedule under the US Navy's Global Hawk program had slipped to 2015. Defence sources say the RAAF's preference is to acquire the P-8A manned aircraft rather than the Global Hawk if the defence budget cannot accommodate both aircraft types. The draft defence white paper, the first since 2000, embodies Kevin Rudd's plans for a stronger maritime defence for Australia, including the acquisition of 100 joint strike fighters and 12 new-generation submarines. Mr Fitzgibbon is banking on the Prime Minister keeping his election commitment to lift defence spending in real terms by 3per cent annually, in addition to finding about $15billion in internal savings over the next decade to help fund the new white paper. The main worry for Defence is how it will cope with the effect of continuing strong personnel and operating costs on its $22billion annual budget over the next three years, amid an alarming slump in government revenues. Mr Fitzgibbon is relying on his department generating internal savings of about $750million over the next three years as a result of reforms recommended by management consultant George Pappas on top of a 10-year $10billion savings target already announced. In deciding not to proceed with the planned maritime surveillance system, Mr Fitzgibbon said yesterday he was confident the US Navy BAMS (Broad Area Maritime Surveillance) program would deliver a very capable unmanned aircraft. "However, at this stage in the development of this project, it is in Australia's best interest to not knowingly risk incurring the unmanageable workforce chaos that would result," he said. Defence would continue to "closely monitor" the progression of BAMS and other similar unmanned aircraft programs. The US Navy had been waiting since late last year for a decision on whether Canberra would go ahead with plans to buy the Global Hawk. A decision to proceed would have required a
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
gf0012-aust       3/15/2009 2:30:57 PM

I would love to know the back room goss on this but understand why you can't say.

Definite CLM 

The trouble is wiring a dozen SH's for possible later conversion to Growlers seems like a sensible decission to the uninformed observer and I have been racking my brain trying to think of a down side to it. The best I can come up with is that preping for this capability has been at the expense of something else that is seen to be or may actually be more important.

 
I have heard grumblings that some quite senior elements within the RAAF believe that the capability provided by the Growler would be of no real value and that the RAAF in actual fact is too small to support such a specialised capability. But then again I have spoken to Infantry Officers who see no value in Armour, Skimmer Officers who believe Submarines are beyond the RAN's ability to operate effectively and of course RAAF Officers who can't see why the Army and RAN would posibly need to operate their own aircraft.

lots of other things to be included in the big picture but CLM rules prevail.  of course the knucks think its wonderful but they only have to worry about driving them etc....
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       3/16/2009 6:47:13 AM

The Growler decision making process is one of these things that will look pretty ordinary when the 30 year rule expires in 29.8 years time. 

 

I would love to know the back room goss on this but understand why you can't say.

 

The trouble is wiring a dozen SH's for possible later conversion to Growlers seems like a sensible decission to the uninformed observer and I have been racking my brain trying to think of a down side to it. The best I can come up with is that preping for this capability has been at the expense of something else that is seen to be or may actually be more important.

 

I have heard grumblings that some quite senior elements within the RAAF believe that the capability provided by the Growler would be of no real value and that the RAAF in actual fact is too small to support such a specialised capability. But then again I have spoken to Infantry Officers who see no value in Armour, Skimmer Officers who believe Submarines are beyond the RAN's ability to operate effectively and of course RAAF Officers who can't see why the Army and RAN would posibly need to operate their own aircraft.


Half of RAAF's Super fleet has to fly with hundreds of kilos of useless weight until and if they ever decide to actually equip the things as Growlers...
 
 
That is at least one downside...
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Volkodav   3/17/2009 8:32:28 AM

The Growler decision making process is one of these things that will look pretty ordinary when the 30 year rule expires in 29.8 years time. 

 I would love to know the back room goss on this but understand why you can't say.

The trouble is wiring a dozen SH's for possible later conversion to Growlers seems like a sensible decission to the uninformed observer and I have been racking my brain trying to think of a down side to it. The best I can come up with is that preping for this capability has been at the expense of something else that is seen to be or may actually be more important.

 I have heard grumblings that some quite senior elements within the RAAF believe that the capability provided by the Growler would be of no real value and that the RAAF in actual fact is too small to support such a specialised capability. But then again I have spoken to Infantry Officers who see no value in Armour, Skimmer Officers who believe Submarines are beyond the RAN's ability to operate effectively and of course RAAF Officers who can't see why the Army and RAN would posibly need to operate their own aircraft.


My guess is that Boeing probably did a powerpoint presentation telling Fitzgibbon that wiring the 12 F's as Growlers would be a cheap hedge to maintain our regional edge in the event of a delay in the delivery of the JSF. The downside will be if the Government goes and decides that this boost in capability gives the RAAF enough of an edge that it doesn't need the JSF for a much longer period of time just keeps the legacy bugs going like AD is suggesting they will, with a purchase of perhaps another couple of dozen Supers to replace the older airframes.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Update   3/18/2009 4:01:27 AM

Global Hawk still in sights for RAAF

Patrick Walters, National security editor | March 18, 2009

Article from:  The Australian

THE RAAF still aims to acquire the Global Hawk unmanned surveillance aircraft as early as 2017.

While the Rudd Government has deferred a decision to acquire the highly sophisticated aircraft, the new defence white paper is expected to outline the requirement for a high-altitude long-range surveillance platform.

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon announced earlier this month that Australia would not sign up to the system design and development (SDD) phase of the US Navy's Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) program, which includes the Global Hawk.

The RAAF plans to replace its 32-year-old fleet of Orion AP-3C maritime surveillance planes with a new patrol aircraft, the Boeing P-8A Poseidon, together with unmanned aircraft from later next decade.

Mr Fitzgibbon said the introduction of an advanced new aircraft such as Global Hawk, at the same time as the RAAF was moving to other new fixed-wing aircraft, would have put serious workforce pressures on the defence force.

Budget pressures on defence's forward capital equipment program also contributed to the deferment of acquisition plans for an unmanned surveillance aircraft.

Until this month's announcement, Australia had been co-operating with the US Navy in its development of a broad area maritime surveillance program, based on Global Hawk.

Mr Fitzgibbon said Defence still planned to buy "an uninhabited aerial surveillance system based on the Global Hawk aircraft built by Northrop Grumman".

A Defence spokesman added last night: "Australia's participation in BAMS has been deferred, not cancelled."

Northrop Grumman spokesman Brian Humphreys said yesterday the company remained optimistic the Government would acquire an unmanned aircraft to help with intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

The Global Hawk flies at an altitude of 65,000 feet (19.8km) and can stay aloft for 30 hours, providing high-resolution, near-real-time imagery of large geographic areas.

The US Air Force is planning to deploy the aircraft to the western Pacific.

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/18/2009 4:15:11 AM
there's been a bit more hurt applied within the white paper...  not looking good
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       3/18/2009 5:03:41 AM
I don't think I want to know.
 
We have plent of work that needs to be done but whether there will be the money to do it is another matter.
 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006       3/19/2009 4:17:08 AM
Some big cuts had to happen given the revenue projections I guess, the only thing that I'm happy about is that our potential adversaries will be in the same boat. What do people think about the choices of kit to go? What else do you reckon will get the axe? My bet is Land 17, which will make me even madder at the dickheads who canned the cheap Dutch Pzh-2000 purchase last year because it wasn't to be conducted according to the procurement process.

Although it seems that the Self- Propelled 155mm , will be probably be cut....
 
Just wondering if the Singapore Self-Propelled Howitzer 1 (SSPH 1) Primus was considered?
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       3/19/2009 5:12:06 AM
Another thought, maybe the GFC, or Great Recession as they seem to be calling it now, will actually create some interesting procurement opportunities.
 
What I was thinking along the lines of was some very good, still new, current gen gear becoming available at extremely low prices. PzH-2000 from Germany, Netherlands, Italy or Greece. Get them cheap and then boost our industry though TLS contracts.
 
What else could we pick up for next to nothing as countries are forced to sell off their new gear for extra cash?
 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006       3/19/2009 6:03:54 AM
 
Couple of thoughts:
 
NB: Tried to limit selections, too older system that would have been acquired in large numbers.
 
CV90 Tracked Armoured Combat Vehicles
MLRS Launch Rocket Systems
CH-47 Chinook
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/19/2009 6:38:34 AM
What I was thinking along the lines of was some very good, still new, current gen gear becoming available at extremely low prices. PzH-2000 from Germany, Netherlands, Italy or Greece. Get them cheap and then boost our industry though TLS contracts.

 
we've already seen that boat sail....

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics