Follow along for some stories of Australia’s new aircraft for the RAAF.
Some fun history on the Super Hornet’s old wing drop issue now fixed. Well it is kinda fixed. A few years ago they took a test bird and put wing fences on it to see if it could help the poor wing performance.
From the following source: Pieter M. Groenendijk, Pioneering at Pax, Combat Aircraft, Vol.7, No. 8,September 2006:
-In August 2003, new flight test programs began, aimed at reducing buffet levels and determining a final wing configuration while maintaining the elimination of wing drop. Multiple wing fence configurations were tested and finally, a 5in tall, full-chord wing fence with a solid wing-folding door and a saw-tooth leading edge flap was selected.-
The article shows a test Super Hornet with red wing fences on it. What were the follow-on results? Unknown. Either there wasn’t enough money to refit the Super Hornet fleet with wing fences or it just wasn’t worth the money given the low threat environ the jet flies in today. Wing fences if installed could also goof the effect of its’ low observable appliances.
Then there is some other fun reading from Bill Sweetman. He is a highly skilled writer on military aviation issues. Some military organizations even quote his work.
-Bill Sweetman, Just How Super is the F/A-18E/F?, Interavia Business & Technology, April 1, 2000-
-The Navy and Boeing have intensified a propaganda campaign. Unfortunately, the campaign is likely to damage their credibility in the long term, because it focuses on a few basic statements which don’t mean anything like as much as the casual reader is meant to think.
For example: “The airplane meets all its key performance parameters.” This is true. In 1998 — as it became clear that the Super Hornet was slower, and less agile at transonic speeds than the C/D — the Navy issued an “administrative clarification” which declared that speed, acceleration and sustained turn rate were not, and had never been, Key Performance Parameters (KPP) for the Super Hornet. Apparently, some misguided people thought that those were important attributes for a fighter.-
-Bill Sweetman, Watch Your Six Maverick, Interavia Business & Technology, February 1, 2000-
-The Navy’s operational evaluation (Opeval) of the Super Hornet ended in November, and the report is expected late in February. It will probably find the Super Hornet to be operationally effective and suitable, because the impact of any other recommendation would be devastating, but the Navy will have to do some deft manoeuvring to avoid charges that the report is a whitewash.-
-Bill Sweetman, Super Hornet gathers speed, but critics keep pressure on, Interavia Business & Technology, March 1, 1999-
-The Pentagon has conceded that the MiG-29 and Su-27 can out-accelerate and out-turn all variants of the F/A-18 in most operating regimes, and that the E/F in turn cannot stay up with the older C/D through much of the envelope.
Navy data from early 1996 (published in a General Accounting Office report) showed that the new aircraft was expected to have a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the late-production (Lot XIX) F/A-18C/D with the General Electric F404-GE-402 engine. Its maximum speed in a typical air-to-air configuration would be Mach 1.6, versus Mach 1.8 for the smaller aircraft. In the heart of the air-combat envelope, between 15,000 and 20,000 feet and at transonic speed, the Lot XIX aircraft would hold a specific excess power (Ps) of 300 ft/sec out to Mach 1.2, while its larger descendant could not hold the same Ps above Mach 1.0.-
So, those are some of the things Defence would prefer that the taxpayer who is shelling out $6.6 billion dollars for this bad purchase decision, not know. The U.S. Congress was lied to in order to be convinced to fund the Super Hornet. They were told: “It’s just an upgrade”. This allowed Super Hornet to bypass the first step in procurement for a new type of aircraft which essentially Super Hornet is. After that the program had a lot of engineering fixes to perform.
This leads to where the Super Hornet is today in it’s Block II form: Great avionics with poor airframe performance to back it up.
What a drag the new Super Hornet is.With Brendan Nelson only with 18% popularity compared to Malcolm Turnbull’s 30%+ I would think we know why the Super Hornet is such a drag. The Liberal Party is a drag now too with Nelson being the leader.
Please, G-d, kill the Shornet deal.
God would be about the only being who could kill the Rhino deal. Not even the Labor Party is intending to do that…
If Nelson’s strategy was to buy the Super Hornet:: to keep the US sweet (by keeping up our payments on the ANZUS Treaty): improving Australia’s ability to bail out of the premature JSF Turkey (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-35-jsf-hit-by-serious-design-problems-04311/ ) commitment, and: playing for time till the US finally releases the F-22 (by then a multirole version) to us around 2016.Then Dr Nelson may indeed be a wise man.I’m always sceptical at arguments that Nelson’s Super Hornet decision sucks because it didn’t go through all the Defence decision making hurdles. Note how well decided was the Collins, the 2 man Kaman and the Tiger helicopter.Pete
Nelson’s “Strategy” is that he was clueless on these matters. The following song best describes his legacy to Defence:“Walking Contradiction” by Green DayDo as I say not as I do becauseThe shit’s so deep you can’t run awayI beg to differ on the contraryI agree with every word that you sayTalk is cheap and lies are expensiveMy wallet’s fat and so is my headHit and run and then I’ll hit you againI’m a smart ass but I’m playing dumbStandards set and broken all the timeControl the chaos behind a gunCall it as I see it even ifI was born deaf, blind and dumbLosers winning big on the lotteryRehab rejects still sniffing glueConstant refutation with myselfI’m a victim of a catch 22I have no beliefBut I believeI’m a walking contradictionAnd I ain’t got no rightDo as I say not as I do becauseThe shit’s so deep you can’t run awayI beg to differ on the contraryI agree with every word that you sayTalk is cheap and lies are expensiveMy wallet’s fat and so is my headHit and run and then I’ll hit you againI’m a smart ass but I’m playing dumbI have no beliefBut I believeI’m a walking contradictionAnd I ain’t got no rightI have no beliefBut I believeI’m a walking contradictionAnd I ain’t got no right
Actually the SH deal may have been the smartest thing Dr Nelson did in his time as Defmin. IF significant problems are encountered with the F-35 the in-service date will be delayed. Even IF the F-22 is allowed to be exported, and this is a MASSIVE if, like it or not, there will be delays with the “export” variant that will need to be developed. I love the JSF haters who like to point out the JSF’s “limited” stealth issues and the “which variant” issue as to which level of capability JSF we’d end up with, but then live in some sort of dream land and think we’ll be getting USAF spec’d F-22′s…Any export F-22 variant is going to take time to design, time to test, time to build and time to ramp up RAAF’s ability to operate the aircraft. Even if ordered tomorrow, I think it extremely unlikely we’d see any F-22 variant by 2015/16. So hypocritical and so blind to reality…Anyway back to the SH’s however, the Bugs ARE running out of airframe life and even if the CBR goes ahead, they will be exhausted by 2016/17. The F-111 cannot fill the role the Hornet covers and extended delays in the F-35 definitely WOULD see us facing a capability gap, even IF the F-111 continued. Any devloping gap therefore could be easily filled by a follow -on SH purchase and whilst people mightn’t like it or think much of it, what would they prefer, RAAF with 4x Squadrons even if some are SH equipped, or fewer overall squadrons, STILL not equipped with whatever shiny widget takes your personal fancy?A follow-on SH purchase would be the cheapest, quickest, most easily supportable and least risky option to fill a gap in delays to either the F-35 or some sort of export F-22 version…Thanks Dr Nelson, you may have actually covered us strategically in this time of “strife”…
Actually the SH deal may have been the smartest thing Dr Nelson did in his time as Defmin. IF significant problems are encountered with the F-35 the in-service date will be delayed. <>Significant problems have already been encountered. Add to that the sales model with nobody buying but the U.S. with the current numbers on the board means total program costs are going to rise. The jet won’t get any cheaper.<>Even IF the F-22 is allowed to be exported, and this is a MASSIVE if, like it or not, there will be delays with the “export” variant that will need to be developed. <>I totally agree with the IF as nothing is absolute with this program. As for the “export” variant”. LM briefed Houston in the U.S.,… well he showed up late so they kinda briefed him. That was years ago .LM was requested to come up with a contingency for a full up as-is F-22 for Australia and a “B” model with anti-tamper. The risk assessement on the anti-tamper has already been done. The HUGE problem with the F-22 export idea is that as of this time there is no setup for Australian industry workshare. … and there is for the F-35 JSF. But yeah first things first. F-22 would first have to be approved. The technical part of it isn’t a big deal. <>I love the JSF haters who like to point out the JSF’s “limited” stealth issues and the “which variant” issue as to which level of capability JSF we’d end up with, but then live in some sort of dream land and think we’ll be getting USAF spec’d F-22′s…<>U.S. DOD to this day has not set up an approval for the export “configuration” JSF. The only thing currently with L.O. material that is approved is Super Hornet the abortion called JASSM, and the JSOW. LM doesn’t get to make L.O. approval decisions. So that is important. Australia doesn’t know what that L.O. profile is yet. Do I think the worst configuration of L.O. for the JSF is a big deal? Maybe not if everything else works but it won’t be going mano-a-mano with S300 threats if they show up in the region… and the briefings showing radar threats that make JSF look like a fuzzball all aspect stealth vs. the reality, ( a weak Bow Tie) is laughable…. but the real challange as I am sure you know is that this thing has a lot more software than F-22 by a large margin. That is a lot of work to do. Add to that all of the tech things that have to be sorted out to make it fly and of course weapons clearance which btw for SDD won’t look anything like that pretty 2006 weapons chart. External drop tanks are gone from SDD. So are a few of the weapons. Flight testing has been cut for SDD. So some weapons clearnace will be post SDD, including the drop tanks if one wants those. Lots and lots of work to do and tons of money involved. <>Any export F-22 variant is going to take time to design, time to test, time to build and time to ramp up RAAF’s ability to operate the aircraft. <>Doubtful as most of the export stuff was figured out. And that only applys to a B model. Australia was briefed on the full up jet Also. Ether model is possible. FMS price and an active production line means it is just like any other FMS deal. Add to that, Australia IS NOT JAPAN OR ISRAEL. Huge risk difference. ABCs have special security preference on numerous things as I am sure you know. <>Even if ordered tomorrow, I think it extremely unlikely we’d see any F-22 variant by 2015/16. <>I agree the delivery date may be up in the air however right now the production line is pumping them out and could close before then. Then of course you have all of the JSF issues already mentioned. I agree that there are a lot of unknowns and no absolute of the politics being favorable<>So hypocritical and so blind to reality…<>You mean like the senior Defence management? <>Anyway back to the SH’s however, the Bugs ARE running out of airframe life and even if the CBR goes ahead, they will be exhausted by 2016/17. The F-111 cannot fill the role the Hornet covers and extended delays in the F-35 definitely WOULD see us facing a capability gap, even IF the F-111 continued. <>If ( big if) F-22 gets picked up the F-111 problem would solve itself. Also IF F-111 stays for years there is the evolved F-111 with BVR. Add to it’s speed and growth room for any electronic system, at least it can run from a threat. Super has to fight in place or die and has limited mobility choice of when and where to pick the fight. <>Any devloping gap therefore could be easily filled by a follow -on SH purchase and whilst people mightn’t like it or think much of it, what would they prefer, RAAF with 4x Squadrons even if some are SH equipped, or fewer overall squadrons, STILL not equipped with whatever shiny widget takes your personal fancy?<>Well with Air6000 trashed … here, where had it been followed through, there would have been backup by who ever came in second place. Since Air 6000 was terminated as a process now there is no sitting alternative plan for F-35 failure in place. This is why a new white paper is needed and the best thing to do is start with a clean sheet of paper. Super was selected on a lie. The lie being that the F-111 would fall out of the sky. Dr Nelsons F-111/Mach 1.5 on the deck statement. Give me a break. Super pressing ahead on this kind of process is poor taxpayer value. Throw something a way that works, patch up has-been classics… order Supers lieing that the F-111 has problems when it is the classics life that has numbered days. Sloppy.<>A follow-on SH purchase would be the cheapest, quickest, most easily supportable and least risky option to fill a gap in delays to either the F-35 or some sort of export F-22 version…<>I guess you don’t define risk as purchasing one of the slowest non-competitive 4th gen fighters to be created. A ham sandwich is easily supportable. What does that prove? The first step is to cancel the retirement of the F-111. Even to all the F-111 haters, they are working airframes. Looking at the flying hours by airframe community, I figure flight restrictions on classic Hornets will show up right after 2012 with CBR going in the dumper. Right now the current process is broken. There is no sense of rushing into some purchase (F-22, Super or otherwise) until some serious Defence flaws are stomped out. Also if you have some pilot contacts. I would check with them. Seems not all is well in happytown. The pilot pipeline for the fast jet community has some real problems, more than what is in the news. Where Super comes up as being “low risk” is that if there is a second buy of Supers, That and the current order of Supers with F-111 going away and the pilot problems, it will be real hard keeping 4 squadrons of fastmovers up. There won’t be enough drivers.Anyway AD, Not picking on you, thanks for taking the time and thanks to Pete for posting too. He has a good blog which is fun reading. <>Thanks Dr Nelson, you may have actually covered us strategically in this time of “strife”…
ELP said:[i]I totally agree with the IF as nothing is absolute with this program. As for the “export” variant”. LM briefed Houston in the U.S.,… well he showed up late so they kinda briefed him. That was years ago .LM was requested to come up with a contingency for a full up as-is F-22 for Australia and a “B” model with anti-tamper. The risk assessement on the anti-tamper has already been done. The HUGE problem with the F-22 export idea is that as of this time there is no setup for Australian industry workshare. … and there is for the F-35 JSF. But yeah first things first. F-22 would first have to be approved. The technical part of it isn’t a big deal.[/i]I’m not so sure about that. Different coatings will have to be developed as the basic shape of the F-22 ain’t going to change. Until they are actually completed it’s a bit rich to say it isn’t a big deal. Problems with the F-22 airframe in it’s USAF spec are currently being discovered despite the development and funding that has gone into already. Changing it is not going to be easy nor cheap nor risk free and there is little to no benefit to the USAF for such a plan unless they get to buy more at some point because of it. A possible FMS sale doesn’t mean we are automatically excluded from the research and development costs, it simply means we are ELIGIBLE for such costs to be exempted and it is the USG’s choice as to whether we pay them or not. If we cancel SH and an F-35 purchase in order to pursue the small F-22 order we could even afford, well I’m not so sanguine the USG would be prepared to wear the cost of developing the F-22 for such ungrateful friends, even IF they allow us to buy it, which of course is the biggest sticking point of the 3 main issues here… An EO/IR targetting sensor IS going to have to be fitted to the F-22 to be suitable for RAAF as our size means we are never going to have “lower tier” assets to conduct this work IF we choose the F-22 option.All this is going to add to the in-service date…[i]U.S. DOD to this day has not set up an approval for the export “configuration” JSF. The only thing currently with L.O. material that is approved is Super Hornet the abortion called JASSM, and the JSOW. LM doesn’t get to make L.O. approval decisions. So that is important. Australia doesn’t know what that L.O. profile is yet. Do I think the worst configuration of L.O. for the JSF is a big deal? Maybe not if everything else works but it won’t be going mano-a-mano with S300 threats if they show up in the region… and the briefings showing radar threats that make JSF look like a fuzzball all aspect stealth vs. the reality, ( a weak Bow Tie) is laughable…. but the real challange as I am sure you know is that this thing has a lot more software than F-22 by a large margin. That is a lot of work to do. Add to that all of the tech things that have to be sorted out to make it fly and of course weapons clearance which btw for SDD won’t look anything like that pretty 2006 weapons chart. External drop tanks are gone from SDD. So are a few of the weapons. Flight testing has been cut for SDD. So some weapons clearnace will be post SDD, including the drop tanks if one wants those. Lots and lots of work to do and tons of money involved.[/i]That’s not exactly true. Check out the RAM panels on the RAN DDG’s that went to the Gulf in 1990/91 for GW1. We didn’t manufacture that ourselves…In addition to which if you speak to a poster on the DT forum by the name of GF-0012 you’ll find out that quite a bit of the signature management on the JSF program has come from Australian industry anyway… I don’t think LO access is going to be the problem for Australia that it is for others, particularly as you point out we are an ABCA nation and just signed a shiny new “technology access” MoU…I am aware that L-M doesn’t make the LO export decisions, it has to be approved through the LOEXCOM process. Australia doesn’t know what the LO profile is yet? I’m not so sure of that. Are you involved in the JSF project office and can say definitively what level of access level 3 customers have? RAAF is…JSF’s will certainly be “going mano v mano” against S-300 or any OTHER battlefield threat if that’s what they have to face. You unfortunately are falling into APA stoogism here thinking that if platform A has a certain amount of power than platform b cannot possibly find a way to defeat it. The argument is akin to arguing that a tank with a 120mm gun cannot be defeated by a man with an anti-tank weapon. On paper the advantages are all with the tank…In reality the man with the ATGW finds a way…[i]If ( big if) F-22 gets picked up the F-111 problem would solve itself. Also IF F-111 stays for years there is the evolved F-111 with BVR. Add to it’s speed and growth room for any electronic system, at least it can run from a threat. Super has to fight in place or die and has limited mobility choice of when and where to pick the fight. [/i]And run it will need to if there’s a fighter of any kind around and it’s unsupported. What an effective capability… It is NOT a fighter and never will be. The missileer idea is the STUPIDEST idea I’ve heard from APA. I won’t even comment on it, other than to say, WHY? If you already have F-22…[i]Also if you have some pilot contacts. I would check with them. Seems not all is well in happytown. The pilot pipeline for the fast jet community has some real problems, more than what is in the news. Where Super comes up as being “low risk” is that if there is a second buy of Supers, That and the current order of Supers with F-111 going away and the pilot problems, it will be real hard keeping 4 squadrons of fastmovers up. There won’t be enough drivers.[/i]RAAF is subject to market forces like ANY other airforce. 2 years ago, RAAF was actually ABOVE it’s scheduled complement of pilots. I suspect you are referring to RAAF sending it’s latest batch of pilots to Canada for flight training?Well expect more of it until the PC-9′s are replaced and a proper wholistic system can be introduced…
Thanks A.D. Yes there is some “chicken” or the “egg” on things but F-22 doesn’t need EOTS right away if F-111 stays. Don’t forget there is the space for the right and left cheek arrays that are not in there also. Don’t know about upgrading the F-111 BVR as being the “stupidest” idea. I would hand that to the people that did all the false fearmongering claiming it needed to be retired so soon.Super was a FMS deal F-22 could also. USAF is eager to keep the F-22 line open, especially now with 450 A-D F-15s in trouble for the third time. Again the original F-22 brief for Australia was for a A model and a B model. A detailed plan will show IF there is a lot of work to do to secure the manufacture of a B, IF that is the one selected. Of course then again there is that big IF, if it is even allowed to be in RAAF service. As for the JSF export L.O. ability. The U.S. taxpayer has already just shelled out almost a billion under two different contracts to make multiple “configurations” of the JSF where that word means different L.O./security profiles. So GF is now on the DSTO team and cleared to brief such things? I thought he was a DOD contractor. Not sayng he doesn’t know just some good info you mentioned about “quite a bit of the signature management on the JSF program has come from Australian industry anyway.” That is a steep claim. re: Aus contribution to the L.O. profile. Going back to the L.O. profile of JSF, the ability of that to go up against S-300 like threats including anything under 8 GHz would be fun to see. It is made to be “affordable” and the safest technology that can be exportable by the U.S. Narrowband stealth isn’t going to save it from non X-band threats. As for the pilots, well a normal ebb and flow would be nice to have.
ELP said, <>Thanks A.D. Yes there is some “chicken” or the “egg” on things but F-22 doesn’t need EOTS right away if F-111 stays. Don’t forget there is the space for the right and left cheek arrays that are not in there also. Don’t know about upgrading the F-111 BVR as being the “stupidest” idea. I would hand that to the people that did all the false fearmongering claiming it needed to be retired so soon.<>You’re welcome brother…
Once again the F-22/EOTS thing comes back to the size of our force. We are not large enough to be able to “cover” such things. 17x F-111 are NOT going to cover the multitude of strike, CAS and maritime strike tasks expected of ADF.Purchasing more sounds easy, but as I understand, the best remaining F-111 airframes at AMARC (G models) were bought in 1991 by us already. ADF I think, has learnt it’s lesson about buying dodgy second hand platforms from the US, with HMAS Manoora and Kanimbla… On top of which, F-111 needs a huge upgrade in almost every facet to be useable in a modern conflict and this extends to the Pavetack system, just as much as it does the radar, engines, combat system, EWSP, communications, weapons etc. AUP is all well and good, but come 2010 the equipment itself will be nearly 15 years old and the technology more like 20 years old. Are the well documented troubles RAAF has had with AGM-412 going to suddenly disappear just because APA says it will? They were saying the same stuff in Aus Aviation in 1999, before the AGM-142 integration even commenced and yet were subsequently proven wrong, by the major issues with that program. The cost of the AGM-142 and targetting pod was the lesser amount of the AUD$600m it has cost to integrate this one weapon system and six years work has been required to make the thing work at all from the F-111.Of course the far more extensive and complex upgrade proposed by APA will go perfectly smoothly won’t it? No doubt Australian Defence Industry and DMO which has done such a magnificent job on HUG (admittedly the best of a bad bunch to date), FFG-UP, M-113AS3/4, AP-3C Orion upgrade, the AGM-142 onto F-111 itself and even F-88 Steyr rifle modifications is up to the task too…I don’t believe the F-111 is going to fall out of the sky any time soon, but I do believe it’s passed it’s day. Upgrading it, even if the program went completely smoothly, which is highly speculative at best, would simply be throwing good money after bad.If we can get the F-22, why do we need the F-111 any longer? The F-22 with long ranged weapons (the integration of which could be paid for with the alternate F-111 upgrade monies) will match the strike range (as opposed to ferry range) of the F-111, which is the aircraft’s only signicant feature which can’t be found on other tactical aircraft.The only potential winner if our few defence dollars were ploughed into such a white elephant would be APA, in the expectation of it’s big fat DoD upgrade contract…GF is a contractor and a consultant. He works in the signature management field and knows his stuff. He doesn’t work at DSTO and knowing what has been used to make the JSF as LO as it is, and knowing the classified tabulated data relating to the aircraft are two completely separate things…I’m sure the USAF is as keen as mustard to keep the F-22 line open, they are roughly 200 F-22′s short of where they’d like to be, but they don’t control the purse strings, Congress does and there’s no guarantee they’ll be opened any time soon. re: F-35 and S-300/400 whatever Russian SAM system you like. It is a threat. Plain and simple. If America went to war against an S-300 equipped foe tomorrow you’d see F-16/F-18′s going against it. Like any other threat, ways can and will be found to deal with it. The same sort of comment was made in regards to the “deadly” SAM system in Vietnam, the middle east, Serbia etc. Ways are found to deal with such threats, even by those who aren’t blessed with LO aircraft…RegardsAD
Hi AD. Well at any rate. The slated Supers are right on schedule. Yeah I know there have been several Defence industry goofs, but that isn’t any reason to give up on it. AGM-142 yeah well, not one of my favorites for reliability. It wasn’t a big gift in the B-52 qualification days. I’m not the biggest fan of the older man in the loop stuff an maybe if anything it will serve as a warning to networked just in time retargeting of SLAM-ER, JASSM etc. Anyway yeah there are enough goof ups to go around in industry and Defence but I think it is curable and Australia does have skills in country, they just happen to be doing other things that make real money. We also know that Defence has some difficulty writing a contract that is actually useful. Example while I like the Bushmaster, the original contract for it was not so well written. It caused problems for Defence early on when they wanted to crack the whip on the vendor but the contract wasn’t written to allow that. Fortunately today, Bushmaster is pretty excellent for what it is.There are many other examples. And yes there are success stories but the fact that Australia isn’t the U.S. or such means that a billion dollars is actually real money. Then of course I’m not telling you anything you don’t know about DMO. The idea that someone like Air Marshal Houston has to actually go with hat and hand and seek approval from some of these overstuffed beaurcrats is a bad idea. He is the boss, with rank comes responsibility. He should be able to dictate how money flows with more control over it. What would you do?
Hi ELP,<>what would you do?<>Get rid of the Diarchy and make the Chief of the Defence force solely responsible for Defence (to the Minister of course). At present it is too easy for Defence to be able to point to someone else and say, wasn’t me…With respect to contracts. This is a tricky proposition. Sometimes DMO contracts have penalties attached for poor contractor performance, sometimes they don’t. According to ANAO, it is mostly older contracts that don’t have these, Bushmaster fof course being one such “old” contract. Newer ones such as the Tiger ARH contract have penalty clauses and in fact the contractor has had to pay penalties already in relation to that specific project. Given the complete lie they told about the through life support costs of the Tiger helicopter, it’s possible they will receive more contract penalties. Enough to reduce their profit margin perhaps so that other contractors will think twice about pulling the same stunt…On top of this, DMO has sometimes not been able to enforce penalties in contracts that do have them, because of precariously balanced Defence Industry (ie: if penalties enforced, the company might collapse and defence will get nothing for it’s investment). Other times Defence has been able to negiotate other more favourable outcomes instead of applying penalties including faster delivery and greater quantities of deliverables. It is a complex area and very much a case by case instance I believe. I doubt there is a simple panacea for the issue though…WRT Australian Defence Industry, there certainly are success stories and Bushmaster is one, though of course it was designed in Ireland by Timoney and there have been problems, some of which you’ve alluded to, but the end result is a fantastic vehicle that has come “right in the nick of time” for the types of operations we are currently conducting and is well matched to Peace enforcement operations in Australia’s “arc of responsibility”. Major upgrade programs seem to be Australian Defence Industries limit though. I cannot think of one major upgrade program that has gone smoothly over the last 15 years in relation to Australian Defence matters, and this I think, has made Aus Governments “gun shy” of similar future upgrade plans.The “uber” F-111 would be the most complex upgrade out of all of these. I think it’s a risk too far and totally unnecessary…