Derek 2.0

Not at all, the White Paper is to define Australian security needs and procurement through the next decade plus.....operations against the IS are measured in the 10s, perhaps 100s of millions, planned Australian defense spending will be in the tens of billions. Though the South China sea plays into Australian defense needs, their far greater concern (for the last 50+ years) is another Konfrontasi with the 250 million Muslims to their North..........hence their requirement for a organic long range strike capability. Simple, the same reason we started a program to upgrade our Hornets in 2001, spanning most of the "oughts" (and costing over $2 billion), even though we had intended to replace our Hornets starting in 2017 through the early 2020s. I noticed you stopped short on the quote: Furthermore: So this begs the question, why would they cut the program that provides the most "combat capability" over any other investment?

The ALP's defence critic's response was in regards to the ALP's Senate vote in support of the Green motion....... The debate (in Australia) isn't over being able to upgrade all the branches of their military, of that both the Liberal and ALP are in agreement (and continuity of said programs between changes of Governments is a historic given), the debate is over an expansion of capability for a current requirement.......be it additional F-35s (STOVL) in addition to extensive refits to two recently commissioned vessels (Canberra class LHD), doubling the submarine fleet well adding cruise missiles or adding a cruise missile capability to their ANZAC frigate replacement program..........hence the direction of the next White Paper, going into an election year.............The replacement of the RAAF's hornets with F-35s isn't up for debate, as the program has been fully supported by the Liberals and ALP well both in Government. And I gave you the official response for the Obama administration Pentagon, all programs will be under review in the lead up to the 2016/17 budget. Singapore's continual upgrade of the F-16 fleet is but a truism of any operator of modern fighters, no different than our extensive upgrade to our Hornets a decade ago (or the current program for the Americans F-16 fleet), which is reflective of the requirement for a mid-life upgrade to maintain a current fighter fleet...........based on the RSAF's F-16 fleet's age, there is no indication they intended to replace them anytime soon......... As said, our Hornet IMP program, started in 2001 (lasting through the decade) was no indication, then, that we didn't intend to replace our Hornets.....

Waldo, the ALP supports (when in Government bought the initial aircraft) the F-35 program: Conroy even visited the production line in Forth Worth several months ago There is no spin, this is direct relation to the previous Liberal MND that suggested the shipbuilder (ASC) couldn't "build a canoe", which resulted in ALP picking up a traditionally Liberal seat (Fisher), which propelled the South Australian ALP government from minority to majority status. Since then, there is speculation that the federal Liberals will reduce and build the new subs overseas, which was the previous federal ALP government's preferred option to fill the future long range strike requirement....... White washed or reality, in that all defense programs receive an annual spending review......... No, the RSAF replaced their 1960s era A-4 Skyhawks and a portion of their 1970s F-5 fleet, with F-15s a decade ago, the remainder of their F-5 fleet is to be replaced with the F-35B, as their F-16s would have little utility going forward with their navies LHD program.......their F-16s, some less than 20 years old (contrasted with our 30+ year old Hornets), have a decades+ life left in them (easily) and their replacement shouldn't be expected until the late 2020s or early 2030s.

A review of a second F-35 purchase to meet the Australians long range strike requirement........a requirement that the ALP feels should be submarines (with cruise missiles) built in ALP ridings. Context Waldo: Not at all, its simply dovetailing on the USAF's F-16 fleet upgrade, a fleet that the RSAF is fully integrated with: Hence why a RSAF 425 squadron F-16 has a Luke AFB tail code.......Luke AFB being in Arizona, not Singapore......funny enough, Luke AFB also has another growing tenant...... And as I said, the RSAF will be/has been replacing their far older F-5 fleet, procured in the 1970s vice their F-16 fleet obtained in the late 80s through the 90s........

Apples to oranges....... . Enough to replace our current F-15C fleet

You mean the Green Party.....backed by ALP coming up into an election, with current Government favoring a smaller submarine purchase (built in a Labor bastion). Boeing Mesa "Push back"? Odd, since the RSAF will replace their far older F-5s with the F-35 first........upgrading their current F-16s is simply a reflection of their close relationship with the USAF, and their desire to keep their fleet current.

Exactly, and said technology is hardly groundbreaking........the F-14 Tomcat was one of the first major users of such systems, used operationally for decades, and the limitations of such systems are well known.......and funny enough, the Tomcat's IRST system was produced by Lockheed, that has been making such systems for decades..........one would think, if IRST was a viable long range sensor, somebody would have produced a matching long-range missile......like the Phoenix missile used on the F-14........

........on infrared and optical sensors. On a clear day with next to no humidity........and of course, doesn't have the ability to engage said target at said range.......because IR missiles (like the sidewinder) don't have such ranges. No need, since said SAM had an IR seeker head, and the Serbs placed all their launchers along the narrow corridor that NATO was using to enter and exit the country. Any aircraft with fly-by-wire is a "compromised air frame". The air frame itself will last as long as comparable aircraft, dependent on use, but the electronics will be continually upgraded through software versus legacy types that receive costly mid life upgrades. But you couldn't be getting a line from forced fed my makers of other aircraft with their jobs and financial worth on the line.......have you considered with the Gripen NG, since you speak to it so much, that there are currently more F-35s flying then there are orders by the Swedes and Brazilians for the Gripen NG? Or that without future orders, Boeing will be shutting down it St Louis plant that produces the Super Hornet and Eagle? Or the French military, because of delays (like decades) resulting in massive price increases can't afford to continue to produce the Rafale without outside orders? And maybe, just maybe, a handful of bloggers and historic critics of any military spending don't know a fraction of what is known about the program by numerous air forces and renowned aerospace giants? Do you think the Russians and Chinese, both also relying on export orders, would market their products as decades less capable? Inversely, if Stealth were dead, why are the Russians and Chinese attempting to develop their own stealth aircraft?

And that is why the F-35 has passive sensors that don't give off emissions. Infrared detection is constrained by both distance and relative humidity........and of course, unlike legacy aircraft, the F-35 has the benefit of modern technology to help reduce its signature, including using its own fuel as a heat sink...unlike legacy aircraft. Airborne infrared systems are limited to ~10km and can't target radar guided missiles........versus the F-35's DAS, that is capable of tracking something as small (and fast) as a artillery shell......well being able to target the aircraft's missiles in a 360* degree sphere around the aircraft, making the F-35 the first aircraft able to target other aircraft above, below and behind it: Low frequency radars can't target or guide missiles........full stop. Have you considered the bloggers and handful of critics are wrong, and that despite marketing efforts by legacy aircraft makers, the F-35 partner nations might, just might, know what they're doing? No mater whose stock prices suffer?

The early (forced) retirements of the destroyers (and AORs) addressed many of said issues in the interim......but like any Western Force, technical trades will always be in increasing demand......oddly enough, a surplus of young Canadians with educational backgrounds in poetry, history and women's studies etc won't address this............hence the drive (by all navies) to reduce crew sizes and increase living standards aboard ship and at home (in hope of increasing retention rates).

And your statement is further misleading, as the extensive cost overruns with the Hobart program are directly attributed to the shipyard (that to save money, hired new tradesmen apprentices, resulting in over 90% of the workforce never having built anything) and Navantia (the Spanish company that designed the vessels) refusing to join the build consortium out of fear of losing its profit share........ In essence, you had the ships designer hand over the blue prints, walk away and leave the vessels construction up to kids out of high school........what could go wrong? The cost of the systems to go into the ships remained the same (like the current projected costs in our program), but labor and project management costs exploded.........like what Irving is saying what will happen (doubling the cost) with them before the final design has even been selected........it would be akin to hiring a plumber to redo your bathroom, and after reaching a rough estimate, the plumber returns and says the price doubled because he doesn't have the experience to do the job.

Yeah but paying ~$ 500 million for a ship that has problems detecting low flying aircraft/UAVs (without tracking data from an AEGIS destroyer), let alone engaging said threats, has a limited ability to detect a torpedo or sea mine (let alone subs), has next to no survivability when compared to similar size vessels and its projected range/fuel economy was cut in half in reality, is not a good use of money...... The only thing the LCS can currently do well (and not much more with the improved frigate) is defend itself against swarm attacks by speed boats, launch and recover its RHIBs at speed and support a helicopter........and we have far more requirements than that. Edit to add: I do agree, some of the costs of the shipbuilding program should be looked at as National infrastructure spending though.

It isn't that simple........

Exactly, though they aren't "cheap" (and I'm sure you're looking at ~25-50% price increase for the proposed frigate), they would represent a reduction in operational costs (compared to our current frigates) and could fill a role in conjunction with actual warships.......a low-medium-high mix of 6-8 AOPS, 6-8 LCS/FF and 4-6 DDG would be workable, and though it would still represent a considerable investment, would result in a reduction in through life costs..........

Exactly, they could do (very well) some of the missions we require, but not most.

Defend itself from modern surface, sub-surface and aerial threats, in addition operate in Northern Atlantic and Pacific storms/weather.

It doesn't, as it lacks the ability to defend itself in an environment with modern anti-ship missiles........but then, in USN service, there would be a cruiser or destroyer providing said defenses.

Exactly, the LCS is a system of systems, designed to fill into a niche role of the USN.......and based on the approval being granted to develop and procure a larger version, to replace the OHP frigates, it should be noted that even the USN finds it wanting in some of the roles it had hoped it would fill.

It doesn't, and the intended role of the LCS class wouldn't meet the (current) requirements of the RCN. The LCS will eventually be a worthwhile vessel for a navy that is able to support it with other vessels able to cope with modern realities. It could, but then the frigate version isn't fully developed, as such, would be difficult to determine the actual cost and if it would meet the requirements of our navy. With that said, if bought in combination with actual warships, it could be a viable choice bookended by the AOPS on the low end and a modern DDG on the higher end..........but I doubt any Government will procure vessels built outside of Canada.

Exactly, likewise any vessels procured from Canadian industry.

Ahh no..........and the Defence Acquisition Guide: I've provided the budget, the agency that awards public tenders, the DND material acquisition guide, the (previous) Government's defence acquisition guide and the law encompassing Government procurement.......... I'm going to ignore you now, since its obvious you're just attempting to troll/bait.

In the overall defense budget...........remember when Harper destroyed the military but cutting its budget, resulting in ships, aircraft and trucks sitting idle? Again, from the same link:

You mean the chart that showed previous items procured on behalf of the DND by Public Works......including the contract for the AOPS?

Actually, no, it doesn't......... A ~half billion annual budget to provide from everything from fuel, hotels, catered meals, charted bus & flights, contracted out repairs etc does not make a budget for procuring new warships

And now it seems the gun control camp is not only making up facts to support their agenda, but words: I wonder if one needs a tax stamp for a "multiautomatic round weapon"?