By Helen Clark
The country’s huge planned acquisition of the much-maligned fighter has stirred surprisingly little public debate.
Australia has on order 72 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) planes. The problem? For years many have been saying that they’re simply… not very good. Yet public debate over this large purchase has been largely absent, though Canada’s rethink could drive up costs further for other nations.
Defense procurement stories from Australia in 2015 have largely been submarine, submarine, submarine, naval destroyer, submarine. However, between the back-to-back sea defense news and opining there’s one air story worth paying attention to: the large F-35 purchase. Australia is due to buy another 58 after a commitment from Tony Abbott last year, upping the force to a total of 72, at a cost of around A$98 million ($70 million) per plane. The total purchase cost will be, according to the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), around A$12.8 billion, and the same again for upkeep. The F-35s are to replace the RAAF’s 71 Hornets (six Super Hornets are currently in Syria and Iraq).
To replace the fleet of six Collins-class submarines with a dozen new ones may, in contrast, cost between A$25 and A$40 billion, depending on how much of the build will be done in Australia. The total cost of the long running JSF program is some $1 trillion. Nine ally nations are involved.
Since Justin Trudeau took power in Canada, Ottawa has apparently been rethinking its large order of F-35s. This is down to the cost, not efficacy, of the aircraft. And it’s this which has been fuelling debate for years now, since the project was begun almost fifteen years ago.
The F-35 isn’t operational yet, but it’s a big target of hate, and debate. The military blogosphere earlier this year saw an imbroglio over a leaked report suggesting that the F-35 did poorly in mock air-to-air combat against an F-16.
Read the full story at The Diplomat