Read on Twitter
THREAD: Following on from the blog post by @Dr_M_Davis from @aspi_org on the future and the @LockheedMartin #F35, a few thoughts https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australias-air-force-should-already-be-planning-to-replace-the-f-35/
From the top line, the answer’s yes – all those who are already in the #F35 game really should be looking at the “next platform”, it’s part of a true capability lifecycle concept
If you’re not, you risk being one of those countries still fielding a legacy fleet and struggling to meet operational and security requirements. Pic via @vbs_ddps
…Or you’re going to be behind the curve on the next platform, which can mean higher cost or a poorer negotiating position for your own operational requirements. Platform development and fielding cycles are much longer than they were in the 50s-70s.
Joint collaboration and spreading industrial development is now becoming increasingly key to procurement, and helps to offset cost, pass on #economic and #technological benefits, etc.
So planning ahead for lifecycle and “the next thing” is key – it will help ensure combat capability, industrial participation, and perhaps RoI through supply chain.
. @Dr_M_Davis has made some good use of established timelines, stated capabilities, to ask the question about “what next”? This helps us to understand what things might look like in 10 years in terms of project developments, concepts, CONOPS, and more.
In Europe, we’re already seeing this develop, with @TeamTempestUK and the Fr/De/Sp FCAS/SCAF project standing up to develop the next generation combat aircraft. https://www.instagram.com/p/CCvQzriBI-D/
Development of some of the subsystems are a bit behind the curve compared to competitors (e.g. MUM-T in W. Europe vs @Boeing and the #US), but some interesting concepts are emerging...
. @byMBDA for example, has had some good #weapon concepts that were released at #DSEI2019: https://www.mbda-systems.com/press-releases/mbda-offers-insight-into-ongoing-results-of-team-tempest-work/
But, now we come to the #US – the leader in so many aircraft development programmes over the last 60 years.
The #ITAR challenge – despite reforms – may have a chilling effect on future platform development for the #US, as partners want to improve independence, and prospects for #export.
It may also knock out some early stage key development partners and customers, and make any further US 6th gen platform development slower and more expensive.
So to bring this back to the #Australia’n perspective, the question may now be ready to be asked – which future combat capability should @AusAirForce tie its wagon to? As ever, it’s a very political question at this stage, and there’s also going to be some romancing going on.
Despite the long-running prevalence of US systems in the ADF inventory, there has been a turn towards Europe with @boxercrv, @BAES_Maritime, and @navalgroup winning major contracts. Australian experience with these companies over the next decade will drive future engagement.
Interoperability with non-US kit is fine, thanks to NATO standardization efforts, particularly in the EMS and datalink sphere, making it a more open market.
#US delays in getting onto the post-F-35 train (at least publicly) may end up harming the capability development in the near-term, and, ultimately at the 2050 mark. New platform development then may be challenged, and with fewer #exports, more costly.
