Australia's Review of the Defence Annual Report 2010-2011

Here are the transcripts of the proceedings and a few nuggets of gold.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... arings.htm

The transcripts for the LM presentation have not been put up yet, but here is some info from the Defense Department's reply to the APA/RepSIM info:

1. A lot of classified info could not be discussed.

2. 11k pages of data is shared with Partner nations PER MONTH about the JSF.

3. The "fuel leak" from the first Eglin AFG flight was rainwater that has seeped into the panels.

4. The F-35 has been tested up to 9.88G

5. Up to 650 parameters use to ID a potential threat. For comparison's sake, the F-22 has a third of that. Talk about Situational Awareness.

SWP thanks. Looks like this is the relevant PDF?:

PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE
Department of Defence annual report 2010-11 (Public) FRIDAY, 16 MARCH 2012

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... 8e/0000%22 (.8Mb)

Starting from Page 56 seems relevant?

Yes, and there are a few juicy bits beforehand too. Just search for "JSF".

A few more things between the lines in that transcript:

- AIM-120 PK is significantly higher than the 50% when fired by the F-35 during simulations
- F-35 consistently wipes the floor with Su-35's in high detail simulation even with expert pilots on the red team
- The 2 missile (1xIR , 1xRadar) combo touted by APA so often does not work as well as APA "guesses" it does due to F-35's signature reduction measures (IR and Radar)
- Confirmation that even though you know F-35's are in the area (low band radar), you can't engage them which is the whole issue when fighting stealth aircraft
- F-35's MADL automatically routes the datalink between aircraft so as to not fire the beam directly at the enemy when connecting to the aircraft up front

Sounds like its a thorough debunking of APA's child like simulations. You could say they have been officially smacked down and their credibility counts for nothing now. (not that they had much before of course.

Bet you won't se a certain journalist whose initials are B.S report on this story!

Oh and this, this right here is very important. - "F-35 consistently wipes the floor with Su-35's in high detail simulation even with expert pilots on the red team"

We really owe APA and REPSIM thanks as we now know a bit more about the F-35 than we did previously. They have been exposed for the world to see and it shoukd be obvious that they're not qualified to play in the same league as the big boys. As for Jensen, a pitiful performance. It's incredibe how he seems to disregard the military professionals who are in the loop in favor of the disenfranchised malcontents hissing from the bleachers.

fat_cat wrote:Sounds like its a thorough debunking of APA's child like simulations. You could say they have been officially smacked down and their credibility counts for nothing now. (not that they had much before of course.

Bet you won't se a certain journalist whose initials are B.S report on this story!

Oh and this, this right here is very important. - "F-35 consistently wipes the floor with Su-35's in high detail simulation even with expert pilots on the red team"

B. S has sources in the Euro fighter industry. he knows what happens to that industry once F-35 production gets going so he wants to everything he can to kill it.

Boycott certain pubs until they don't allow this kind of thing to continue.

It took them 7 days to translate the first part (the meeting on the 16th), so maybe the LM section will be done today.

I just checked the page and the LM transcripts are not up... what the heck, I'll email them for info.
.
.
.
Holy krap, they answered within 30 minutes and posted the LM transcripts (take note LM & JPO at their level of public openness and response):

PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE
Department of Defence annual report 2010-11 (Public) Tuesday 20 March 2012, 5.50pm - 6.30pm

Witness List wrote:ACTING CHAIR = Dr Jensen
BENTLEY, Air Cdre (Rtd) Graham Mitchell, Director, International Business Development Australia, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
BURBAGE, Mr Charles Thomas (Tom), Executive Vice President and General Manager, F-35 JSF Program Integration, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
LIBERSON, Mr Gary Maxim, Technical Lead Operations Analysis, Strategic Studies Group, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
McCOY, Mr Bradley Kent, F-22 and F-35 Strategic Analysis, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... 70/0000%22

Quotable Quotes
(Page numbers given are in reference to the PDF page, not the printed page number of the document)

Pg.6 Tom Burbage wrote:The F35 configuration that Australia will take delivery of in 2014 is identical to the configuration of the US Air Force.

Can we finally put this "export model" BS to bed?

Pg.6 Tom Burbage wrote:More than 80 per cent of all of our airborne software is flying today and all of our sensors are demonstrating the required performance. The implementation of the multilevel security design did in fact require approximately three more months than originally planned; however, recovery plans have been developed and implemented. We expect to recover two of those three months by mid-year and all three by the end of the year.

Pg.7 Tom Burbage wrote:By September of this year, we expect to have block 2B, as we refer to its software, which is the software that marines will take as their initial operational capability to be flying in our test aircraft.

Pg.9 Mr Liberson wrote:Our current assessment that we speak of is: greater than six to one relative loss exchange ratio against in four versus eight engagement scenarios—four blue at 35s versus eight advanced red threats in the 2015 to 2020 time frame.

Pg.10 Mr Liberson wrote:And it is very important to note that our constructed simulations that Mr Burbage talks about without the pilot in the loop are the lowest number that we talk about—the greater than six to one. When we include the pilot in the loop activities, they even do better when we include all of that in our partner—

Pg.10 wrote:ACTING CHAIR: Post 2015 and 2020 you have stealth on stealth. How are you going to kill either PAC FA or J20?

Air Cdre Bentley: We cannot answer that question, just as we cannot answer the threat question, because we get into classified areas very, very quickly.
ACTING CHAIR: It seems to be a very convenient excuse.

Air Cdre Bentley: No, it is not an excuse. All of the defence officials who are appropriately cleared in all of the nations that are participating in this country know exactly what we have briefed, what those briefings entail and what the analysis entails, and they have chosen F35. If you are purporting to be a huge—

ACTING CHAIR: So what you are saying is, 'Believe us; we've got all the classified data in a brown paper bag'—

Air Cdre Bentley: Believe the nine best air forces in the world as far as their operators and their analysts are concerned and I think that you will come to realise that it is not us telling the story; it is them telling the story to their governments and their governments making a decision to go forward with this aeroplane.

Pg.11 Tom Burbage wrote:If you look at the STOVL jet and you look at our weight charts, which you are more than welcome to see, we have now gone two years without any weight increase on the STOVL jet, and that is while accommodating engineering changes to the doors, which we have replaced with heavier doors, and other changes that were made to the airplane. We manage the weight very tightly on that airplane—for good reasons, because it needs to be. The other two airplanes are not as sensitive to weight. We are actually probably several thousand pounds away from the first compromise of the performance requirements of those two airplanes.

So much for no growth margin

Senator FAWCETT: I have one last question, if I can. Speaking of the key performance indicators, obviously for the overall program they are cost, schedule and performance. In cost and schedule we have seen a number of changes and rebaselining to allow for things that have happened. In terms of the KPIs against your original ops requirement document—you do not have to disclose which ones have not been met—but at this point in time have all of the original essential requirements from the ORD been met?

Mr Burbage: We have 16 key performance parameters on this airplane. Half are logistics and sustainment-related, half are aeroperformance-related and one or two are in classified areas. We have an oversight body called the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, the JROC, that looks at those requirements every year and makes decisions on them—'Are we going to meet them, are we not going to meet them? If we are not going to meet them, what is the impact of that?' We have one this year which was the range of the Air Force airplane which had a specific set of ground rules associated with how that range is calculated which is not similar to either of the other two airplanes. The airplane flies a large part of its mission at a non-optimised altitude in the original calculation. The JROC agreed to change the ground rules to fly that airplane as the other two were flown and, when that happened, the airplane had excess margin to the range requirement. For any performance-related requirements, we artificially penalise the engine by five per cent fuel flow and two per cent thrust. Those margins are given back as we mature the design and get more and more solid on exactly what it is going to do. They are there for conservative estimation up front. We have not taken back any of those margins yet so, when those margins are taken back, the airplane will continue to be well in excess of its basic requirement. The airplane is meeting all of the other requirements today.

Senator FAWCETT: So have those requirements like schedule and cost been rebaselined, or are they are still the original ORD?

Mr Burbage: Schedule and cost are not KPPs. I thought you were talking about performance.

Senator FAWCETT: No, I recognise that. You have rebaselined schedule and cost as you have gone along. What I am asking is have the KPIs been rebaselined and does the statement you just made apply to today's KPIs or does it also apply to the original ones?

Mr Burbage: To the original set. Today, all the KPPs are green because that ground rule was changed to be common across all three airplanes on the range. But we have not taken back the margins that are being withheld to make sure those performance predictions are conservative. We are not going to have degraded engines. We basically measure our performance characteristics with a highly-degraded engine capability. Our actual flight test information coming back from the engine is better than nominal. These calculations are not done using actual airplane test data. They are done using an artificial penalty that gets paid back as the design matures.

Pg. 15 Dr JENSEN wrote:What is interesting with this is that the USAF test facility for measuring radar cross-sections and so on is S-band and higher frequencies. So you do not have a test facility for L-band, VHF and so on.

A quick check on the net shows that LM's Helendale RCS test facility has two systems that can test down in the VHF range (Mark Ve and BuleMax).

SWP, thanks again. I wonder if their 'helmut' spellin' has improved (must have been thinking of Helmut Kohl or similar)?

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... 70/0000%22 (0.37Kb PDF)

Can we finally put this "export model" BS to bed?

Highly doubtful with the known critics of the F-35 as honesty and impartiality does not matter one bit for them. They'd much rather continue to spread false information in the pathetic hope that they can cause countries to cancel their order and break up the project.

First RAAF JSFs to cost $130m each
Max Blenkin | ninemsn

"Australia can expect to pay about $130 million each for its first two Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft and an average of about $85 million if it opts to buy 100."

"For Australia, SAR11 indicates Australia's first two aircraft, scheduled for delivery in the US from 2014, will cost about A$130 million, based on 2012 prices and a US1.03 exchange rate.

Each of the first 14 aircraft will average about A$110, in line with previous defence estimates.

Across the entire program of 100 aircraft, Australia can expect to pay an average of $85 million each, compared with a $75 million figure cited in 2008 and based on the less favourable US$0.92 exchange rate."

"In Canberra last week, JSF program head Tom Burbage said Australia could still expect to pay an average $US70 million ($A67 million) with early production aircraft costing more and later aircraft less."

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8443649

Oz Committee heard these points also:

"...Mr. Burbage: More than 80 per cent of all of our airborne software is flying today..."

...By September of this year, we expect to have block 2B, as we refer to its software, which is the software that marines will take as their initial operational capability to be flying in our test aircraft....."

"...Mr Burbage: We have two basic pieces of software in the airplane. We have one that controls the airplane—the flight controls and the systems that run the airplane. The other controls the mission systems. There are two different phases. The one that controls the airplane has been in test for several years. It is very stable. We have not yet aborted a single flight through a software problem. I do not think there is another airplane in the history of flight testing that can have that said of it. On the mission system side we have developed a software in blocks and 80 per cent of our overall software is flying today on the test airplane. We have 20 per cent left to finish. That 20 per cent has gone through the writing and the coding. It has yet to go through integration and tests...."

____________________

"...Mr Burbage: We have 16 key performance parameters on this airplane. Half are logistics and sustainment-related, half are aeroperformance-related and one or two are in classified areas. We have an oversight body called the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, the JROC, that looks at those requirements every year and makes decisions on them—'Are we going to meet them, are we not going to meet them? If we are not going to meet them, what is the impact of that?' We have one this year which was the range of the Air Force airplane which had a specific set of ground rules associated with how that range is calculated which is not similar to either of the other two airplanes. The airplane flies a large part of its mission at a non-optimised altitude in the original calculation. The JROC agreed to change the ground rules to fly that airplane as the other two were flown and, when that happened, the airplane had excess margin to the range requirement. For any performance-related requirements, we artificially penalise the engine by five per cent fuel flow and two per cent thrust. Those margins are given back as we mature the design and get more and more solid on exactly what it is going to do. They are there for conservative estimation up front. We have not taken back any of those margins yet so, when those margins are taken back, the airplane will continue to be well in excess of its basic requirement. The airplane is meeting all of the other requirements today....

...Today, all the KPPs are green because that ground rule was changed to be common across all three airplanes on the range. But we have not taken back the margins that are being withheld to make sure those performance predictions are conservative. We are not going to have degraded engines. We basically measure our performance characteristics with a highly-degraded engine capability. Our actual flight test information coming back from the engine is better than nominal. These calculations are not done using actual airplane test data. They are done using an artificial penalty that gets paid back as the design matures...."
_____________________________

"...Mr ROBERT: What is the total buy across all nine countries in terms of aircraft?

Mr Burbage: The current buy is programmed at 2,443 for the US and about 700 for the eight other participating nations. About 3,143 is the number we use; whether it is plus or minus, that is the number in our planning. In addition to that, we have entered into an agreement with Israel; and Japan selected the aeroplane late last year; and we are in a competition right now in the Republic of Korea. None of those airplanes are in those numbers that I just mentioned....
________________

"...Senator JOHNSTON: The only question I had was on price. There is a lot of scuttlebutt about where the price is going per unit—the fly-away price. What is the situation with Australia and the price? Is it fixed? What is the story?

Mr Burbage: For all of our contracts from here forward—and the first Australian aeroplanes are part of the sixth production line—all of those production lines will be a fixed price. We are in a fixed-price contract today on the fourth production line. The international buy will be added to the US buy and will come to us in terms of a contract, and everybody in that annual buy pays exactly the same thing. So there is not a penny more or a penny less between Australia and the US government—the US Air Force—for that configuration of the aeroplane. We are on a cost-reduction curve. We have come down about 42 per cent over the first four production lots in the fly-away cost of the aeroplane. That ramp gets flatter when the volume does not come to increase the volume because a lot of our factory costs are fixed costs that need to be spread over larger and larger numbers. That is why you will hear me keep saying that production is important: at the practical moment, we need to keep the program on track to get the economies of scale that it has the potential to deliver...."
_________________

"...Mrs GASH: I have a very naive question—I am a female after all. How do we handle the bad publicity that you guys are getting on this aircraft? How do you expect us to handle that when we do not know all the ins-and-outs like you do? I come from HMAS Albatross [NAS Nowra], and you have got a place down there, and I get this regularly—not on a daily basis, but it is fairly regular. How do I answer that?...

...Air Cdre Bentley: I think the urban myths get out there and stay out there, and it is very hard to get rid of them. One of those urban myths, for instance, was that when we landed on an LHD the downwash would blow people off the deck and it would melt the deck. Neither of those things were true. However, we were seeing comments that the aeroplane had scorched the deck, because there was a black mark on the deck. It is very hard to try to convince the sceptics that these things are not happening, and the proof of the capability is being put out there. When you have urban myths on the internet they are always there; you cannot remove those myths from the internet despite what you say...."

Thanks spaz great read

Pg.6 Tom Burbage wrote:

The F35 configuration that Australia will take delivery of in 2014 is identical to the configuration of the US Air Force.

Can we finally put this "export model" BS to bed?

Can we also infer the. RAAF version will use the boom?