Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 848
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post10 Mar 2016, 04:31

archeman wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
but back to Australia. You knew this was coming:

Looking at the foregoing logic chain, Blind Freddie would assess that the
answer to providing Australia, and several other countries in the Western
World, with a superior future air combat capability is to bring the F-22A
Raptor ‘Air Dominance Fighter’ back in production.
To those who say: ‘it can’t be done’, my answer is that USAF has kept all
the production tooling with capacity for several hundred new aircraft to be
built. There is a new, underutilised production line at the JSF production
facility at Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth factory.
Joint Strike Fighter Submission 1
- 13 -
----trimmed----
If the Western World replaced the JSF with an improved Raptor, perhaps
designated the F-22C, and developed a ‘stretched’ two-place F-22E as a
follow-on, the production numbers might look like this:
Country F-22C NGF F-22E
USA 80 260
Australia 30 30
Canada 30 30
Japan 60 60
Korea 40 40
Israel 60 60
NATO 120 120
Totals: 420 600
At a production rate of 100 per year, building this world-dominance fleet
would require 4.2 years for the F-22A and a further 6 years for the F-22E.







Wow --> he even has a brand new Country called "NATO" in here to boost his sales numbers and push down production costs for his theoretical F-22E and F-22A/C (he kept switching between C and A). Where is that country? I am looking over my maps here....

I guess he hasn't been paying attention to how hard it is to get an aircraft to get developed and and purchased by even ONE country let alone jointly given the go-ahead for SEVEN. He was very generous to provide six years to develop and field the stretch version of the F-22E. I think his frame of mind was that you take an Air Superiority airframe and then make it a Not-Air Superiority airframe by inserting a long bulkhead section in with more fuel and I am guessing additional or maybe longer bomb bays??? So now you can't do the Air Superiority thing anymore but you have to buy those parts and glue them on the ends of this bomber bulkhead part. And we do all that because we just like the F-22 sooooo much that we're willing to make it do stuff it wasn't designed to do.

This guy really really likes the F-22 -- but he sees that his country needs a longer legged strike aircraft too, so he just mentally smooshes them together and it all works out.


TWO CAN PLAY THAT GAME


I really like the F-22 too...
And I also really really like Chimichangas.

So I just mentally smoosh them together and now we have national defense and really really fast lunch food delivery.
No more than 6 years to work out the problems with this concept believe me....trust me here :)

F-22FT_FoodTruck.jpg


Damn, those GBU Chimichangas are deadly and tasty :mrgreen:
Offline

endre

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2016, 11:00

Unread post10 Mar 2016, 10:08

New, underutilized production line at Fort Worth? Has he ever been there? The amount of work they are doing there to handle the F-35 ramp-up, it is just insane to claim that they could easily add a F-22 line there.

Wow, where do they dig this stuff up...
Public Affairs, Norwegian F-35 Program Office
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2877
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post10 Mar 2016, 11:23

I don't get the fixation on air-to-air combat. While killing enemy aircraft in the air is nice, killing it on the ground can be much more effective and efficient. Also wars are not fought only in the air. Most combat goes on the surface of the earth and being able to kill things on the ground is extremely important. F-35 is much better at it in most situations than F-22 likely ever will be.

I also don't get the fixation on F-22 for Australia. There is just no way F-22 production would be started just for Australia and I seriously doubt RAAF would want it even if it was possible. Even if F-22 had (and it definitely doesn't) equal production costs, it would have way higher operating costs than F-35 while having way inferior multirole capabilties. I bet most potential threat scenarios for Australia involve threat with ships and ground troops and F-22 is not that good aircraft against these. Australia would then need another aircraft to support F-22 and replace SH. That's not realistic given the limited funds available. Making F-22 multirole would be so expensive that it's even less likely.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23565
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Mar 2016, 11:34

The fixation on an Oz F-22(B) (never available for export and out of production and never considered by the RAAF/Oz Government) is just part of the idiot fringe in Australia - promoted by APA to pander to the 'ABJSF' numnuts. The RAAF have mentioned several times they require a multi role aircraft - the F-35A. End of story, so no need to bring it up except to note that it is a dead story, clubbed like a baby harp seal - sadly zombified - much the same as Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2877
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post10 Mar 2016, 11:48

Yeah, I know the story. I'm just amazed that there are people in Australia whose life's work seems to be promoting F-22(B) and trying to do anything to kill Oz F-35 acquisition. It's scary how many people seem to have zero grasp about reality...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23565
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Mar 2016, 12:04

Don Quixote springs to mind - ABJSF. The two main political parties have been in agreement (with only minor temporary disagreements for political gamesmanship) about the F-35A since the beginning. As noted on this very thread the main opposition party supported the enquiry - but gave no reason for it; whilst supporting the buy wholeheartedly - go figure. Perhaps more will be known during the enquiry about why Labor supported the 'minor parties calling for the enquiry'.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6038
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post10 Mar 2016, 15:23

archeman wrote:
I really like the F-22 too...
And I also really really like Chimichangas.

So I just mentally smoosh them together and now we have national defense and really really fast lunch food delivery.
No more than 6 years to work out the problems with this concept believe me....trust me here :)

F-22FT_FoodTruck.jpg



I was expecting you had added a lift fan, thus satisfying the JSF requirements, and there was thus no need for the JSF. :D

endre wrote:New, underutilized production line at Fort Worth? Has he ever been there? The amount of work they are doing there to handle the F-35 ramp-up, it is just insane to claim that they could easily add a F-22 line there.

Wow, where do they dig this stuff up...


Maybe they mean Marietta, GA? :| LOL I have no clue... lots ot typos too. in a "heat-beat"?

Image
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5454
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post10 Mar 2016, 15:38

Last I head Marietta was switched over to support F-35 production.
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6038
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post10 Mar 2016, 16:24

sferrin wrote:Last I head Marietta was switched over to support F-35 production.


Who knows what goes through their little heads?

The best part about APA is that in a blind taste test, you can't tell them from Lockheed Martin. They literally use the same talking points. APA is just LM circa 2005, rather than the current LM. Yet they RAIL against LM as if it was the devil :devil:

Lets just pretend for a moment APA has a point. Maybe the F-35 isn't sufficient. Maybe there is a scam. Maybe numbers are messaged and Sims rigged... Wouldn't the more logical way to counter that would be with reputable truths rather than inventing your own fake simulations, lying about costs, and other untruths and you know scamming?? :doh:

"listen to our silly Bull$hit, not theirs" :doh: "They are just lying to trick Aus into buying what they want!" :doh: "they aren't grounded in reality!!" :lmao:
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2635
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post11 Mar 2016, 05:22

XanderCrews wrote:
sferrin wrote:Last I head Marietta was switched over to support F-35 production.


Who knows what goes through their little heads?

The best part about APA is that in a blind taste test, you can't tell them from Lockheed Martin. They literally use the same talking points. APA is just LM circa 2005, rather than the current LM. Yet they RAIL against LM as if it was the devil :devil:

Lets just pretend for a moment APA has a point. Maybe the F-35 isn't sufficient. Maybe there is a scam. Maybe numbers are messaged and Sims rigged... Wouldn't the more logical way to counter that would be with reputable truths rather than inventing your own fake simulations, lying about costs, and other untruths and you know scamming?? :doh:

"listen to our silly Bull$hit, not theirs" :doh: "They are just lying to trick Aus into buying what they want!" :doh: "they aren't grounded in reality!!" :lmao:

Under Australian Law, can the APA not be prosecuted for repeatedly lying to the public?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23565
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post11 Mar 2016, 07:32

Submissions 47 to 52 (four only with some missing numbers inbetween) have become available. Sub No. 55 has been there for a week or more. There are now 51 numbered submissions total. ASPI no.47 would be a stand out. Quote below:
Submission to Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee Inquiry into the planned acquisition of the F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)
19 Feb 2016 Dr Andrew Davies and Mr James Mugg Australian Strategic Policy Institute

"Executive summary
We do not see any need to change the program of record at the moment. The F-35 remains the RAAF’s best choice for its future air combat capability, notwithstanding some disappointing program performance to date and the remaining uncertainty regarding unresolved technical issues.

The hedging strategy of the purchase of 24 Super Hornets and the upgrade and life extension of the classic Hornets still provides a few years’ grace, but further delays to F-35 delivery could drastically limit the range of possible responses in the early 2020s, and a capability gap could become a possibility.

Although it might not prove necessary, as a prudent hedging measure we recommend that Defence gather data regarding the window of opportunity for future orders of an additional tranche of Super Hornets, with a view of having a viable ‘second hedge’ strategy....

...The Australian Government’s current options
Broadly speaking, the two options available to the government as of early 2016 are:
1) do nothing other than the program of record: i.e. continue to plan on the successful delivery of the F-35 in time to replace the F/A-18A/B ‘classic’ Hornet in the first half of the 2020s. (The most recent public data is an initial operating capability (IOC) of 14 F-35s by the end of 2020, with the remaining 58 aircraft due for delivery to the RAAF in 2023.)

2) develop a hedging strategy that provides for a second ‘interim’ purchase of aircraft in case the F-35 program is further delayed, beyond the expected lifetime of the classic Hornets...." [There is no evidence of this today]
&
"...Boeing’s informal advice is that it plans to keep production open until 2019 at least, and possible future international sales would extend that date (customers may include Kuwait, India and perhaps even Canada). However, low rate production might result in an upwards variation in price, and there is also the need to take into account the time required for long-lead items to be ordered."

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=409407 (PDF 850Kb 35 pages)
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

krorvik

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 636
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2015, 15:26

Unread post11 Mar 2016, 08:45

KamenRiderBlade wrote:Under Australian Law, can the APA not be prosecuted for repeatedly lying to the public?


It would be a serious hit to free speech as the press sees it, and they would be all over it with much larger force than their F-35 coverage...
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2877
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post11 Mar 2016, 09:07

krorvik wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Under Australian Law, can the APA not be prosecuted for repeatedly lying to the public?


It would be a serious hit to free speech as the press sees it, and they would be all over it with much larger force than their F-35 coverage...


And it would pretty much outlaw current politics and politicians... Hey, wait a minute... :P
Offline
User avatar

krorvik

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 636
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2015, 15:26

Unread post11 Mar 2016, 14:32

That might solve a lot of other problems!
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6038
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post11 Mar 2016, 15:54

KamenRiderBlade wrote:Under Australian Law, can the APA not be prosecuted for repeatedly lying to the public?


They aren't worth the hassle. Seriously. They are more harmful to themselves wasting their lives and retirement than making then "martyrs" once the mean old government sues them for "telling the truth"

They are wasting their own lives. Let them.

At its heart, what makes APA different from any other "this is my favorite airplane and its better than everyone else's for various reasons some more legitimate fanboy site out there?"
Choose Crews
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 1 guest