Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

[cantaz]

Some of the submissions are hilariously in opposition ("get F-22", "F-22 sucks b/c LM sucks, get F-23"), so they should put all the authors in one room and let them fight it out.

[charlielima223]

Some of the submissions are hilariously in opposition ("get F-22", "F-22 sucks b/c LM sucks, get F-23"), so they should put all the authors in one room and let them fight it out.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-421019/

[spazsinbad]

Back on page 10 of this thread I highlighted the 'non-starter' status of F-22 production.

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=313822&hilit=non+starter#p313822

However I like the ludicrous claims in Submission 8 PDF (2.5Mb) for the GripenE - must be BS in disguise?

[cantaz]

Some of the submissions are hilariously in opposition ("get F-22", "F-22 sucks b/c LM sucks, get F-23"), so they should put all the authors in one room and let them fight it out.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-421019/

I think you're missing the joke.

[spazsinbad]

There is now a small supplement (1.1) to MILLS submission which is just repeats of stuff already on this forum but hey:

http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=407251

[smsgtmac]

RE: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... ee66bc5236

...
Aeronautical engineer Danny Nowlan said advances in radar technology would soon erode the F-35’s stealth capability while the aircraft’s basic design was fundamentally broken and couldn’t be fixed.

I'd like to know how little Danny would have a clue about anything related to advanced fighter aircraft and low observables in particular. His LinkedIn profile has him working nothing but automotive tech jobs except for his first job after getting his undergraduate degree, and that lasted all of FOUR WHOLE MONTHS. Whot a maroon.

[Corsair1963]

RE: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... ee66bc5236

...
Aeronautical engineer Danny Nowlan said advances in radar technology would soon erode the F-35’s stealth capability while the aircraft’s basic design was fundamentally broken and couldn’t be fixed.

I'd like to know how little Danny would have a clue about anything related to advanced fighter aircraft and low observables in particular. His LinkedIn profile has him working nothing but automotive tech jobs except for his first job after getting his undergraduate degree, and that lasted all of FOUR WHOLE MONTHS. Whot a maroon.

Yes, the critic love such sources. Yet, rarely check their backgrounds........Take David Axe and his article on the F-35 Dogfight with the F-16. Yet, nothing in his background makes him an expert on the subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Axe

[vanshilar]

Yes, the critic love such sources. Yet, rarely check their backgrounds........Take David Axe and his article on the F-35 Dogfight with the F-16. Yet, nothing in his background makes him an expert on the subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Axe

There's another wrinkle to what David Axe puts out though. He doesn't frame his articles in terms of analysis, i.e. "I analyzed a bunch of stuff, I'm an expert, and these conclusions are coming from me." Rather, he stuffs words in his sources' mouths, i.e. saying that the F-16 pilot said the F-35 sucks and that the test report said the F-35 sucks at dogfighting when the report plainly said it's testing the F-35's high-AoA flight control laws, or saying that Joiner is badmouthing the F-35 when Joiner in fact is recommending Australia get more connected with the JSF program. So he's not relying on his own expertise or authority per se, but rather, that of the sources that he reports on. That he distorts their intent and the context of their quotes is likely not an accident though.

[spazsinbad]

Useful no.11 submission to see the LM response (excerpted below) and to reiterate: RAAF DOES REQUIRE a MULTI-ROLE FIGHTER no matter what fighterfanboyswetdreamabout.... http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... ubmissions

Submission No.11 to Oz Senate F-35 Enquiry
28 Jan 2016 John R. Peake

"...To ensure that I was balancing my views, and not just siding with the many highly qualified critics of the JSF selection and to thus avoid ‘group think’ ( an undesirable quality often displayed by Defence and the RAAF) I participated in a one to one interview with a Lockheed Martin executive, at their invitation.

The main points conveyed by him were:

1. JSF more stealthy than you think.

2.Unique data fusion giving superior situational awareness. (But details classified.)

3. Clean profile making up for performance( Sukhoi burdened by external stores.) In any case, dogfighting days are over!

4. We know how long it took us to develop our stealth technology so we are not concerned by claims the ‘fifth generation ‘ Sukhoi Pak-­‐FA T50 or the Chinese J-­‐ 20 and J-­‐31 now flying, are really stealthy. We reject any suggestion of hacking of our design dept computer(……sure hope he’s right!)

5. All of the latest ‘available’ aircraft are used in the simulations.

6. So many governments would not be ordering the JSF if they shared these concerns.

7. Lockheed Martin are already working on a replacement F-­‐22 Raptor.

8. RAAF always buy a multi role aircraft as the number one ‘order of battle’ rather than a pure fighter...."

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=408270 (PDF 64Kb 4pages)

[XanderCrews]

Yes, the critic love such sources. Yet, rarely check their backgrounds........Take David Axe and his article on the F-35 Dogfight with the F-16. Yet, nothing in his background makes him an expert on the subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Axe

There's another wrinkle to what David Axe puts out though. He doesn't frame his articles in terms of analysis, i.e. "I analyzed a bunch of stuff, I'm an expert, and these conclusions are coming from me." Rather, he stuffs words in his sources' mouths, i.e. saying that the F-16 pilot said the F-35 sucks and that the test report said the F-35 sucks at dogfighting when the report plainly said it's testing the F-35's high-AoA flight control laws, or saying that Joiner is badmouthing the F-35 when Joiner in fact is recommending Australia get more connected with the JSF program. So he's not relying on his own expertise or authority per se, but rather, that of the sources that he reports on. That he distorts their intent and the context of their quotes is likely not an accident though.

In his defense he has a book to hawk. It's ok to lie and attribute falsehoods for money right?

Right?

Lol at all the people who say anything positive about the F-35 are secret shills, while open shills are given no critism

[spazsinbad]

Here is an anonymous shill Sub No.13 for the Gripen E - gripping stuff - all of two pages and don't bother: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=408386 (PDF 63Kb)
_________________

Sub No.12 by Mr Marcus Kollakides"

"1. About the Author: Marcus Kollakides is a primary producer [of bona fide cow manure] and also proprietor of a web based business for rural services and products. He has a degree in political science and international relations with special interest in defence as it affects the shifting balance of power in the Asia Pacific.
http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=408351 (PDF 193Kb)

I suspect ye doan wanna know - here is the Table of Contents:

"Contents.
1. About the Author
2. Executive Summary
3. Introduction
4. Surely all Great Aircraft Start out with a few Bugs ? [Do tell]
5. About the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
6. What are the basics of a fighter jet ? [F'ed if I know]
7. Deterrent Effect of Air Superiority.
8. F35 Not Stealthy [Oh GAWD!]
9. Hope US F22 Raptors protect our F35 Joint Strike Fighters
10. Weapons.
11. Nothing Can Fix the F35. {Says he!]
12. Scenario of Highest Probability
13. Are there superior alternatives to the F35 ? [Can't wait - YES I CAN ]
13(a) The First Choice:
13(b) Force Structure Problems Affecting our Aircraft Choice.
13(c) How does ADF Force Structure affect our decision About the F35 ?
13(d) The AV-8B II Harrier. [Huh?]
13(e) The Fifth Aircraft. Our Further Future Choice. [Oh come on]
14. Recommendations. "

I want what mr gottabekidding is consuming - crackhorseshite - have a go at this lot:

"...13(c) How does ADF Force Structure affect our decision about the F35 ?
The answer is inter service rivalry.

Years ago Australia placed orders with Navantia of Spain for 2 ships, which have just come into service, the Canberra Class Landing Helicopter Dock Ships (LHD's). These ships are aircraft carriers in all but name. They turned out to be the most cost effective purchases, on time, on budget and almost bug free purchases in the history of Australian defence acquisitions. We have never got so much flexible bang and utility for our bucks.

But these ships had one major problem we were not willing to face. Which branch of the ADF would have the glory of flying the fast jets they could carry. Would it be the old way and we resurrect the RAN Fleet Air Arm ? Or would the RAAF show offs get the nod ?

So while this argument went on, we ordered the ships with the ski jump for jet take-offs, but having an each way bet as we often resort to, these ships would be without the few extra dollars necessary to provide fuel and stores lockers to provide for the jets.

Laughably we are now told by Defence Force spokespersons that "it would have cost more to order the ships without the ski jumps for jet take-offs". As if it would cost more to build a one-storey house than a two storey. Enough said.
The reality was that our own forces inter service rivalry meant we placed a tentative order for the worst performing version of the F35, the B model, which has short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) capabilities.

With these F35 B model jets we were told our troops would have the benefit of close air support and vital fighter cover in the skies above. The F35 B would go aboard our Canberra class ships to bring them up to the same level as their sister ship, the Juan Carlos ship of the Spanish navy with its compliment of Harriers.

We were also told that with the F35B's would give us fleet protection therefore we could send these ships on missions without the benefit of having their own anti aircraft missile defences on-board. When that explanation was greeted with derision, the ADF changed tack and claimed the new Air Warfare Destroyers (AWD's) would accompany the LHD's and protect them against air attack. Argument just reached stalemate. If one accepts though that the AWD argument has some merit though, then the focus must come back to the ships and the complete lack of fighter protection for the fleet or any troops embarked ashore. The very mission these ships were built for.

And these LHD ships or aircraft carriers without aircraft if you like, are the very devil in the minds of some in the Defence establishment. For they are the embodiment of efficiency and integration. They bring together, the medical corps in the ships hospital, the army with its battle tanks and troops in the amphibious dock, the air force on the flight deck and the navy commanding the ship from the bridge. The Canberra class LHD's are in effect a floating blueprint of how to create a single integrated force structure battle group. And many Defence people for the sake of their own careers would not want to those efficiencies spread out into reform of the whole ADF chiefs and mandarins.

So we cancelled the F35 B model and put a few helicopters on board. [What a great story - not true - but fantasy]

But whilst cancelling the worst of the F35 variants, the B model, was wise, it did not resolve the need for a jet fighter for these ships and the troops they are required to protect. [had to delete the 'pubads' script which gets inserted sometimes]

There is however one plane which is purpose built and combat proven to be up to the job.

13(d) The AV-8B II Harrier.
This is not, repeat not the old aircraft which the UK sent to the Falklands, as highly successful as that first Harrier was.
The US Marine Corps, which is probably the worlds most successfully integrated force structure, comprising air land and sea forces, commissioned the Boeing corporation to build a new Harrier. The result was the AV-8B II Harrier. This aircraft provides fleet protection for the Marine's equivalent of our Canberra class LHD, the Wasp and America class ships and crucially as the Marines 'go in first' it is specifically designed to provide troops on the beach-head with close air support.
The AV-8B II Harrier is in service now with NATO countries such in the Italian Navy and the Spanish Navy as well as with the US Marines Corps. The US Marines want to keep it flying until they are forced to accept the F35B as its replacement...." [Oh PUHLeez]

14. Recommendations.
I. Competitively Evaluate then Cancel completely, the F35.
II. Purchase 75 Dassault Rafale fighter jets.
III. Purchase 20 refurbished AV-8B II Harriers.
IV. Negotiate with Japan to joint venture the development of the ATD-X Shinshin.

[spazsinbad]

Whilst reading the new ones Submission No.9 got on the board - hello APA - with three extra bits: (I'll read 'em later)

http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=407876 (PDF 870Kb)
& http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=407876 (5.7Mb)
& http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=407876 (3.4Mb)
& http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=407876 (250Kb)

[sferrin]

"14. Recommendations.
I. Competitively Evaluate then Cancel completely, the F35.
II. Purchase 75 Dassault Rafale fighter jets.
III. Purchase 20 refurbished AV-8B II Harriers.
IV. Negotiate with Japan to joint venture the development of the ATD-X Shinshin.

Wow. #1 has to be the most asinine statement I've seen in a while. What if #1 shows that the F-35 is superior? Why waste money doing an evaluation if he's already decided to cancel it? Does he also recommend "competitively evaluating" the Rafale and Harrier IIs? Doesn't sound like it. Sounds like he just wants to write a check.

[spazsinbad]

A peripheral but related story...

Women poised to start flying RAAF fighter jets
05 Feb 2016 David Wroe

"Australia could soon have its first woman fighter pilot and is likely to have at least five women in the cockpit of the Joint Strike Fighter when the cutting-edge warplane comes into operation at the start of next decade.

The Chief of the Air Force, Air Marshal Leo Davies, told Fairfax Media he was witnessing an "evolution" in attitudes towards women becoming fighter pilots nearly 30 years after the elite RAAF role opened to women.

Women have been eligible to become RAAF pilots since 1987, but fighter jet cockpits have nonetheless remained the RAAF's last all-male domain, Air Marshal Davies said, akin to the army special forces or navy clearance divers....

...He said they would be "eligible to go to JSF". Australia expects to start operating the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from 2020. The latest Pentagon report points to continuing problems with the project but Air Marshal Davies said nothing in the report suggested the RAAF would need to changes its schedule.

Air Marshal Davies said with women poised to start flying fighters operationally, others entering the RAAF could see that "maybe that big, blokey, fighter pilot attitude is starting to dilute a little".

"So it bloody should," he added.

The increase in women entering the JSF program has also come despite another potential hurdle, which is Defence's restriction on pilots weighing less than 62 kilograms from flying the F-35 due to an increased risk of neck injury during ejection.

Since 1987, 42 women in the RAAF have graduated the pilot's course and gained their "wings", flying planes such as C-17 Globemasters, C-130 Hercules and Wedgetail airborne early warning and control planes...."

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... mmt7s.html

[maus92]

Classic Hornets ‘stretched beyond capability’ if JSF delayed
Cameron Stewart |Associate Editor |Melbourne | The Australian | FEBRUARY 8, 2016

"The danger of a capability gap in Australia’s fighter fleet is growing, with fears of fresh delays in the troubled F-35 joint strike fighter as the RAAF’s Classic F/A-18 Hornets are due to retire.

A damning report last week on the progress of the F-35, by the Pentagon’s top weapons tester, has fuelled concern that delivery schedules for the new fighter could be delayed once again.

Any further delay in the delivery of the 72 Australian F-35s would create an acute problem for the RAAF, which would be forced to keep its 71 Classic F/A-18 Hornets flying beyond their effective life expectancy.

Former RAAF group captain Peter Layton warned yesterday that the RAAF could no longer extend the Classic Hornet’s life beyond its current retirement date of 2022 without the fighter becoming “operationally obsolescent’’.

The same issue haunted the F-111 strike fighter, which was kept in service a decade after it had become­ too obsolescent to be sent into battle...."

"The RAAF’s schedule for the F-35s coming to Australia has already­ been delayed two years due to continued developmental issues with the fifth-generation stealth fighter, which will form the bulk of the future US air force. Australia has committed $12.4 billion to buy 72 F-35s, with the first 14 due to achieve initial operating capability in December 2020 and the others due for delivery in 2023.

To prevent a capability gap in the face of delays to the F-35 project, the RAAF has already extende­d the life of its Classic Hornets by seven years from last year to 2022, forcing it to spend an extra $50 million a year to maintain the ageing fleet.

“The latest Pentagon report now suggests more F-35 program delays are possible, given software issues and problems with hot weather operation,” said Dr Layton­, now a visiting fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute­ of Griffith University.

“Already more than 25 years old, some ageing Classic Hornet aircraft could be forced to remain in service past 2022..."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 1aee6c5e4c