Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

[maus92]

Maus92 calls the Super Hornet "excellent"

It seems that the Navy agrees with me. To counter a strike fighter shortage exacerbated by worn out legacy Hornets, they placed 14 Super Hornets in their unfunded priorities list, yet only two F-35Cs. Hmmm. That seems odd because the F-35C is supposed to replace the legacy Hornets. Why not request 16 F-35Cs? Answer: they are too expensive and not as flexible as the Super Hornet. It's just that simple.

[cosmicdwarf]

Maus92 calls the Super Hornet "excellent"

It seems that the Navy agrees with me. To counter a strike fighter shortage exacerbated by worn out legacy Hornets, they placed 14 Super Hornets in their unfunded priorities list, yet only two F-35Cs. Hmmm. That seems odd because the F-35C is supposed to replace the legacy Hornets. Why not request 16 F-35Cs? Answer: they are too expensive and not as flexible as the Super Hornet. It's just that simple.

Because they need Super Hornets to replace Super Hornets that are going through their airframe life sooner than expected. The fact that right now it helps to replace older Legacy Hornets doesn't change that.

[spazsinbad]

'WE' would call Mills a 'sh*t stirrer', which, like 'bastard', can be used in good & bad ways. Go figure - which A/C pilot?

TUD: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=10794&p=317179&hilit=turd#p317179

Remember the Air Vice Marshall (retired/retarded) calling the Super Hornet a 'Super Dog' on ABC radio? We love this shite.

Ozzie Humour at such a high level? Priceless: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=18319&p=244892&hilit=Criss+Super#p244892

See... I forgot the superlative comment was actually upgraded to 'Super Dog SQUARED' - in for a penny, in for a pound.

[quicksilver]

Maus92 calls the Super Hornet "excellent"

It seems that the Navy agrees with me. To counter a strike fighter shortage exacerbated by worn out legacy Hornets, they placed 14 Super Hornets in their unfunded priorities list, yet only two F-35Cs. Hmmm. That seems odd because the F-35C is supposed to replace the legacy Hornets. Why not request 16 F-35Cs? Answer: they are too expensive and not as flexible as the Super Hornet. It's just that simple.

The key word here is "unfunded."

Secretary Mabus was clearly miffed after the last budget end-game that he had to pay the bill for another year of "keep St Louis viable' out of his procurement accounts.

Meanwhile, anyone seen any AP for those jets?

[XanderCrews]

Kinda looks to me like the USN is increasing F-35 orders while decreasing super hornet orders notably and then completely by 2020

[mk82]

Also from the same article, a tidbit that supports the infamous LM test pilot F-16D v. F-35A eval, and disabuses the recent Norwegian pirep:

"[Former RAAF Wing Commander Chris] Mills says the JSF has a nickname among the top guns of the US Air Force: 'the little turd'."

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... rt/7218478

I love to see Chris Mills say that to the face of Brigadier General Scott Pleus or Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan (hey they are the top guns of USAF). Chris would probably get two in the kisser and rightly so too!

[spazsinbad]

'mk82' said: "...I love to see Chris Mills say that to the face of Brigadier General Scott Pleus...". Pleus on the recent ONE HOUR of boredom reminded me of the song: "Never smile at a crocodile...". You'd be gone in one gulp.

[mk82]

Maus92 calls the Super Hornet "excellent"

It seems that the Navy agrees with me. To counter a strike fighter shortage exacerbated by worn out legacy Hornets, they placed 14 Super Hornets in their unfunded priorities list, yet only two F-35Cs. Hmmm. That seems odd because the F-35C is supposed to replace the legacy Hornets. Why not request 16 F-35Cs? Answer: they are too expensive and not as flexible as the Super Hornet. It's just that simple.

The Super Hornet being more flexible than the F35C (block 3F F35Cs mind you)....hey Bro...load up the internal weapons bay of that Super Hornet. We are going downtown and need to be stealthy....wait, what? There are no internal weapons bays on my Super Hornet (nada nada nada...) and it is not VLO!!! ....Shiettt!!! Alright...alright I guess we can do some big **** jamming/EA.....wait, what...only a "special" variant of the Super Hornet (i.e da Growler) can do that! Damn!!!! Well tell that Growler pilot to stop flirting with the pretty (female just to clarify ) electronic warfare officer and get to work! Haha

How is that for Super Hornet flexibility Maus92 ?

Oh yeah, the F35C can carry loads of external ordnance too like the Super Hornet.

[mk82]

'mk82' said: "...I love to see Chris Mills say that to the face of Brigadier General Scott Pleus...". Pleus on the recent ONE HOUR of boredom reminded me of the song: "Never smile at a crocodile...". You'd be gone in one gulp.

Make that a salt water croc!!!

[spazsinbad]

TICK TOCK TICK TOCK: "Kris - replica of the biggest saltwater crocodile hunted in Australia bei Kristina Pawloski, Normanton": http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/98275232.jpg CLIP attached now: 'Just say NO'.

[element1loop]

load up the internal weapons bay of that Super Hornet. We are going downtown and need to be stealthy....wait, what?

Don't forget LRASM, it's an upgraded JASSM-ER. As I understand it, it'll retain the initial capability. How USN can justify delay of F-35C ramp, and continued cheaper Shornet buy for now. Can still go VLO downtown, with no loses and kill an IADS, and open it up to round house hits ... JSOW

[quicksilver]

A little history for some perspective on aircraft development. These words from a GAO report on SH some years ago --

"GAO noted that: (1) the Navy has revised the F/A-18E/F flight test program by decreasing the data collection requirements that were originally planned; (2) program documents state that, although flight testing is behind schedule, program decisions to reduce test points will enable the Navy to regain lost time and complete development testing in November 1998, as originally planned; (3) F/A-18E/F program documents identified numerous deficiencies relative to the aircraft's operational performance; (4) the most challenging technical issue is wing drop; (5) until these issues are resolved through software or hardware changes that have been adequately tested, the cost, schedule, and operational performance impact of resolving these deficiencies cannot be determined."

Complete DT in November '98? Nope. They reduced test points and still didnt finish on time (April '99).

Numerous 'deficiencies'? Which ones?

"...The deficiencies related to such things as the E/F’s ability to accelerate, turn, climb, and roll. Essentially, the E/F does not do as well in these areas as the F/A-18C aircraft. Additionally, the testers identified buffeting and lateral instability, or drift, as flying quality deficiencies. They also listed as major problems the ALE-50 towed decoy and the capability of the radar warning receiver to indicate the direction of oncoming threats. The specific deficiencies identified by the operational testers are as follows:
• poor climb performance above 30,000 feet;
• low acceleration;
• airframe buffet;
• high angle of attack and agility and controllability;
• slow response to control inputs, slow loaded energy addition rate, and
excessive speed loss during air combat maneuvering;
• tactically ineffective sustained turn rate;
• insufficient cooling capacity for seekers on air-to-air weapons;
• improper indication of direction of arrival of oncoming threat systems;
• damage to AIM-9 missile assemblies caused by wing tip environment;
• ALE-50 tow line burn-off in afterburner;
• difficulty maintaining lateral trim;
• under-wing environment damages aircraft stores;
• unsafe delivery of Rockeye bomb;
• aircraft radar deficiency;
• leading edge extension difficulties;
• inconsistent brake effectiveness;
• inadequate cooling capability of the fuel thermal management system;
and
• Targeting Forward Looking Infrared Radar resolution and
magnification."


SH -- bad aircraft? No; good aircraft...fine record. Bad program? No; Navy has said model acquisition program. So what's the point? A little research can go a long way, and offers some who may not understand the nature of aircraft development in the U.S. (or at least those who want to learn and understand) a little context and perspective -- particularly on F-35.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/230/227381.pdf

[XanderCrews]

I remember when the Super Hornet was on the hot seat. Wing drop problems, range complaints, expensive, Everyone was slinging mud at it, and if you read anything at the time it would give you the impression that Naval Aviators were on the brink of open rebellion against it. the EVIL BRASS was "shoving it down everyone's throats" with the "official party line" etc etc. But now its "excellent" even though the DOT&E says its " operationally effective and suitable for
some threat environments. However, as noted in previous DOT&E classified reports, there are current, more stressing threat environments in which the F/A-18 remains not operationally effective." Yet its now "excellent?" why? because it doesn't cost as much as a F-35C and is cleared for a wider range of ordnance? By that measure an A-7 is far more excellent than a Super Hornet. The USAF fielded the F-22, the USN fielded the Super Hornet. The envy was and still is palpable. The f-22 is excellent, the Super Hornet is serviceable and was far better than nothing it did a good job filling decks with airplanes, which was the need. But "excellent?" no.

The fact that he felt it was important to ensure the same guy that called the Super Hornet a Super Dog, should be given any credibility is because he is that determined to throw F-35 under the bus. He would cut his nose off to spite his face. "LOL guy who says super dog super hornet, says F-35 is a turd LOL, better post about it on F16.net to upset the fankiddies rather than just dimiss the fellow as a troll, like I have no problem doing with others"

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 -
To those who say it will be too expensive, my answer is that the Unit Price
of the last-produced F-22A was $US153 million – substantially less than
the cost of the JSF. With a substantial production run to meet the
Western World’s needs, and the R&D costs ‘sunk’ and written off, that
cost will fall. There will, of course, be some set-up costs for parts
manufacturers, but many will have retained tooling and production skills.
There is another factor to consider – operational obsolescence. An air
combat fighter can expect to have a safe ‘flying life’ of about 35 years,
but an ‘air superiority life’ of 15 to 20 years at best. As an example of
emerging threats, the Sukhoi T-50 has been specifically designed to
challenge the F-22A. The air combat capabilities of the Chengdu J-20 and
the Shenyang J-31 are at present unclear, but we can be confident that
the Chinese also have the F-22A in their sights. To remain competitive,
the Western world needs to commit to the ‘Next Generation Fighter’. The
air-combat deficient ‘not designed for air superiority’ JSF design has no
possibility of fulfilling that requirement.
With the F-22 back in production, the USA, assisted by the Western
World, needs to start on developing the Next Generation Fighter which
could be the ‘F-22E’. (Using the experience that the F-15A, a superlative
air combat aircraft with an unblemished air combat record (its LossExchange-Ratio
cannot be calculated as it has not lost a single aircraft in
combat,) became the powerful two-seat F-15E ‘Strike Eagle’).
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.
The ‘Raptorization’ of the Western World confers considerable operating
cost advantages as the remaining life on ‘legacy’ fleets such as the F/AJoint
Strike Fighter Submission 1
- 14 -
18E/F/G, A-10, F-16, F-15 etc. can be flown out, maximising the return
on past investments. These legacy aircraft would take on specific tasks
for which they are well suited, examples being anti-shipping strike,
ground attack and close-air-support.
The ‘NATO’ suggestion, while not of particular concern to Australia, is that
some 4 squadrons of 30 F-22C Raptors would be established and
operated with air and ground crews drawn from NATO members and with
Command exercised by NATO. Independent European countries might
still choose to operate their own ‘second-tier’ combat aircraft such as the
F-16, Typhoon, Tornado, Raphael and Gripen.
The Joint Strike Fighter, while operationally crippled with design defects
that cannot be re-designed out, nonetheless has some advances in
materials and systems that could, and should, be incorporated into the
development of the F-22C & E. The table above suggests that the
numbers are sufficient to support a production line for many years.
Finally, the Western World needs an improvement to the AIM-120
AMRAAM air-to-air Beyond-Visual-Range missile. The MBDA Meteor, now
entering operational service, would be a sound candidate for development
and world-wide deployment on the F-22C and F-22E.

Even "blind Freddie" can see you should development the next generation F-22 and build 100 per year for the 4 years and it will be cheaper because magic. I had a hard time deciding which part to bold, since its all pretty ridiculous. Is he this stupid? or is he actually lying? because there is some serious bull puckey in there. watching them rail against LM while in the next breath talking about "Raptorizing" the western world is both comical and confusing.


More hilarity to be found:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... ubmissions

[charlielima223]

More hilarity to be found:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... ubmissions

Air Power Australia... WHY DOES ANYONE take them seriously?

[archeman]

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