Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

jessmo111 · by **jessmo111** » 25 Mar 2016, 06:33

SpudmanWP wrote:Dear Lord, not that crappy "look what I can make up without supporting data" chart again.

items of note

. You have to love how having a single engine disqualifies you as a 5th gen engine
. The F-35 somehow has a larger IR signature than the Pak-FA and SU-35S which are larger and do not have burried engines
. Where exactly are the F-22's "Additional ESA Apertures"?
. Not having TVC disqualifies you as 5th gen.

etc, etc

How do they score the J-20 with super cruise when the Chinese don't have a single super cruising engine!?
How do you say that all of these planes have advanced SA, when they are barely fielding their 1st aesa?!
This thread makes me angry!

optimist · by **optimist** » 25 Mar 2016, 06:45

I must admit I liked their old one, the one where the f-35 couldn't open the bays when supersonic

charlielima223 · by **charlielima223** » 25 Mar 2016, 07:02

Well according to Air Power Australia...

my reaction...

I don't know who is worse; APA or Picard578 at Defense Issues? When ever someone bring them up I immediately think...

les_paul59 · by **les_paul59** » 25 Mar 2016, 18:39

The pak fa is a su35 with internal weapons bays

The j 20 doesnt have engines yet

According to the usaf the f-35 is stealthier than the raptor

And the raptor is still the best air to air fighter in the world

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 25 Mar 2016, 18:53

optimist wrote:I must admit I liked their old one, the one where the f-35 couldn't open the bays when supersonic

Didn't they claim the F-35 couldn't be super sonic?

les_paul59 · by **les_paul59** » 25 Mar 2016, 19:59

this chart has the pak fa being the best 5th gen fighter in the world, ask India how they feel lol. Not even the Russian govt. is claiming that the pak fa is better than the raptor

gideonic · by **gideonic** » 26 Mar 2016, 14:30

optimist wrote:

Couldn't find the APA hearing, did anyone record it? And wow, did they honestly present this chart to the senate as something credible? :doh:

I particularily like the older one Spaz quoted, where Su-35 ends up being a better airplane than the F-22

http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=ef1cef71-be41-473d-bdfc-282ee6ecf4f1&subId=407876 (PDF 3.4Mb)

Sure like how they randomly quantify some onf those points in these three diagrams:

PESA radar is equivalent to any kind of AESA
No explanation needed, F-35 is just worse in the infrared spectrum, despite being smaller, having a buried engine and a number of reduction methods
Having no internal carriage at all or having RCS, the size of a barn,(-1 each) is totally negated by having 3D thrust-vectoring (+2).
turning @70 degrees over >55 kft sure seems critical I wonder how Su-35 does this when it's just 4kft short of its service ceiling (what kind of loadout?!?) and how the hell do they know that J-20 can do it

Oh dear lord ... I wonder why thrust vectoring for Eurofighter was cancelled then (despite the nozzles already being designed)? This one addition alone would totally negate Low Observability as well as Internal carriage, making it a much better fighter than the F-35

The "Eurowussies" must have been total idiots when decided to prioritize HOBS and HMDS over it then (which by the way gives 0 points according to APA) :roll:

Does any of you have any hunches ... is this the guys actual belief, or is he just trolling with an agenda? A la a pie-in-the-sky F-22, or just trolling for cancelling the F-35, knowing that the former is an impossibility?

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 26 Mar 2016, 14:38

Not sure I follow your post but anyway after the Easter break HANSARD will produce a text of all the enquiry. I look for it every day. The graphic posted by me is from one of the APA submissions indicated for the graphic back on previous page.

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=318837&hilit=ZOCT#p318837

HERE WE GO... These people do not make it easy to find stuff - here is the HANSARD transcript:

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee | Senate committee Tuesday, 22 March 2016
Acquisition of the Joint Strike Fighter Proof

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea ... %2F0000%22 (0.7Mb) PDF from URL below is attached:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... 81/0000%22

TEXT is available in HTML Format also in FRAGMENTS so the APA FRAG is here: [scroll to end for the ZOCT explaino]

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea ... %2F0000%22

Starting from PDF page 6 then page 7 - about the ZOCT chart....

"...Senator XENOPHON: I will be very quick; I will try to do it in three minutes or less. I will ask you to put some questions on notice, so you may want to refer to the Hansard.
Mr Goon: Certainly.
Senator XENOPHON: I just want to refer to this chart you have provided in your submission, which I found quite useful.
Mr Goon: The ZOCT table?
Senator XENOPHON: Yes. It is your chart?
Mr Goon: That is our chart.
Senator XENOPHON: That is your chart. On notice—and I emphasise 'on notice' because of time constraints—can you give a definition in layman's terms of what each capability is on the Y axis and why it is important to a fift<script id="gpt-impl-0.8286218248395414" src="http://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_81.js"></script>h generation fighter jet, perhaps weighing each capability in terms of very important, important, of interest or some other weighting method. Can you consider that, please?
Mr Goon: We certainly can.
Senator XENOPHON: I would like a very brief answer in relation to this next question, because I will be putting this to other witnesses. This goes to Senator Fawcett's line of questioning and Senator Gallacher's. How have you established the content of this table? Is it from open-source information?
Mr Goon: It is all open source.
Senator XENOPHON: Others might suggest that this is incorrect on account of it being open source. There are dangers in restricting that because, by definition, if there are other capabilities of other fighter jets we simply will not know about them because you cannot get it from open source. Do you acknowledge that that is a known unknown?
Mr Goon: No, I do not. The reason for that is that the whole intelligence community around the world recognises that open source is the primary source of intelligence.
Senator XENOPHON: But there could be other features of the aircraft that you are trying to compare that you may not know about.
Mr Goon: Certainly, there are some things down to the nitty-gritty detail that you do not know. You do not know the hard numbers, but you do know in terms of the overall capability. Classified information comes under the national security classification system with very clear guidelines as to what is classified and why it is classified. Usually it boils down to numbers and things like that. If people cannot talk about classified information in an unclassified way—
Senator XENOPHON: Because of time constraints I am sorry to interrupt you. I am happy for you to elaborate on this on notice.
Mr Goon: Allow me to put that in an answer to you on notice.
Senator XENOPHON: You are saying that this is robust despite the fact that there are features of the aircraft we may not know about.
Mr Goon: Yes. It is an overview comparing what the other manufacturers are doing with their aircraft.
Senator XENOPHON: Fair enough. That puts it in context. My final question is: you have recommended redirecting Defence down the F22 path, but doesn't the 'Obey' amendment prevent this from occurring without the US senate's involvement?
Mr Goon: The US congress will have to be involved. The real question is: what is America going to do? We have gone down the path and we have lost regional air superiority. America is on the same trajectory because of the JSF. If America loses air superiority there will be a massive change in the balance of global power. I think all of us around this table know the consequences of that.
Senator XENOPHON: That can be rectified with the F22—is that what you are saying?
Mr Goon: By providing ourselves more over the Americans and our allies with the F22 capability. One that will address the referenced threats.
Senator XENOPHON: Sorry about the time constraints, but thank you very much.
CHAIR: So that is your position—the F22 over the Joint Strike Fighter?
Mr Goon: Most definitely. But it does need to be evolved.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Or the F22 with the Joint Strike Fighter? Or without?
Mr Goon: The joint strike fighter has other problems, and the question has to be: are you going to pay all that money to try and fix those problems?"

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 26 Mar 2016, 23:33

VIDEOS of this riveting event in two parts - eight hours of sheer bliss - enjoy. OK there were some good bits but read the transcript for them....

22 Mar 2016 F-35 Senate Enquiry Video Part 1: 4 hours 35 minutes

http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer. ... e=parlview
_________________________________________________

22 Mar 2016 F-35 Senate Enquiry Video Part 2: 4 hours 17 minutes

http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer. ... e=parlview
_________________________________________________

My favourite snippet from the RAAF who should know their stuff eh:

"CHAIR: How much has Australia expended on the F35 to date?
Air Vice Marshal Deeble: I can give you the rough order, because it is changing as we are talking—we are signing contracts on a regular basis. We have expended over $1 billion on the program. That includes the early MOU payments and the two stages of the project that have been approved to date by government.

CHAIR: What percentage of the overall program budget is that?
Air Vice Marshal Deeble: The current budget—understanding that this has gone through a couple of exchange rate updates—is $17.1 billion, of which $2.6 million is contingency...."

Dragon029 · by **Dragon029** » 27 Mar 2016, 00:29

AVM Deeble either mispoke or Hansard made a typo in regards to the contingency funding; later on:

Senator XENOPHON: Understood. The projected acquisition costs for the total of the 72 F35s: do we know
what that is at this stage? Is that matter of public record?

Air Vice Marshal Deeble: I could talk about that in a number of different dimensions. I mentioned before that
for the current stage 1 and stage 2—they are the full 72 aircraft—our current budget is $17.1 billion. Now, $2.6
billion of that is a contingency, so that effectively leaves you with about $14½ billion associated with the
purchase of the 72 aircraft, the support equipment and the infrastructure.

Also of interest:

Senator XENOPHON: Is sustainment likely to be at a 2:1 ratio over acquisition costs?

Air Vice Marshal Deeble: Those rules of thumb. For complex capabilities, normally two to 2½ times the cost
of the acquisition would roughly relate to that. We are currently estimating that the through-life sustainment costs
will be $43 billion. We had agreement when we went to second pass for the 58 aircraft that we would only get
funding—some $4 billion—out to the FY 2024-25 time frame and that we would have to go back after 2020 to
get more up-to-date estimates of the cost of sustainment for through-life.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 27 Mar 2016, 01:16

Billion / MILLIONS I'd rather have millions BUT BILLIONS it is - he has done that in the previous Senate hearing I think. :doh:

Deeble dribbled millions here also (instead of billions): viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=307182&hilit=million#p307182

{21 Oct 2015} "..."...Senator WHISH-WILSON: Could you tell us what you have budgeted for? [page 5 this thread]
Air Vice Marshal Deeble: The current budget for the JSF program, including the infrastructure elements, is
$17 million.[you whish] That includes recent updates to exchange rate...." [then corrects himself]

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 28 Mar 2016, 17:13

spazsinbad wrote:Not sure I follow your post but anyway after the Easter break HANSARD will produce a text of all the enquiry. I look for it every day. The graphic posted by me is from one of the APA submissions indicated for the graphic back on previous page.

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=318837&hilit=ZOCT#p318837

HERE WE GO... These people do not make it easy to find stuff - here is the HANSARD transcript:

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee | Senate committee Tuesday, 22 March 2016
Acquisition of the Joint Strike Fighter Proof

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea ... %2F0000%22 (0.7Mb) PDF from URL below is attached:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... 81/0000%22

TEXT is available in HTML Format also in FRAGMENTS so the APA FRAG is here: [scroll to end for the ZOCT explaino]

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea ... %2F0000%22

Starting from PDF page 6 then page 7 - about the ZOCT chart....
"...Senator XENOPHON: I will be very quick; I will try to do it in three minutes or less. I will ask you to put some questions on notice, so you may want to refer to the Hansard.
Mr Goon: Certainly.
Senator XENOPHON: I just want to refer to this chart you have provided in your submission, which I found quite useful.
Mr Goon: The ZOCT table?
Senator XENOPHON: Yes. It is your chart?
Mr Goon: That is our chart.
Senator XENOPHON: That is your chart. On notice—and I emphasise 'on notice' because of time constraints—can you give a definition in layman's terms of what each capability is on the Y axis and why it is important to a fift<script id="gpt-impl-0.8286218248395414" src="http://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_81.js"></script>h generation fighter jet, perhaps weighing each capability in terms of very important, important, of interest or some other weighting method. Can you consider that, please?
Mr Goon: We certainly can.
Senator XENOPHON: I would like a very brief answer in relation to this next question, because I will be putting this to other witnesses. This goes to Senator Fawcett's line of questioning and Senator Gallacher's. How have you established the content of this table? Is it from open-source information?
Mr Goon: It is all open source.
Senator XENOPHON: Others might suggest that this is incorrect on account of it being open source. There are dangers in restricting that because, by definition, if there are other capabilities of other fighter jets we simply will not know about them because you cannot get it from open source. Do you acknowledge that that is a known unknown?
Mr Goon: No, I do not. The reason for that is that the whole intelligence community around the world recognises that open source is the primary source of intelligence.
Senator XENOPHON: But there could be other features of the aircraft that you are trying to compare that you may not know about.
Mr Goon: Certainly, there are some things down to the nitty-gritty detail that you do not know. You do not know the hard numbers, but you do know in terms of the overall capability. Classified information comes under the national security classification system with very clear guidelines as to what is classified and why it is classified. Usually it boils down to numbers and things like that. If people cannot talk about classified information in an unclassified way—
Senator XENOPHON: Because of time constraints I am sorry to interrupt you. I am happy for you to elaborate on this on notice.
Mr Goon: Allow me to put that in an answer to you on notice.
Senator XENOPHON: You are saying that this is robust despite the fact that there are features of the aircraft we may not know about.
Mr Goon: Yes. It is an overview comparing what the other manufacturers are doing with their aircraft.
Senator XENOPHON: Fair enough. That puts it in context. My final question is: you have recommended redirecting Defence down the F22 path, but doesn't the 'Obey' amendment prevent this from occurring without the US senate's involvement?
Mr Goon: The US congress will have to be involved. The real question is: what is America going to do? We have gone down the path and we have lost regional air superiority. America is on the same trajectory because of the JSF. If America loses air superiority there will be a massive change in the balance of global power. I think all of us around this table know the consequences of that.
Senator XENOPHON: That can be rectified with the F22—is that what you are saying?
Mr Goon: By providing ourselves more over the Americans and our allies with the F22 capability. One that will address the referenced threats.
Senator XENOPHON: Sorry about the time constraints, but thank you very much.
CHAIR: So that is your position—the F22 over the Joint Strike Fighter?
Mr Goon: Most definitely. But it does need to be evolved.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: Or the F22 with the Joint Strike Fighter? Or without?
Mr Goon: The joint strike fighter has other problems, and the question has to be: are you going to pay all that money to try and fix those problems?"

Does any of you have any hunches ... is this the guys actual belief, or is he just trolling with an agenda? A la a pie-in-the-sky F-22, or just trolling for cancelling the F-35, knowing that the former is an impossibility?

I have no idea at this point. Australia was never going to be able to get the F-22 due to cost and the fact that it was illegal, even when it was in production, now that it is out of production (for years now) and had the pilots publicly refusing to fly it thanks to the oxygen issue and months of groundings, I would say it coming back is even more dead than it already was. Is has high CPFH that is only going to increase thanks to the limited numbers. Say what you will about the F-35, have we had pilots come out and refuse to fly it? Because we have with the F-22. Funny that never comes up when complaining about broken promises

F-22 pilots under the federal whistle blowers act speak on 60 minutes.

around 2007,2008 APA was so F-22 crazy that people were convinced they were paid by LM to shill the Raptor. Their whole concept of Super F-111s (which are now literally dead and buried) and now chasing fictional variants of a fighter that has been out of production for years now... in the meantime they have alternately promoted, and then railed against the Super Hornets. they remind me of those Japanese soldiers they found on remote islands years after WWII ended that still thought the war was on. So their whole strategic plan is utterly in the past and yet they persist?

APA is downright juvenile, and they are so rife with contradictions, lies and double speak, that they are often worse than those they rail against and accuse of the same things they themselves practice. Another funny quirk they have are putting huge stock into certain documents, while utterly dismissing others. Listen to Eric Palmer go on and on about JORD documents as if they were the commandants sent to Moses...

rnvalencia · by **rnvalencia** » 02 Apr 2016, 14:46

spazsinbad wrote:Not sure I follow your post but anyway after the Easter break HANSARD will produce a text of all the enquiry. I look for it every day. The graphic posted by me is from one of the APA submissions indicated for the graphic back on previous page.

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=318837&hilit=ZOCT#p318837

HERE WE GO... These people do not make it easy to find stuff - here is the HANSARD transcript:

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee | Senate committee Tuesday, 22 March 2016
Acquisition of the Joint Strike Fighter Proof

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea ... %2F0000%22 (0.7Mb) PDF from URL below is attached:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... 81/0000%22

TEXT is available in HTML Format also in FRAGMENTS so the APA FRAG is here: [scroll to end for the ZOCT explaino]

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea ... %2F0000%22

Starting from PDF page 6 then page 7 - about the ZOCT chart....

Quoting from http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea ... %2F0000%22

Page 18

Mr Brown: To my mind, it is out of production and in many respects it is 15 years to 20 years older in
technology. There are many characteristics in which the F35 is actually superior to the F22. Probably the biggest
one from our point of view is that stealth coatings are far more maintainable on the F35 than they are on the F22.

I recall F-22 has stealth coating upgrade with improvements from F-35 program.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 02 Apr 2016, 15:17

For Australia/RAAF the F-22 has always been irrelevant according to the RAAF - quote in this thread I think. RAAF require a multi-role aircraft - the F-35A is that - end of story. The RAAF / Oz Government has never required/requested the F-22.

A good quote from AVM Osley in June 2011:

"...The F-35 is the only multi-role fifth generation aircraft that meets our needs."
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=18089&p=216384&hilit=Osley#p216384

AND anotherie from May 2011:

"...Defence planning is based on emerging military capabilities and potential threats; it is not limited to whom you like or dislike at any given time and takes into account emerging issues such as the likely political impact of climate change.

''Relationships change,'' Air Vice Marshal Kym Osley, the man managing Australia's JSF acquisition program, told The Canberra Times. ''The strategic risk of having a gap in air combat capability [between Australia and other regional powers] is one the Government has already indicated it will not accept. Australia has always gone for a capability edge [within the region].''

It is for this reason the F-35, not the Super Hornet or the even faster and more powerful but much more costly F-22 Raptor stealth fighter recently advocated by Air Power Australia, was chosen to replace the ''classic'' Hornets and the much-loved, but once highly controversial, F-111s as the backbone of Australia's air deterrence force for the first half of the 21st century...." viewtopic.php?f=22&t=15643&p=197702&hilit=Osley#p197702

"...8. RAAF always buy a multi role aircraft as the number one ‘order of battle’ rather than a pure fighter...."
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=314823&hilit=RAAF+Raptor#p314823

GRACE DE COOP:

Nothing 'stealthy' about the F-22 DMO
21 Feb 2007 Defence Material Organisation
Air Vice-Marshal John Harvey, Program Manager, New Air Combat Capability Project, Department of Defence, Canberra

“DR CARLO Kopp's "Nelson tries stealth to win jet fighter debate"
(Opinion, 20/2/2007) is misleading in a number of areas.

Defence analysis shows that the F-22 is not the right aircraft for Australia's air combat needs. The F-22 is without doubt a highly capable fighter aircraft, but we need a truly multi-role aircraft able to conduct the full range of air-to-ground as well as air-to-air combat missions.

Defence never has made a formal request to acquire the F-22. Nor have we ever asked US officials to start a process to lift the Congressional ban on selling the F-22. It is hardly unusual that the US should decide that some of its military technology is not for export, and hence the F-22 remains prohibited from export by US Congressional legislation.

The recent letter from the US Deputy Secretary of Defence regarding the non-availability of the F-22 was in response to a letter from the Minister for Defence, Dr Nelson, advising of Australia's intended participation in the next phase of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program — already an example of successful alliance co-operation. The Government has not yet made a final decision to acquire the JSF and will continue to assess its options ahead of a decision in 2008.”

Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/ceo/record/21FEB.pdf (17 Kb no longer available)

____________________

'rnvalencia' said: "I recall F-22 has stealth coating upgrade with improvements from F-35 program." True. I do not know if this plan has been carried out nor do I know details. Reference follows....

F-35 Stealth Coatings Applied to F-22 First mentioned: viewtopic.php?f=60&t=25529&p=271474&hilit=McGlaun#p271474
07 Apr 2011 Shane McGlaun (Blog)

“The USAF has some of the most capable aircraft in the world within its fleet. Many of the aircraft that it fields in any conflict are older and were designed decades ago; but it also has some very capable next generation aircraft like the F-22 & the F-35 that will be coming online in the next few years. The F-22 & the F-35 are similar in that they are both fighter aircraft that are designed from the outset to have stealth characteristics to make them harder to see by enemy radar. With the F-35 being the newer aircraft, it has more advanced radar-absorbing coatings on the surface than the F-22. Lockheed has announced that it is now integrating some of the more advanced coatings the F-35 uses onto the F-22 fighters coming off the assembly line.

"Some of the [low observables] coatings system and gap-fillers that the F-35 had an advantage on, we have incorporated into the Raptor," said Jeff Babione, vice president & general manager of the F-22 program for Lockheed Martin. Defense News reports that Babione claims that the new coatings don’t change the radar cross section of the F-22. The coatings according to Babione are simply to reduce maintenance costs. He said, "[The F-35 program] had some more robust materials that were more durable & we were able to pull those back on to the F-22. So our system is better, & the life-cycle cost of the F-22 is reduced."

Analyst Dan Goure said, "It's not going to transform the airplane, but what it's going to really do is make it much cheaper to operate the F-22 fleet, which is terribly important given its <script id="gpt-impl-0.37348284749455757" src="http://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_81.js"></script>small size." However, some doubt that the new coatings won't improve the radar visibility of the F-22. Goure also noted, "I would be very surprised if this wasn't an improvement in stealth characteristics."

Lockheed had to make some changes to the coatings to be used on the F-22 that the F-35 didn’t require. Goure said, "It's [the F-22] operating at a higher altitude typically and [at] faster speeds, and that would put different stresses on the material." The only F-22 fighters that are using the new coating for now are the most recent Lot 9 aircraft and other new and improved materials are still in the final qualification phase. Lockheed hopes to roll the coatings out to the entire fleet next year. At that point, all existing aircraft will be retrofitted with the new coating.”

Source: http://www.dailytech.com/F35+Stealth+Co ... e21321.htm

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 06 Apr 2016, 01:41

Sub No. 57 by Mr Errol Coultis has the last laugh? Seems because the inquiry has been extended in time then 'after race starts' are included ("On 17 March 2016, the Senate extended the reporting date for the inquiry to 29 June 2016"): http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=411127 (PDF 67Kb)