Page 4 of 72

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2013, 06:32
by neurotech
hb_pencil wrote:Neuro. I can see you don't get it. Its called Integrity, and Kopp must have it in spades.

I take it your being humorous, as I haven't seen any sign of integrity of from Kopp, just cherry picking facts to suit the argument that a jet made in the late 60s can possibly be 5th generation with a few mods.

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2013, 14:37
by popcorn
Oz military honchos testifying before Parliament.. cover a lot of ground including Growler acquisition, F-35 costs, Software progress, HMDS issues, weapons integration,,etc.
Dr. Jensen makes his expected appearance, flogging the APA agenda and nitpicking on the performance and rear canopy visibility issues.. no joy as he gets rebuffed once again ... nt=Default

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade - 16/05/2013 - Department of Defence annual report 2011-12

JONES, Vice Admiral Peter, Chief, Capability Development Group, Department of Defence

OSLEY, Air Vice Marshal Kym, Program Manager, New Air Combat Capability, Defence

Materiel Organisation, Department of Defence

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2013, 14:44
by popcorn

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2013, 20:20
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'popcorn' twice. :D This very long URL will likely not work soon so the PDF will be attached here: ... 20Brown%22

The first ten pages or so of the PDF are not about the F-35 so the last 9 pages which are relevant are now attached for your convenience. I'll leave the entire report here also.

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2013, 20:38
by spazsinbad
A little CostCo Quote for ye from the report above:
"Vice Adm. Jones: Chief, Capability Development Group, Department of Defence ...Our first two aircraft are expected to be around, or less than, the $130 million estimate that Defence has had since before 2011. Overall, in 2012 dollars and exchange rate at A$1.03 to US dollars, 72 F35As are expected to cost an average of A$83.0 million—unit recurring flyaway cost—if ordered in the 2018-19 to 2023-24 time frame.

The latest official US congressional F-35A cost estimates, sourced from the publicly available Selected Acquisition Report of 2011, are consistent with the Australian estimates and indicate the cost of the F-35A—unit recurring flyaway cost—reducing from a price of about $130 million in US then dollars for aircraft delivered in 2014 reducing over time down to about $82 million in US then dollars for aircraft delivered in the 2020 time frame...."

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2013, 08:28
by disconnectedradical
That Dr. Jensen guy is just...ugh...

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2013, 00:51
by spazsinbad
Boeing Maritime Jet Gains Favor in Australia, Paring Drone Need 17 Jul 2013 By Robert Wall
"...Among other impending orders is one for Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, of which Australia has bought 14 of 72 it plans to take with the aim of reaching operational status by 2020, two years before Boeing Co. F/A-18 Hornets are retired.

The country has acquired 24 newer F/A-18E/F Super Hornets as a gap filler, while planning to add 12 EA-18G Growlers -- a version of the same aircraft used for electronic warfare.

Additional Super Hornet purchases are unlikely given “increasing confidence” in the F-35 schedule, Brown said.

The initial JSFs will establish three combat squadrons and a training unit, and Australia retains a long-term objective of fielding 100 of the planes, with an order decision likely after 2020 when the Super Hornets will need retiring or upgrading.

Brown said that while he’s a backer of the F-35, he’s frustrated by delays in arming the plane with an anti-ship weapon, regarded as central to Australian requirements.

“A maritime strike missile is an important weapon for us,” he said. “If there was any part of the program I have been disappointed with it has been the slowness to address the maritime strike weapon.”
" ... -need.html

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2013, 01:13
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Boeing Maritime Jet Gains Favor in Australia, Paring Drone Need 17 Jul 2013 By Robert Wall
Brown said that while he’s a backer of the F-35, he’s frustrated by delays in arming the plane with an anti-ship weapon, regarded as central to Australian requirements.

“A maritime strike missile is an important weapon for us,” he said. “If there was any part of the program I have been disappointed with it has been the slowness to address the maritime strike weapon.”
" ... -need.html
Eh? Work is proceeding apace on JSM last I heard, and it's not like the Superhornet's ant-ship options are all that impressive.

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2013, 20:25
by spazsinbad
Ozzies and their sense of humour....

Necessity simple to figure 29 Oct 2013 Nicholas Stuart
"The Abbott government must realise a commitment will need to be made to spend at least 3 per cent of GDP on armed forces....

...That will particularly be the case when the enormous cost of the new air combat capability is factored into the picture. The first couple of Joint Strike Fighters are likely to cost something like $120 million each. After these the price will reduce because of economies of scale - but not by that much. The hope is that the cost of each plane will have come down to $80 million by the time the government announces its decision in March [2014 with the buy later], but that's far from certain.

The difficulty is that a number of other countries have cancelled or reduced their orders for the aircraft and every time this happens, the price per plane rises. The plan is to buy at least another 72 aircraft, because that's the right number to defend the top of the continent. And that's the key to this particular decision. We could, if necessary, defend the country without ships. [Oh rilly?] Defending it without control of the skies would be impossible.

But there has been considerable slippage in the production timetable since the original decision to purchase the Joint Strike Fighters was announced in 2002. This meant it was necessary to buy another 36 Super Hornets and Growlers (the electronic warfare variant of the F18). Although no decision has been made, it seems highly likely that the minister might choose to postpone the purchase of 24 Joint Strike Fighters, instead opting to buy just 54 or so aircraft in this batch.

If this happens, Lockheed Martin won't be happy. Neither will the air force...." ... 2wbr9.html

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2013, 22:46
by neurotech
I haven't read all the recent linked articles, but unless I'm missing something, an F/A-18E/F can fire an AGM-84 at a ship from 40 miles+, so can an AP-3C and if they purchase the P-8 Poseidon, they can fire them as well.

One less talked about capability of the F-35 AND the F/A-18E/F is the satellite datalink. That means that a F-35 can fly close and stealth, while the F/A-18 engages the target from further out. Complaining that the F-35 doesn't have a particular type of weapon at IOC is rubbish. The 4.5th and 5th gen fighters are able to fly missions with networked targeting data between aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2013, 01:45
by lookieloo
neurotech wrote:Complaining that the F-35 doesn't have a particular type of weapon at IOC is rubbish.
Especially when that weapon is Harpoon. I also heard it won't carry AIR-2 Genie rockets... bummer. :(

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2013, 04:09
by spazsinbad
Raytheon's Joint Standoff Weapon C-1 demonstrates networked capability with E-2D aircraft
"Weapon showcases interoperability, flexibility
TUCSON, Ariz., Oct. 27, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company and the U.S. Navy demonstrated the capability of the newest version of the Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) C-1 by establishing communications among an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft, an E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft and the JSOW C-1.

The test was part of the Navy's Trident Warrior 2013 demonstration in July. During the demonstration, fighters simulated the launch of a JSOW C-1 while the E-2D directed the weapon toward the positively identified target. The E-2D aircraft also received status updates sent from the JSOW C-1.

"The success of the Trident Warrior 2013 demonstration proves the feasibility of providing the fleet a means of executing the complete kill chain with carrier-based assets utilizing the F/A-18E/F, JSOW C-1 and E-2D to engage maritime targets at range," said Cmdr. Errol Campbell, the U.S. Navy's Precision Strike Weapons program office deputy program manager for the JSOW program.

Additionally, the team was able to track and designate a target; simulate the launch of the JSOW; send, receive and acknowledge target updates; and receive bomb hit indication data from the weapon.

"This test further verifies the flexibility and seamless plug-and-play connectivity of JSOW C-1's network-enabled capability," said Celeste Mohr, JSOW program director for Raytheon Missile Systems. "The test demonstrates the relative ease with which the U.S. Navy can build on the ongoing integration of the JSOW C-1 on the U.S. Navy's F/A-18 and expand the interoperability and connectivity to a fielded carrier-capable tactical airborne early warning aircraft."

In 2009, the Navy performed a similar demonstration of connectivity and interoperability among sensor platforms, a shooting platform and the JSOW C-1 during the Joint Surface Warfare Joint Capability Technology Demonstration. This demonstration involved a P-3 Orion aircraft's littoral surveillance radar system and an E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System aircraft.

About the Joint Standoff Weapon
JSOW is a family of low-cost, air-to-ground weapons that employs an integrated GPS-inertial navigation system and terminal imaging infrared seeker. JSOW C-1 adds the two-way Strike Common Weapon Datalink to the combat-proven weapon, enabling a moving maritime target capability. JSOW C-1 will provide an advanced anti-surface warfare solution on the F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft...."

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2013, 08:50
by spazsinbad
Australia's F-35 Buy Unaffected by US Sequestration 31 Oct 2013 NIGEL PITTAWAY
"Aircraft Begins 'Mate' Process With Lockheed
CANBERRA, AUSTRALIA — Australia’s F-35A program is on track despite recent delays to flight tests caused by budget sequestration in the United States, according to the country’s head of New Air Combat Capability (NACC).

However, Air Vice Marshal Kym Osley said the NACC Project Office estimates there may be up to seven months of risk remaining in the development of the war-fighting capability software, known as Block 3F (Final). While this isn’t likely to affect Australian operational capability, which is not due until the end of 2020, it could affect US Marine Corps and Air Force plans....

...The Australian government reaffirmed its commitment to acquiring 72 F-35A fighters to replace its older F/A-18A/B Hornet fleet in May and has a potential requirement for 28 more, depending on future decisions involving its Super Hornets. The initial program of record for 72 aircraft is valued at AUS $3.2 billion (US $3.08 billion), based on 2009 figures.

Fourteen F-35As are approved. But so far only two have been ordered, with the second aircraft set to roll out in Fort Worth on Aug. 1. The first two will be used to train Australian F-35 pilots at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz., before being delivered to Australia in 2018....

...Osley noted that testing of the F-35A variant is 40 percent to 45 percent complete and he saw no “showstoppers.”...

...Bogdan has briefed international partners that the advanced training software, Block 2B, is on track to support US Marine Corps IOC in July 2015, but the Marines have a fallback plan of late 2015 if required.

The next software version is Block 3I (Initial), which has the same capabilities as Block 2B (the initial war fighter) but can be used outside the continental US by other nations, and Osley said it is on track for the end of 2015.

With Australian confidence high for on-time delivery of its F-35As, Osley said he is now focusing on ensuring local infrastructure and training will be in place to stand up the first operational squadron, representing IOC, in late 2020." ... uestration

Re: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2015, 05:31
by spazsinbad
Very little about F-35s in Oz Senate/Parliament Enquiry. Why? :mrgreen: Because it is SO CONTROVERSIAL! NOT :devil: So the offending PDF pages are attached from:


"...Senator LUDLAM: So the third and fourth quarters of 2020. I have a couple of issues to run through—as you probably anticipate—around issues which we only have access to from the Defence press and from articles that come across our desk. These are different performance issues. I have a couple of questions on notice, which have only just lapsed so they are not unreasonably late, but I will put a few issues to you. Firstly, reporting: I understand that the aircraft uses fuel as an element of its internal heat sink and they have noticed in the US that if they are refuelling from very warm tankers that have been sitting in the sun for a period of time it makes the aircraft unsafe to fly because the fuel is at a very high temperature. Has that issue come across your desk?

Air Vice Marshal Davies: That is not across my desk. I have been aware, though, of issues around fuel temperature, but at the moment I am not aware of any issue that would prevent us acquiring the aircraft in the time frame we plan. Yesterday, at the Avalon air show, I spoke with Lieutenant General Bogdan and that was certainly not an issue that was discussed or raised as being a problem.

Air Vice Marshal Deeble: I am the program manager for JSF. There are no issues associated with the fuel that would not otherwise be inherent in any aircraft. So JSF does not suffer from a fuel problem.

Senator LUDLAM: A fuel temperature problem relating—

Air Vice Marshal Deeble: A fuel temperature problem.

Senator LUDLAM: The issue in the article that I came across was actually that the colour of the fuel trucks made a difference. If they were dark green, you would get a different fuel temperature than if they were white.

Air Vice Marshal Deeble: We are agnostic to the colour of the fuel tank that refuels the JSF...."
...Senator LUDLAM: One issue that I came across—maybe this is not something that you or your pilots would worry about—is that the ammunition that the aircraft would carry would allow it to fire for about four seconds before it was out of ammunition.

Air Chief Marshal Binskin: That is not unusual. The Hornet is six seconds.

Senator LUDLAM: Six seconds.

Air Chief Marshal Binskin: Yes, depending on the rate of fire that you choose. So that is not unusual. That is a lot of lead that goes down range in four seconds, though.

Senator LUDLAM: But it is gone very quickly, and would the JSF be anticipated to fly in the same kind of role as a Hornet—for close escort?

Air Chief Marshal Binskin: The gun is not a close escort weapon. A gun is a weapon that keeps people honest when you get close. To be honest with you, if the JSF ends up in a gun fight, you have got a lot more issues that you need to have addressed.

Senator LUDLAM: You would have if you were out of ammunition, I guess.

Air Chief Marshal Binskin: In fact, you may as well pull out the knife and the pistol that the pilot is carrying and go to that because it is not designed to get into that sort of fight.

Source: ... ec/0001%22 (PDF 1.3Mb)

Re: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2015, 02:46
by thebigfish
Air Chief Marshal Binskin: In fact, you may as well pull out the knife and the pistol that the pilot is carrying and go to that because it is not designed to get into that sort of fight.

That comment there, which I know he meant as something else entirely, will be potentially used as ammunintion that the F35 is not good in a "dogfight". along with the 6 v 4 seconds. sigh! :doh: