Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2013, 20:26
by spazsinbad
Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future 28 Feb 2013 By Rob Taylor

"Australia's conservative opposition, which is expected to win elections in September, said on Thursday it supported Lockheed Martin's troubled F-35 to be the country's next frontline warplane, despite problems and huge cost blowouts.

A day after the Pentagon's F-35 program chief lashed Lockheed and engine maker Pratt & Whitney for trying to "squeeze every nickel" out of the U.S. government, Australian lawmakers expressed confidence in the futuristic jet.

"The air force is supportive of the project, wants the aircraft and sees it as the future, as do we," said Senator David Johnston, defense spokesman for the opposition, which is forecast to sweep away the minority Labor government in a September 14 vote.

"It is pertinent to our immediate region and it fits into our air combat doctrine perfectly, and to some extent leads the doctrine," Johnston told Reuters from Washington on Thursday after briefings on the F-35 with U.S. officials, who told him the aircraft was "over the hump" with its development....

...An announcement on the extra Hornets and the timetable for delivery of the first squadron of F-35s, also known as Joint Strike Fighters (JSF), will likely come in June with the government's release of a new defense strategy blueprint.

Johnston, the man likely to decide the purchase next year if the conservatives win, said while both of Australia's major political blocs differed on defense budgeting and timing of acquisitions, the Joint Strike Fighter had broad support.

"At this stage we are optimistic that Australia will be a customer for a very significant number, although what that number will be is still a little bit up in the air," said Johnston.

Defense analysts predict Australia might end up buying between 50 and 70 of the fighters instead of 100, although Canberra could also buy the full number but over a longer timeframe beyond 2020, depending on a budget recovery....

...Australia is the second biggest international buyer after Britain, and its small air force is one of the most technically advanced in Asia and a pointer to emerging regional defense capabilities....

...The opposition spokesman on military purchasing, Gary Humphries, said a future conservative government would continue with the F-35, as the high-tech jet would smooth cooperation with allied air forces in Japan and possibly Singapore.

"This could be the shape of air power for effectively the 21st Century. The JSF holds much greater promise for Australian air power needs than any other alternative," Humphries said...."

Usual already known stuff at the jump but go read it to remind us all.

Source: http://www.4-traders.com/LOCKHEED-MARTI ... ountview=0

RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2013, 22:14
by gtx
Met with both AVM Osley (head of NACC) and Lt Gen Bogdan in the last few days. Two pertinent bits of news from these meetings is that of the 3 options given to Govt (and incidentally also to Oppostion) for new fighters, every one has F-35s in it, and Lt Gen Bogdan has briefed Minister Smith and confirmed that he will be able to deliver F-35s to Australia well in the timetable demanded for new fighters.

RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2013, 00:05
by spazsinbad
Here are the words of the General on this thread: F-35 chief Bogdan to execute, not cheerlead - Avalon AirShow

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... ris#246029

{I see 'gtx' has commented on this thread also}

"...Lt Gen Bogdan said that despite the problems experienced in the past, he was confident in the ability to deliver a more advanced, survivable jet to the RAAF and other partner nations.

“Relative to the schedule, if the plan which Australia intends on moving forward with stays to IOC in 2020 with the [initial warfighting capability software Block] 3i, I will tell you that Australia doesn’t have much to worry about,” he said.

“Why? Because in 2015 I have to deliver the same capability to the US Marine Corp. Eight months later I have to deliver the same capability to Italy in 2016, then in the middle of 2017 I have to deliver the same capability to the Israelis. Then there will be a three year wait until we deliver to the Australians.”

“So even if I screw this up royally – and I do not intend to do that – I’m pretty sure I’ll meet Australia’s 2020 date.”

FROM: http://australianaviation.com.au/2013/0 ... cheerlead/

Re: RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2013, 00:12
by popcorn
gtx wrote:Met with both AVM Osley (head of NACC) and Lt Gen Bogdan in the last few days. Two pertinent bits of news from these meetings is that of the 3 options given to Govt (and incidentally also to Oppostion) for new fighters, every one has F-35s in it, and Lt Gen Bogdan has briefed Minister Smith and confirmed that he will be able to deliver F-35s to Australia well in the timetable demanded for new fighters.


The MoD's primary concerns are the possible capabilities gap arising out of additional delays in the program as well as cost escalations. Gen. Bogdan would have reassured the Aussies on both concerns.. will it be enough to deter acquisition of additional interim SHs?

RE: Re: RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2013, 00:18
by spazsinbad
Because the decision to NOT take up another lot of Supers/Growlers so far, AND the recent developments including Gen. Bogdan visit, I do not think there will be any more Supers for the RAAF. The issue has been one way to smokescreen the deferment of the next 12 F-35As for the RAAF to make the DefMin look like he is doing his job/or look good or just blabber without saying much which is his usual modus operandi. He used to be Foreign Minister and would like to go back there toot sweet. He had to give up that job much to his chagrin to be the DefMin.

RE: Re: RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2013, 00:19
by gtx
will it be enough to deter acquisition of additional interim SHs?


Well a lot of that will be dependent upon how much political capital the Govt thinks they can gain from a possible SH buy in this election year... :roll:

Cynical? Who me? :wink:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2013, 00:21
by gtx
spazsinbad wrote:Because the decision to NOT take up another lot of Supers/Growlers so far, AND the recent developments including Gen. Bogdan visit, I do not think there will be any more Supers for the RAAF. The issue has been one way to smokescreen the deferment of the next 12 F-35As for the RAAF to make the DefMin look like he is doing his job/or look good or just blabber without saying much which is his usual modus operandi. He used to be Foreign Minister and would like to go back there toot sweet. He had to give up that job much to his chagrin to be the DefMin.


My thoughts almost exactly.

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2013, 01:07
by popcorn
I'm a big believer in the benefits of operating a single platform going into the future. You guys are closer to the politics so I hope you're right.

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2013, 03:02
by neurotech
popcorn wrote:I'm a big believer in the benefits of operating a single platform going into the future. You guys are closer to the politics so I hope you're right.

What if that "single platform" gets grounded during a critical time? At least with a F-35/Super Hornet mix there is options if one gets grounded.

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2013, 03:33
by SpudmanWP
Grounding an entire fleet is all about acceptable risk.

In peacetime the risk threshold is extremely low so they will ground a fleet fairly easily.

In wartime that risk threshold rises considerably and there would have to be a lot of evidence that a significant chance of something going wrong if they fly the plane would be needed in order to ground the fleet.

During the recent F-22 groundings they stated that if it were wartime that they would have let them fly.

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2013, 03:42
by popcorn
neurotech wrote:
popcorn wrote:I'm a big believer in the benefits of operating a single platform going into the future. You guys are closer to the politics so I hope you're right.

What if that "single platform" gets grounded during a critical time? At least with a F-35/Super Hornet mix there is options if one gets grounded.


It didn't deter them from standardizing on the Classic Hornet back in the day. Yes they had F111s for strike but even that capability would be constrained w/o Hornets providing escort. In the A2A arena, hey had all their eggs in one basket.

The very real benefits accruing from the single platform approach obviously outweighed a perceived concern with very low probability of happening... that seemed to be their mindset with the Hornet. So they do have a track record of going with single platform approaches e.g.Wedgetail. AWD, etc.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2013, 03:55
by Conan
spazsinbad wrote:Because the decision to NOT take up another lot of Supers/Growlers so far, AND the recent developments including Gen. Bogdan visit, I do not think there will be any more Supers for the RAAF. The issue has been one way to smokescreen the deferment of the next 12 F-35As for the RAAF to make the DefMin look like he is doing his job/or look good or just blabber without saying much which is his usual modus operandi. He used to be Foreign Minister and would like to go back there toot sweet. He had to give up that job much to his chagrin to be the DefMin.


Perhaps though that ignores the elephant in the room, which is that the Hornets are rapidly fading...

It is a convergence of F-35 delays and the aging Hornets (and the idiotic reduction in CBR upgrades a few years back) that is pushing the Super Hornet purchase.

If F-35 were available today, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But for all it's positives, it isn't and won't be for years.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2013, 04:47
by neurotech
Conan wrote:Perhaps though that ignores the elephant in the room, which is that the Hornets are rapidly fading...

It is a convergence of F-35 delays and the aging Hornets (and the idiotic reduction in CBR upgrades a few years back) that is pushing the Super Hornet purchase.

If F-35 were available today, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But for all it's positives, it isn't and won't be for years.

Politically, "reducing program costs" sounds like a good thing to the average voter, except that we get situations where refurbishment or Center Barrel Replacement program is delayed/reduced with a short-term saving. Without these upgrades and refurbishment, the fleet gets old fast, and as you say, would then essentially require a further Super Hornet purchase. The CBR option is relatively cheap (under $4m per aircraft from memory) and extends the service life significantly.

How many RAAF F/A-18 pilots went into politics? Apparently not enough..

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2013, 06:39
by spazsinbad
The Canadian Govmnt website thought this 'Oz' newspaper article worthwhileenough to republish. There is the usual error about why the first lot of Supers were bought (some memes - correct or not will never die - especially on the internet - but - whatever). I - perhaps - would have picked a better article about these issues than this one - but - there you go.... Perhaps the Canuks liked the battleship V aircraft carrier analogy [WVR v BVR]? Only a very small excerpt below.

For security’s sake, Joint Strike Fighter is way of the future The Australian, Greg Sheridan, Foreign Editor, March 2, 2013

http://f-35.ca/2013/for-securitys-sake- ... he-future/

"...The government is considering another 24 Super Hornets with a view to getting some JSFs some time in the future, and eventually running a mixed fleet. But given the length of time we keep planes in service – 40 years for the F-111s – and the dire state of the defence budget, it would probably be many years, 2025 at the absolute earliest, before we ever got any JSFs.

In the long run, this would leave us with an inferior air force and higher costs. An air force, by say 2035 or 2040, of 48 Super Hornets and 50 JSFs would be vastly inferior to an air force of 100 JSFs. As well, it would be more expensive to have two separate training and maintenance operations and to integrate two radically different planes into single-mission capabilities. More important, many of our wealthy neighbours will have JSFs or something like them. Japan has committed to a substantial JSF purchase. Given that, it is difficult to see South Korea sticking with a 4th-generation plane while Tokyo has the 5th generation. The Singaporeans are said to favour the JSF, especially the short take off and landing version, which gives them the ability to use even some of their roads as runways if necessary, and thus get round one of their vulnerabilities, that their air fields could be attacked...."

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2013, 00:27
by popcorn
Greg Sheridan gets to visit the LM factory and see the F-35 up close.


http://m.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/c ... 6624677731

Very best of the next generation
Greg Sheridan, Foreign Editor April 20, 2013 12:00AM

It is an exaggeration to say a stealth plane is invisible. When it opens its weapons bay, it creates a signature. When it gets too close, it's observable. The opposition radar designers do what they can to defeat stealth. Technology is always a cat-and-mouse contest. But stealth also does its job if it merely disrupts the enemy's kill chain. Enemy radar must identify the F-35, track it, send this data to a weapons system, then have that weapons system deliver a strike on the F-35. A fleeting glimpse for the enemy may not be enough to do all that. "There are typically two sorts of people who believe in stealth," a lean, wiry test pilot tells me. "The first is those who have flown stealth. The second is those who have flown against it." For them, not seeing is believing. Another test pilot tells me F-16 pilots hate flying in mock combat against the F-22s, even if it means soft duty in Las Vegas and the Arizona test fields. It's not just that the F-16 always loses. It's more that there's no fun in the encounter. The F-16 pilot never even sees the Raptor. He just gets told his plane has been killed..

There are trade-offs involved even for a system as complex and involved as the F-35. It sacrifices some turning ability for stealth. It sacrifices a fraction of manoeuvrability for speed and range. But what is undeniable is that for decades the F-35 will be the most survivable aircraft, the very hardest to kill. Much of its new capability comes from its integrated sensors, and the ability to share and integrate data with other F-35s, and other air and ground buddies. Each F-35 is a system of systems in itself. A squadron of F-35s is an exponential increase of that capability. As a result, an F-35 pilot won't really be flying a plane on his own. He will be part of a wolf pack. Targeting will be uniquely precise, and early, because of the fusion of countless data points...

The controversies about the F-35 remind me of the derision the F-111 attracted in its development phase. The F-111, of course, went on to become Australia's strategic strike capability for decades. But whereas there were only about 500 F-111s built, and we were the last to operate them, there will be 3000 or more F-35s and they will be manufactured for decades to come. This has enormous implications for their ability to be supported and maintained. Australia is notionally planning to buy 100 F-35s, though this figure is pretty fudgeable. When you acquire genuine world-leading new technology, there are always alarums and diversions, delays and cost over-runs. We are a wealthy nation with a very small population in a teeming region with more than its share of instability. A key ingredient of our national security doctrine is to maintain a technology edge over our neighbours. But most of the region now has fourth-generation fighters with essentially the same capabilities as our own. The F-35 is the best of the fifth generation. With constant American software upgrades, it would keep us ahead of the pack for decades.

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2013, 00:42
by popcorn
Deleted.

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2013, 04:23
by spazsinbad
Mixed 'Jensen' with "Johnston" - they all look the same to me. :roll:

Defence will get funds, Libs vow 30 Apr 2013 Cameron Stewart
"DEFENCE and national security policy is in crisis because unfunded promises, delayed capability and chronic mismanagement have created an "irresponsible and dangerous" outlook, opposition [Liberal] defence spokesman David Johnston has warned.

In a speech to the Lowy Institute late yesterday, Senator Johnston promised an Abbott government would align defence policy with funding, something he said the Gillard government had failed to do. "My mantra is to under-promise and over-deliver," he said.

His comments come ahead of the expected imminent release of the government's defence white paper, which will promise substantial new spending commitments, including the likely purchase of more F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter bombers and a fourth air warfare destroyer....

...The Weekend Australian revealed on Saturday that the defence white paper would be released before next month's budget and was likely to include more than $200 billion of promised new equipment including more Super Hornets and a fourth air warfare destroyer....

...Senator Johnston gave strong support to the beleaguered Joint Strike Fighter, which has suffered schedule and cost blowouts, and criticised the government for delaying its purchase decisions in relation to the plane. "It's a vital major project and a great feather in (former defence minister) Robert Hill's [former Liberal DefMin] cap for having this strategic foresight more than 10 years ago," he said."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6631859535

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2013, 05:35
by spazsinbad
OzLanders will know Anna? :D

VIDEO: [Centrifuge] Training for supersonic speed 28 Apr 2013

http://edition.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c1 ... ic-jet.cnn

"CNN’s Anna Coren trains to fly the KAI T-50 in the first of two special reports."

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2013, 09:57
by spazsinbad
Australia to back F-35 buy in new defence blueprint 02 May 2013 By Andrea Shalal-Esa and Rob Taylor
"WASHINGTON/CANBERRA, May 2 (Reuters) - Australia's government is expected to affirm plans to buy up to 100 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets, according to a defense blueprint to be released on Friday, easing concerns hanging over the future of the controversial stealth fighter.

The Australian plan, as outlined by defense sources and analysts, will also call for the purchase of a dozen Boeing Co EA-18G electronic attack planes, modified versions of Boeing's Super Hornets, purchased as a stopgap for the F-35.

It reinforces positive steps for the F-35, coming on the heels of a decision by Norway to buy six F-35s a year earlier than planned, and the Dutch parliament's decision not to reassess F-35 rivals to replace aging F-16s....

...Singapore is likely to order 12 jets, with an option for eight more, according to sources familiar with the plans. Sixty jets are at stake in South Korea's competition, which has pitted the F-35 against Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle and the Eurofighter Typhoon built by EADS, BAE Systems Plc and Finmeccanica SpA....

...The target of up to 100 F-35s in the Australian blueprint is likely be couched as "aspirational", subject to economic conditions, defense sources and analysts said.

AUSTRALIAN F/A-18S
The paper is expected to scale back a $275 billion weapons buying plan released in 2009, but proceed with the purchase of a dozen new Boeing EA-18G "Growlers," advanced electronic attack planes, a capability first for a U.S. ally in Asia.

Canberra's future frontline air fleet would have up to 100 F-35s and 36 Super Hornets, counting the radar-jamming Growlers, and make Australia's air force one of the region's most potent.

Australia had planned to retrofit a dozen Super Hornets with the electronic attack capabilities, but has now decided to buy new Growlers, said two sources who were not authorized to speak on the record.

The Boeing buy, reduced to 12 from 24 planes, had threatened to scale back Canberra's F-35 purchase. Boeing is expected to continue pushing the Super Hornet as a more affordable alternative, particularly if any new F-35 crises emerge.

"Just wait until the slightest hiccup with the F-35, and the Boeing people will be there making their argument," one source said.

U.S. Navy Captain Frank Morley last month said Australia would decide by late spring or early summer whether to buy 12 or 24 of the Boeing planes. Even a 12-plane buy would extend the Boeing production line well into 2016, he said.

Australia decided to stick with the F-35, heartened by recent progress on the plane and its high-tech helmet that fuses all the sensor data from the plane, said three sources familiar with the plan.

Australia's first two F-35s are due to be delivered in 2014-15. It has so far only committed to buying 14 F-35s...."

http://www.lse.co.uk/macroeconomicNews. ... _blueprint

Re: RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2013, 00:23
by neurotech
gtx wrote:Met with both AVM Osley (head of NACC) and Lt Gen Bogdan in the last few days. Two pertinent bits of news from these meetings is that of the 3 options given to Govt (and incidentally also to Oppostion) for new fighters, every one has F-35s in it, and Lt Gen Bogdan has briefed Minister Smith and confirmed that he will be able to deliver F-35s to Australia well in the timetable demanded for new fighters.

Did Gen. Bogdan seem to live up to his reputation? Calm demeanor but known for being direct and straight talking in getting his point across.. Apparently, people actually refer to him as "the sheriff" but I'm not sure what his actual pilots callsign is.

RE: Re: RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2013, 03:43
by spazsinbad
Australian Defence Force to get new jets, patrol boats 03 May 2013 Lanai Scarr
" AUSTRALIA will purchase 12 new electronic warfare fighter planes to cover the delays in the Joint Strike Fighter project, Julia Gillard has announced.

The Prime Minister this morning unveiled the 2013 Defence White Paper and said $1.5 billion would be allocated over four years to make the aircraft purchases.

Ms Gillard said the JSF program had experienced cost overruns and delays and in order to cover the gap in capability 12 Grow[l]er aircraft would be added to Australia's fleet.

The Prime Minister made the announcement along with Defence Minister Stephen Smith who said Australia would be ''the only country outside of the US'' to have access to the Growler planes - an electronic version of the super hornet.

Last year it was announced in the budget that 12 of the first 14 F-35A Joint Strike Fighters would be delayed by two years, creating a potential gap in Australia's air force capability.

The first three of the JSF fleet are now not expected to arrive in Australia until 2020.

''Defence remains committed to the JSF program and anticipate its delivery,'' Ms Gillard said
...."

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/fe ... 6634494277

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2013, 08:37
by gtx
More :D:

Prime Minister and Minister for Defence – Joint Media Release – 2013 Defence White Paper: Air Combat Capability

Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Minister for Defence Stephen Smith today announced the steps the Government has taken to strengthen Australia’s air combat capability.

The 2013 Defence White Paper highlights the strategic importance of a potent and flexible air combat capability to control Australia’s air approaches and support operations in the land, sea and air environments.

Emerging advanced air combat and air defence capabilities within the region, together with the proliferation of modern electronic warfare systems, will make the air combat tasks of controlling the air, conducting strike and supporting land and naval forces increasingly challenging.

Australia’s air combat capability is a vital part of our national security framework and the Government will not allow a gap in our air combat capability to occur.

As a prudent measure to assure Australia’s air combat capability through the transition period to the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the Government has decided to retain the current 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets (one operational squadron) in their current air combat and strike capability configuration.

The Government has also decided to acquire 12 new-build EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft instead of converting 12 of Australia’s existing F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft into the Growler configuration. 12 Growler aircraft will enhance significantly the ADF’s electronic warfare capability and, together with the JSF and the Super Hornet, will form a formidable air combat force capable of controlling both the air and electronic environments.

A decision on replacing the Super Hornets with additional JSF aircraft will be made closer to the withdrawal of the Super Hornets, which is not expected until around 2030.

The 2009 Defence White Paper outlined the Government’s commitment to acquire JSF and announced approval for the purchase of the first 14 JSF aircraft at a cost of around $3.2 billion. Of these, Australia is contractually committed to two, which will be delivered in the course of 2014 to 2015 in the United States for testing and training purposes.

Due to challenges and delays within the JSF Program, the United States restructured the JSF Program last year, deferring the acquisition of 179 aircraft and providing US$15 billion less in funding over the next five years. Australia aligned itself to this schedule in the 2012-13 Budget. While the US remains committed to the JSF, procurement has been slowed to complete more testing and make developmental changes before the purchase of aircraft in significant quantities.

The Government remains committed to acquiring the fifth-generation JSF aircraft, with three operational squadrons planned to enter service beginning around 2020 to replace the F/A-18A/B Hornet aircraft.

Australia’s Super Hornet aircraft, the delivery of the Growler electronic attack aircraft and the supporting KC-30A air-to-air refuelling aircraft will ensure the continued potency of Australia’s air combat system in projecting decisive air power in the defence of Australia and its interests.


In brief, the Government anounced that there would be no change to the extant F-35 timeline, and that the first squadron of F-35s will be in Australia in 2020 and that the three operational squadrons of F-35s would replace the F-18A/B fleet.

The Prime Minister reiterated that Australia was committed to the F-35. Minister Smith, in response to questions, stated that they now had greater confidence in the JSF Program after the recent restructure under the leadership of VADM Venlet and LTG Chris Bogdan.

Re: RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2013, 08:39
by gtx
neurotech wrote:
gtx wrote:Met with both AVM Osley (head of NACC) and Lt Gen Bogdan in the last few days. Two pertinent bits of news from these meetings is that of the 3 options given to Govt (and incidentally also to Oppostion) for new fighters, every one has F-35s in it, and Lt Gen Bogdan has briefed Minister Smith and confirmed that he will be able to deliver F-35s to Australia well in the timetable demanded for new fighters.

Did Gen. Bogdan seem to live up to his reputation? Calm demeanor but known for being direct and straight talking in getting his point across.. Apparently, people actually refer to him as "the sheriff" but I'm not sure what his actual pilots callsign is.


Yep, that sums him up. I found him very likeable.

RE: Re: RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2013, 08:57
by spazsinbad
As I mentioned earlier from his appearances on Oz TV (including long interview) Bogdan comes across as someone who is able to explain complicated stuff so that everyone understands and HE MEANS BUSINESS. :D

Now more YadaYada.... + Question about Dutchlanders....

Australian military to boost air power to focus on Indo-Pacific 03 May 2013 By James Grubel
"...Canberra's decision reinforces positive steps for the F-35, coming on the heels of a decision by Norway to buy six F-35s a year earlier than planned, and the Dutch parliament's decision not to reassess F-35 rivals to replace aging F-16s,[did that decision wash over me?] despite cost overruns and development delays.

Australia's first two F-35s are due to be delivered in the United States in 2014-15. Australia will initially buy 14 F-35s, building up to three operational squadrons, of around 75 planes. The first squadron is due in service from around 2020.

The decision to stick with the F-35 will give Australia a mixed fleet of Super Hornets, Growlers and the new stealth fighters, matching the U.S. navy capability until at least 2030, Smith said.

The government also holds the option of buying a further 25 F-35s after 2030, to replace the Super Hornets when they are withdrawn from service, bringing the total of F-35s to 100...."

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/australian-mil ... ml#UIseDDJ

RE: Re: RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2013, 09:29
by spazsinbad

RE: Re: RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2013, 13:52
by spazsinbad
TRANSCRIPT: SPEECH AT THE LAUNCH OF THE 2013 DEFENCE WHITE PAPER TRANSCRIPTION: PROOF COPY E & OE
DATE: 3 May 2013
"STEPHEN SMITH:... Firstly, air combat capability. The Government has made it clear for a number of years that we will not allow a gap to occur in our air combat capability or superiority in our immediate region. We currently have 71 Classic Hornets which are ageing, 24 Super Hornets, and the Government today announces that it will purchase 12 new Growler aircraft. The electronic air warfare combat capability. Potentially, the most significant capability we've purchased since the F-111.

There's no change to our Joint Strike Fighter timetable as published in last year's budget, which reflects and replicates the timetable for the United States' Joint Strike Fighter project. And we expect to see, on the basis of no further delays in that project, the first of our three squadrons arrive in 2020, with two planes being handed over to us for training purposes in the United States in 2014-2015.

This will give us a mixed fleet of 12 Growlers, 24 Super Hornets, and over time into the 2030s, 72 Joint Strike Fighters. In the 2030s, the Government of the day will be able to make a decision whether the 24 Super Hornets can be replaced by Joint Strike Fighters. But in the end, we have always said that to maintain our air combat capability and superiority, we need to draw from a fleet of about 100. That remains the case.

The Growler, as I say, is a very effective air electronic warfare capability, we'll be the only country other than the United States to have that. It will be effective either with Classic Hornets, with Super Hornets, or with the Joint Strike Fighter...."

http://www.noodls.com/viewNoodl/1847242 ... of-the-201

RE: Re: RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2013, 21:05
by spazsinbad
Australia to Buy 12 Boeing Electronic Warfare Aircraft 04 May 2013 By Rich Smith
"...Up until now, the plan had been for the Royal Australian Air Force to convert 12 of its Boeing F/A-18F "Super Hornet" fighter jets into EA-18G "Growler" electronic warfare planes, and then spend $3.2 billion to buy 14 new F-35s to replace the converted fighters. However, sequester-related plans in the U.S. to reduce F-35 production mean Australia may not get the F-35s it wants, as quickly as it wants. [WHAT?! TOTAL B/S]

To hedge against continued delays, therefore, the RAAF has decided to leave its F-18s alone for the time being, and buy 12 new Growlers to provide the electronic warfare capability it needs. The purchase price has yet been settled, but news reports say the cost could be around $1.5 billion...."

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2 ... rfare.aspx

RE: Re: RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2013, 21:21
by spazsinbad
CHECK THE OZ ACCENTS IN THE VIDEO ON THIS PAGE.... :D

JSFs, submarines still in government's plans 03 May 2013 David Wroe
"Australia is sticking to ambitious plans to beef up its defence capabilities with cutting-edge Joint Strike Fighters, 12 new submarines and "Growler" warfare electronic technology, despite questions about the government's long-term ability to fund the plans....

...The white paper, released in Canberra this morning by Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Defence Minister Stephen Smith, outlays plans to buy 12 new Superhornet fighter planes equipped with "Growler" technology that can knock out an enemy's communications and electronic capabilities over a wide area.

This purchase means Australia's existing 24 Superhornets can stay in service as fighter planes. The government plans to begin flying three operational squadrons of the fifth-generation Joint Strike Fighters – about 72 planes in total – from 2020.

The previous 2009 white paper forecast a purchase of 100 Joint Strike Fighters. Mr Smith said on Friday the government would hold off for now on deciding whether to buy a fourth squadron of JSFs when the current Superhornets are ready for retirement...."

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political ... 7556749753

RE: Re: RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2013, 21:25
by gtx
spazsinbad wrote:However, sequester-related plans in the U.S. to reduce F-35 production mean Australia may not get the F-35s it wants, as quickly as it wants. [WHAT?! TOTAL B/S]



Just shows how people either don't understand or twist issues to suit themselves.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2013, 21:29
by gtx
spazsinbad wrote: equipped with "Growler" technology


That could be read in a totally different way... :lol:

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2013, 21:34
by spazsinbad
Top-secret Growler warplane bound for RAAF 03 May 2013 Max Blenkin
"MUCH of what the Growler can do remains top secret.

Officially named the Boeing EA-18G Growler, this very advanced variant of the Super Hornet should be gracing the flight line at RAAF bases by the end of the decade.

Under the plan outlined in the new Defence White Paper, the RAAF will acquire 12 new-built Growlers....

...So what's a Growler?

It's an aircraft configured for electronic warfare, though many of its capabilities remain classified.

It can certainly jam hostile radars and communications or even mobile phone systems. It can target enemy radars with homing missiles. It has an unspecified capability for electronic attack, the ability to spoof or even destroy enemy electronic systems.

This is done through a series of high-powered jammer pods carried under the aircraft wings.

The current model, the ALQ-99, dates from the later years of the Vietnam war and has a number of shortcomings, including poor reliability. [Although these pods have been updated constantly since the beginning - reliability issues being addressed]

A new model is under development and will likely be operational around 2020....

...RAAF chief Air Marshal Geoff Brown said it would probably represent the biggest strategic increase in Australian Defence Force (ADF) capability since the arrival of the F-111 strike bomber."

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/breakin ... public_rss

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 May 2013, 21:54
by spazsinbad
A bland defence posture that may be just right for our times 04 May 2013 Daniel Flitton
"Stephen Smith tried to pass the Goldilocks test on Friday when serving up Australia's latest military blueprint. Not too hot, as the 2009 Defence white paper proved, angering China by painting the threat from ''rising powers''. Not too cold, and fuel a shrill campaign by the opposition and defence industry lobbyists that the military is withering under savage budget cuts. He aimed for just right.

This is very much a Smith document. The Defence Minister is cautious by nature, obsessed with detail, reviews and process. In media interviews he delights in what he calls dancing on the head of a pin, conceding nothing beyond the agreed ''lines'' of the day. He is, very much, the unremarkable Mr Smith....

...The strongest complaint to be made about this white paper is it is bland, a bit like porridge. And as Goldilocks would say, that is just right."

http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/a-bla ... 2iyj4.html

Illustration: Jim Pavlidis.

http://images.watoday.com.au/2013/05/03 ... 20x349.jpg

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2013, 20:25
by neurotech
Does anyone take that political satire seriously?

Australia has a respectable combat capability, but if going from ~100 combat jets to 150 was enough to upset the Chinese, then Chinese foreign policy is skewed. Hypothetically, if Australia suddenly ordered 50+ F-15SE jets, even that wouldn't make that much strategic difference compared to 200+ Flankers available to the PLAAF. The USAF F-22s would be a game changer even against China, but they are not RAAF jets.

As I've said before, Kopp and friends are idiots, Because there is no way a successful F-22 refresh could take place if the F-35 program was significantly cut back. The most likely possibility is a new 5.5 Gen design based on successful F-35 class technology, eg. F/A-XX. And once deployed, that would be more a strategic decision for the USAF/USN/DoD not the ADF/RAAF, with regard to Chinese reaction.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2013, 21:08
by spazsinbad
Transcript Of [PM] Remarks At Launch Of 2013 Defence White Paper 03 MAY 2013 Prime Minister, Canberra
"...The White Paper reaffirms the central and enduring importance of our alliance relationship with the United States and the contribution this makes to regional stability and to Australia’s security.

And it commits the Government to deeper defence partnerships in our region including with China, our longstanding partner New Zealand, and with countries such as Indonesia, India, Singapore, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Malaysia.

Second, the White Paper finds that the key capabilities envisaged in 2009 including a more robust maritime force along with a continuing commitment to fifth generation fighter aircraft and a strategic strike capability remain appropriate for Australia.

The Government therefore reaffirms its commitment to the core capability elements of 2009 White Paper including Joint Strike Fighters, new amphibious ships, twelve new future submarines and our Air Warfare Destroyers.

Third, while the Joint Strike Fighter project has suffered cost overruns and delays, the Government remains committed to the JSF as our principal ADF strike capability and confident of its delivery.

We envisage three operational squadrons of the JSF entering service beginning around 2020.

However, to ensure air combat capability through the transition to the Joint Strike Fighter, the Government is announcing today that it will purchase twelve new-build Growler aircraft.

The Growler is the electronic warfare variant of the Super Hornet.

This capability purchase will allow Australia to retain its existing 24 Super Hornets in their current air combat configuration whilst also maintaining 12 Growler aircraft.

The cost of this purchase is estimated at around $1.5 billion over the next four years and will be contained in the forthcoming budget and included in Defence’s four year forward estimates...."

http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/trans ... hite-paper

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2013, 21:29
by spazsinbad
Defense White Paper: One American's View 09 May 2013 By Michael J. Green
"...I liked the White Paper's emphasis on the Indo-Pacific concept and the focus on protecting the maritime approaches to Australia. This broader framework, in the tradition of naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan, is probably more appropriate to Australia's maritime setting than past Labor Party strategic concepts that seemed to rely too heavily on stopping the enemy at the beaches or in the Coral Sea.

The emphasis on preventing hostile powers from using coercion or intimidation in this Indo-Pacific zone is particularly relevant, given that Beijing arguably attempted just that in the East and South China Seas in recent years. This theme in the White Paper will resonate with evolving U.S. thinking and declaratory policy...."

http://csis.org/publication/defense-whi ... icans-view

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2013, 10:53
by spazsinbad
This'll help....
Aust, US sign off on defence trade treaty 16 May 2013
"“It's taken six years for Australia and the United States to seal a treaty to make it easier for local defence companies to acquire advanced US technology. Defence Minister Stephen Smith and US ambassador Jeffrey Bleich on Thursday formally exchanged diplomatic notes bringing the Australia-US Defence Trade Treaty into effect.

Former prime minister John Howard kicked off the process during the visit to Australia of then US president George W Bush in 2007.

"Australia will be only the second country following the UK which has such a trade treaty with the US," Mr Smith told reporters in Canberra. Mr Bleich said the treaty reflected the deep trust between Australia and the US. "This is a very significant action by both of our countries," he said.

The US has traditionally imposed tight controls on export of its defence equipment, particularly advanced technology, even to close allies. Previously, Australian defence companies had to negotiate complex US defence export procedures and apply on every single occasion for approval to collaborate and export.
But under the new regime, companies can obtain a global authorisation.

"It's a very streamlined and much more efficient process and will allow us to work together far more quickly with less red tape," Mr Bleich said. Mr Smith said the length of time it took to get the final agreement was a reflection of the treaty process. "In some respects ... the easiest thing in the world is the general agreement," he said. "We then had to get legislation through the congress and through our own parliament. "It has been well worth the effort.”

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-na ... 2jo9g.html

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2013, 02:33
by popcorn
More from the land if Oz.. is it my imagination or has APA gone on Sabbatical?


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/ ... 7I20130516
Australia heaps praise on F-35, says rivals years behind

By Rob Taylor CANBERRA | Thu May 16, 2013 2:58am EDT May 16 (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp is well on the way to fixing the F-35s performance and helmet problems, Australian military chiefs said on Thursday, rejecting criticism the troubled jet will be overmatched by newer Russian and Chinese aircraft.

In testimony to parliament on the F-35, for which Australia is one of the largest international buyers with plans for up to 100, Australia's air force chief Air Marshal Geoff Brown said rivals were years behind the Lightning II's development.

Critics of the F-35 have predicted the aircraft, for which many performance data are classified, will be outflown by emerging aircraft like Russia's Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA and China's J-20, as well as existing fighters like the Su-35, citing computer modelling of known abilities.

"Let me tell you, I don't think that they have the level of stealth that's available in U.S. fifth generation aircraft, and it's by a significant factor," Air Marshal Brown told lawmakers.

"Both PAK FA, J-20 and J-31 are possibly where we were in excess of 10-12 years ago in their development time frames, so all those aeroplanes have still got a long, long way to go," Brown said.. :D

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2013, 02:45
by spazsinbad
Article above already posted here:

Can the F-35 match the PAK-FA 16 May 2013

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... own#252384

Yes this forum is perhaps more confusing since the restructure - I would like to see more sub-sections; but it will take a while for all the current articles in topic groups to be forgotten for the new paradigm to take hold - yeah right. :D

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2013, 04:57
by KamenRiderBlade
My big question is the PAK FA, J-20 and J-31 going to have such a complex and amazing integrated Avionics package?

Or are they going to just shove in dials, switchs, and screens like in old fighters and have the pilot manage everything like in legacy jets?

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2013, 23:25
by XanderCrews
popcorn wrote:More from the land if Oz.. is it my imagination or has APA gone on Sabbatical?


Probably re-insulating their rooms with tinfoil. twitter:

https://twitter.com/Horde_

https://twitter.com/APA_Editor

Eric palmers blog:

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com/

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2013, 03:48
by Conan
XanderCrews wrote:
popcorn wrote:More from the land if Oz.. is it my imagination or has APA gone on Sabbatical?


Probably re-insulating their rooms with tinfoil. twitter:

https://twitter.com/Horde_

https://twitter.com/APA_Editor

Eric palmers blog:

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com/


Ironic that Carlo's twitter photo, is a photo of him taken during his backseat ride in a Block I Super Hornet.

Awfully big grin on his face, after he got to ride in the "Super slow Hornet" or whatever nonsense they are calling it these days...

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2013, 06:31
by neurotech
Conan wrote:Ironic that Carlo's twitter photo, is a photo of him taken during his backseat ride in a Block I Super Hornet.

Awfully big grin on his face, after he got to ride in the "Super slow Hornet" or whatever nonsense they are calling it these days...

Too funny. Compared to what most pilots get to fly in their career, I'd take the Super Hornet any day of the week and twice on Sundays. I can't believe what a d**k Carlo became, considering he got to fly the actual jet. Most of the rides the Blue Angels etc. give to media, they don't normally get to actually fly the jet. I'm 99.999% sure the USAF never let him fly a F-22.

I remember when the Boeing test pilots demoed the jet again for the RAAF a few years later, and everyone was saying it had poor range, and would never replace the F-111, then the RAAF ordered the jets. :) Even in the early days, flying LRIP jets, the crews I was around liked them, and were quite reliable and easy to maintain. Considering 12 Growlers are being ordered, I don't think they are too disappointed with their choice.

Maybe if the Swedes give Carlo a ride in a Gripen D trainer, he'll start pushing for Gripen Es with Shuttle External Tanks for Australia...

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2013, 08:33
by XanderCrews
neurotech wrote:
Maybe if the Swedes give Carlo a ride in a Gripen D trainer, he'll start pushing for Gripen Es.


For a while at least. :lol:

Yeah the pic of him in the back of that hornet is like an ugly guy with a hot prostitute-- to people not in the know its impressive, for those in the know its pathetic.

:lol:

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2013, 13:55
by hb_pencil
neurotech wrote:
Conan wrote:Ironic that Carlo's twitter photo, is a photo of him taken during his backseat ride in a Block I Super Hornet.

Awfully big grin on his face, after he got to ride in the "Super slow Hornet" or whatever nonsense they are calling it these days...

Too funny. Compared to what most pilots get to fly in their career, I'd take the Super Hornet any day of the week and twice on Sundays. I can't believe what a d**k Carlo became, considering he got to fly the actual jet. Most of the rides the Blue Angels etc. give to media, they don't normally get to actually fly the jet. I'm 99.999% sure the USAF never let him fly a F-22.

I remember when the Boeing test pilots demoed the jet again for the RAAF a few years later, and everyone was saying it had poor range, and would never replace the F-111, then the RAAF ordered the jets. :) Even in the early days, flying LRIP jets, the crews I was around liked them, and were quite reliable and easy to maintain. Considering 12 Growlers are being ordered, I don't think they are too disappointed with their choice.

Maybe if the Swedes give Carlo a ride in a Gripen D trainer, he'll start pushing for Gripen Es with Shuttle External Tanks for Australia...


Neuro. I can see you don't get it. Its called Integrity, and Kopp must have it in spades.

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2013, 21:06
by gtx
Sadly there are a lot of people around Amberley (the old RAAF F-111 home - current Super Hornet home) who love CK since he promoted the F-111 so much...

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



http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sea ... 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
Deleted

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: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... 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...."

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-17588.html

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.”
"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-1 ... -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.”
"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-1 ... -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...."

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment ... 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...."

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2450

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."

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... 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:

Proof Committee Hansard SENATE FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Estimates
(Public) WEDNESDAY, 25 FEBRUARY 2015 CANBERRA

"...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: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... 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:

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2015, 03:32
by spazsinbad
However... USAF recognise - because of the few in number F-whatevers tootoos - that the F-35 needs to have beefed Air Fighting capabilities and there is work being done for that (mentioned last year by a big USAF nabob). Nevertheless peeps without RAPTORs have always relied on what they think is the best - so that is why Oz has not only the F-35As (for the moment) but ALSO the Super Hornets and Growlers and a vast array of Wedgetails networking with everyone including tankers and the like. It is all in a system of systems approach. That is what the F-35 is designed for. :mrgreen: Pity that that CDF (commondogfukc - that was your acronym back in the glory days of the RANFAA before CDFpersons were invented) was not mentioned by CDF. :devil: CDF=common sense [oops for nonOzzers CDF = Chief Defence Force (ADF)]

Perhaps CADF would be a better acronym than CDF - for us old geezers? No? :devil:

Nevertheless the F-35 is no slouch (compared to current western fighter aircraft - a fact mentioned now a zillion times on this forum) especially in a pod of four - is how the USAF and RAAF and probably the rest intend to operate them - to take advantage of their own networking capabilities amongst themselves for mutual support. Pity CDF did not mention that.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2015, 03:40
by XanderCrews
thebigfish wrote: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:


Thats true, but its a damned if you do, damned if you don't I'd rather them say stuff like that than be accused of a cover up...

Here is what sucks about the great JSF debate, is that anything that is not 100 percent complimentary 100 percent of the time is somehow an indictment. so if some admiral actually implies its not all incredible at all times, that some kind of secret code that it sucks. or if he is always 100 percent at all times that means he is covering things up. Its a no win.

I actually know of a company (non aviation) that is suing someone because their evaluation/study featured the caveat that there was a possibility of physically injury. Other than that the entire thing was flattering, but they were attacked as if they had set out to destroy the company. You can insert all your Airpower Aus, style nasty comments about their "flawed assessments" etc.


I really don't know what the hooplah is. It would be like if someone asked me if a long gun sniper got into a knife fight what would happen. "I guess the better knife guy wins, but that's one crappy sniper" :doh: " we gave him that expensive rifle and years teaching him to hit people at 1KM and he let it come down to a 50/50 knife fight... "

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2015, 04:35
by popcorn
Well, if it did come down to a knife fight...the F-35 will do just fine.. :devil:

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2015, 04:57
by spazsinbad
CrockyDundy should be wearing a SLOUCH HAT [DiggersChapeau Brim Up/Down] - to be 'no slouch' - in the "this is a knife" department.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... -no-slouch

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2015, 07:12
by KamenRiderBlade
Under what form of combat with a very fixed supply of ammo does the Senator expect anybody to go "FULL AUTO" with?

Has he been watching too many Rambo movies?

Neither ground combat, nor Dogfighting does anybody just sit on the trigger an empty their ammo.

Everybody makes precise burst shots to the best of their abilities and spaces out all shots when in a close range gun fight.

Doesn't matter if it's land, air, or sea, you just don't empty your ammo pouch like that.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2015, 15:45
by blindpilot
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Under what form of combat with a very fixed supply of ammo does the Senator expect anybody to go "FULL AUTO" with?

Has he been watching too many Rambo movies?

Neither ground combat, nor Dogfighting does anybody just sit on the trigger an empty their ammo.

Everybody makes precise burst shots to the best of their abilities and spaces out all shots when in a close range gun fight.

Doesn't matter if it's land, air, or sea, you just don't empty your ammo pouch like that.


Remember when they added the 3 shot setting on the M-16? Apart from wasting ammo, no one ever hit anything with spray and pray, unless it was their buddy. Since those days we have become a little more focused on things like collateral damage and fracticide. If that Hornet ever dumped a 6 second shot, he'd be up on charges explaining the school, and farmer's family just as surely as if it was a dumb bomb miss.

That's before we talk about the impact of "blind boxer fighting a seeing boxer with a handgun 20 feet away" analogies of the F-35. Sure you still spend time in hand to hand combat practice. But not as much time as on the range and filling out the Ghillie suit. The issue remains few understand the paradigm shift the F-22 is already demonstrating even now.

How do you tell a Senator it's a stupid question, nicely?

BP

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2015, 19:05
by KamenRiderBlade
blindpilot wrote:Remember when they added the 3 shot setting on the M-16? Apart from wasting ammo, no one ever hit anything with spray and pray, unless it was their buddy. Since those days we have become a little more focused on things like collateral damage and fracticide. If that Hornet ever dumped a 6 second shot, he'd be up on charges explaining the school, and farmer's family just as surely as if it was a dumb bomb miss.

That's before we talk about the impact of "blind boxer fighting a seeing boxer with a handgun 20 feet away" analogies of the F-35. Sure you still spend time in hand to hand combat practice. But not as much time as on the range and filling out the Ghillie suit. The issue remains few understand the paradigm shift the F-22 is already demonstrating even now.

How do you tell a Senator it's a stupid question, nicely?

BP


Senator, I'm sorry to tell you this, but NOBODY in their right mind uses FULL AUTO when they have a very limited ammo supply. Your perception of how to use gun ammo in a gun fight is incorrect.

<Then General presents actual combat footage of gun fights in the air, ground, or sea>

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2015, 20:13
by spazsinbad
I'm hoping that Australia takes notice of this concept for our bases/bare bases and even more barer bases up north with the last tranche of F-35s to include B variants so as to take care of this concept (and haha be able to whenever required put a few Bs on our LHDs - but youse knew that).
"...The report recommends a host of other measures, such as shuffling F-35B jump jets among multiple bases to avoid attack..."


http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/we-c ... sba-study/
ALSO:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ke-414002/

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2015, 00:00
by spazsinbad
:devil: This is just a sad headline ERROR by SLDinfo - for fsake invest in a proof reader. I'll guess every RIFF-RAFF has its day eh. :mrgreen: IT does become difficult to take SLDinfo seriously after a while. Anyhoo video and TEXT below.
Air Marshal Brown Bids Farewell to the RAFF
12 Jul 2015 SLDinfo

"In this video, the outgoing Chief of Staff of the RAAF talks about his look back and ahead..." [This is how the official RiffRaff website couches the title "...Air Marshal and appointed Chief of Air Force..." a small thing I know but coupled with the Riffraff CRABs rool - yes? :mrgreen: ]

VIDEO: https://vimeo.com/133261411

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/air-marshal-brow ... -the-raff/

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2015, 03:02
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote::devil: This is just a sad headline ERROR by SLDinfo - for fsake invest in a proof reader. I'll guess every RIFF-RAFF has its day eh. :mrgreen: IT does become difficult to take SLDinfo seriously after a while. Anyhoo video and TEXT below.
Air Marshal Brown Bids Farewell to the RAFF
12 Jul 2015 SLDinfo

"In this video, the outgoing Chief of Staff of the RAAF talks about his look back and ahead..." [This is how the official RiffRaff website couches the title "...Air Marshal and appointed Chief of Air Force..." a small thing I know but coupled with the Riffraff CRABs rool - yes? :mrgreen: ]

VIDEO: https://vimeo.com/133261411

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/air-marshal-brow ... -the-raff/


Man I loved listening to that guy talk. You would watch him just chafe in his chair waiting to speak and then open up with grace and articulation-- despite his face looking like he was ready to strangle someone.

gonna miss seeing him talk

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2015, 05:42
by Dragon029
Well, even though it shouldn't need it, the new CAF, AIRMSHL Leo Davies, should have a positive view and understanding of the F-35 with his long background in the F-111 and few years spent in Capability Systems / Capability Planning offices.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2015, 08:01
by spazsinbad
Joint Strike Fighter planes take step forward
17 Jul 2015 MICHAEL McGowan

"THE arrival of the new Joint Strike Fighter planes at Williamtown has taken another step forward, after the Department of Environment gave the green light to the project.

From 2018 Williamtown RAAF base, along with Tindal in the Northern Territory, is expected to begin housing 72 new F-35A Joint Strike Fighter planes....

...“RAAF Base Williamtown will remain the nation’s main fighter pilot training base and will house most of the planned F-35A Lightning II aircraft....

...The Final EIS was approved with four core conditions. They include requirements to implement aircraft noise management plans in accordance with the RAAF Aircraft Noise Management Strategy as well as ongoing monitoring and public reporting of aircraft noise measurements around F-35A operating bases."

Source: http://www.theherald.com.au/story/32178 ... p-forward/

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2015, 04:12
by spazsinbad

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2015, 06:00
by spazsinbad
Interview canvasses how the RAAF has changed in the last decade with new assets bringing different capabilities. The F-35 bits are well known at this stage (in the interview at URL) but thought to quote this bit about 'testing' to be of interest. Best read it all at URL for the majority of F-35 parts and I'll add the F-35 'common knowledge quote' below this one also.
Looking Back and Looking Forward in 21st Century Warfare: Air Marshal (Retired) Geoff Brown
01 Sep 2015 Robbin Laird

"Air Marshal Geoff Brown retired on July 3, 2015 when Leo Davies became the new Air Marshal for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). Although retired, no one would consider Geoff Brown retiring in any sense of the word....


...Question: As Chief you decided to push your new aircraft – Wedgetail and the KC-30A – out to the force rather than waiting for the long list of tests to be complete. Why?

Air Marshal (Retired) Brown: Testers can only do so much.

Once an aircraft is functional you need to get in the hand of the operators, pilots, crews and maintainers.

They will determine what they think the real priorities for the evolution of the aircraft, rather than a test engineer or pilot.

And you get the benefit of a superior platform from day one.

When I became Deputy Chief of Air Force, the Wedgetail was being slowed down by the Kabuki effort to arrange specification lines for the aircraft. There was much hand-wringing amongst the program staff as to how it didn’t meet the specifications that we had put out.

I said, “Let’s just give it to the operators.”

And the advantage of basically giving the aircraft to the operators was what the test community and the engineers thought were real limitations the operators did not.

Sometimes it took the operators two days to figure a work around. And the real advantage of the development was that they would prioritize what was really needed to be fixed from the operational point of view, not the testing point of view.

In other words, you can spend a lot of time trying to get back to the original specifications.

But when you actually give it to the operators they actually figure out what’s important or what isn’t important and then use the aircraft in real world operations...."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/looking-back-and ... off-brown/

"...Question: As Chief, you were a key player in the decision to bring the F-35 to the RAAF. What do you see that fifth generation brings to the RAAF and the joint force?

Air Marshal (Retired) Brown: The USAF provided the RAAF with a slot for an Australian exchange pilot to fly the F-22, so that gave us direct access to seeing what the initial fifth generation platform brought to air operations.

We have evolved our own capabilities within our classic Hornet force and five years ago added the Super Hornet, all of which has been a significant evolutionary experience.

Fifth generation is not evolutionary; it is about disruptive change.

If you approach it as a step grade improvement you will miss the point of the shift.

I flew in a Red Flag in a F-15 D aggressor and after having gotten killed five different times by the F-22s, we went back and looked at the tapes and it was clear that the situational awareness in the two cockpits was night and day different.

I will take the F-22 and you can take the F-15 if you want; but I clearly want the new definer of air combat, the fifth generation asset.

And as good as the F-22 is, the F-35 represents a significant shift in fifth gen capability.

And the capability of the fleet to operate in an integrated manner and to share unprecedented data over the MADL system is not just business is usual; it is the baseline for redesigning our 21st century force.

And this clearly triggers a need to shape new concepts of operations in redesigning and integrated sensor enabled force...."

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2015, 18:49
by spazsinbad
And they are still confident after all these years (Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future). See attached PDF.

Only two pages from a lengthy Oz Senate report otherwise about other ADF matters dated 21 Oct 2015.
SENATE - FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE LEGISLATION COMMITTEE - Estimates - (Public)
21 Oct 2015 as above

"...Senator WHISH-WILSON: Could you tell us what you have budgeted for?
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.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Seventeen billion or million?
Air Vice Marshal Deeble: Seventeen billion, sorry. That includes the purchase of 72 aircraft. The first aircraft
were purchased in LRIP 6. The value of that was $126.7 million for those first two aircraft. Over the life of the
production, which will go out to 2023, we are expecting the average cost of our aircraft to be $90 million each...."

Source: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... tion%2Fpdf (PDF 1Mb)

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2015, 20:40
by barrelnut
AUD or USD? I guess USD since AUD (and EUR) prices will vary with the exchange rate and projecting those derived AUD prices into the future might not make sense.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2015, 21:48
by spazsinbad
Usually the indication for US dollars will be made otherwise it is Oz dollars. There is a budget with exchange rate contingencies built-in and AFAIK Oz has never been close to going over the budget. Here is one example of the exchange rate at time of the order for the last 58 (there will be others):

This official news release uses Oz dollars (12.4 Bil for 58): http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2014 ... apability/
Australia to Buy 58 More F-35 Jets, Scaling Back Initial Plan [not true but 'newspapers online' gotta eat]
23 Apr 2014 Jason Scott

"...The U.S. ally is ordering 58 of the Lockheed Martin Corp.- made aircraft for A$12.4 billion ($11.6 billion)...

...A 2009 policy paper commissioned by the previous Labor government confirmed Australia planned to equip its air force with about 100 F-35s.

The 72 [2+12+58] aircraft are expected to be fully operational by 2023, Abbott said today. Australia is retaining the option of purchasing a further squadron of 18 [+72=90] Joint Strike Fighters, he said...."

[The OFFICIAL news release cited above says only 'squadron' without a number - generally it has always been assumed that the total buy will be 'up to 100' or '100'.]

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... e-fighters

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2015, 21:50
by optimist
aud 17 billion at current xchange rate and was 13billion before . 90million was at prior xchange rate 1:1 that would be higher now 1:0.75
If they don't give the number and xchange rate at the time it was done, it means nothing.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2015, 22:05
by spazsinbad
Do you understand 'budget'? The exchange rate fluctuations are factored in at that time so as Indicated the Oz/US dollars were mentioned for the buy of 58. Otherwise the RAAF official says the 'average' cost per aircraft over the buy time for the (at moment) 72 aircraft. How else can this dollar amount (future) be quantified? The first two LRIP aircraft cost is mentioned in the PDF if you bother to read it: "$126.7 million each". So that was in the past. NOW as each tranche of LRIP aircraft is purchased we will know that cost - however we have budgeted for it - whatever it is. This quote is somewhere:
Minister for Defence – Transcript – Interview with Chris Coleman
20 May 2014 ABC Riverina

“..MINISTER:... ...There is a lot of rebuilding to do and that is why we are working on a new White Paper due out next year, with a funded Defence Capability Plan and defence force structure review that will set the path out to 2030 as it should have been under the previous Government....

CHRIS COLEMAN: There has been a bit of criticism that the JSF, 58 extra JSF and more than $28 billion[???] at the same time that money is being taken out of health and education, according to the coverage, how do you respond to that?
MINISTER: Well, look I am pleased to respond to that, because we took that decision in 2002 to go with the JSF.

CHRIS COLEMAN: The extra 58 of them ?
MINISTER: Well, in 2009 we said 100. We’re going to 72 within the second half of the next decade, we will look at where we are at and what decisions the then Government can make, but can I say this about the Joint Strike Fighter – it will be a regionally dominant platform, there is nothing comparable to it, it is a fifth generation fighter and anybody who understands history, any history at all, will understand that air capability is crucial to the survival of our nation, particularly with our vast maritime environment and responsibility.

Now, what has been happening is that since 2006 we have been funding and putting money away into that particular program, there is no new money into the Joint Strike Fighter Program out over the Defence Capability Plan out to 2025. Now, this is the way Defence runs its capital accounts, we acquire the large capital and put the money away at an early stage because the Government needs to know, when these projects are going to be available, how much it is going to cost, when the payments will be due, it is just good planning...."

Source: http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2014 ... ranscript/

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2015, 08:34
by optimist
There was a gov independent costing that the numbers came from, I think that gave the exchange rate used at the time. With the xchange rate, the cost can alter a lot, depending on when it is calculated.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2015, 08:37
by spazsinbad
No kidding. That is why Oz has a budget to allow for these exchange rate fluctuations and likely price increases. And... All the way along any of these ups and downs has never breached the budget for the stated numbers of F-35s. Simple huh.

Attached is a 13 page PDF extract about the Australian F-35 project / budget from ANAO report 2014.
2013–14 Major Projects Report - Defence Materiel Organisation
2014 –15 - No. 14 Australian National Audit Office ANAO

"...Project Financial Assurance Statement
As at 30 June 2014, overall Project AIR 6000 Phase 2A/2B cost performance remains within the approved budget. Noting the budget remaining for completion of the project, together with the estimated future expenditure and current known risks, the DMO considers that there is sufficient budget remaining for this project...."

Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/Multimedi ... 3-2014.pdf (8.9Mb)

Defence Portfolio Budget Statements 2014-15 Defence Materiel Organisation
page 158

“...Joint Strike Fighter | Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft - AIR 6000 Phase 2A/B
Prime Contractor: Lockheed Martin is contracted to the United States Government for the development and production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Australia is procuring the aircraft through a government-to-government agreement.

This project is approved to acquire 72 JSF aircraft and supporting elements to form three operational squadrons and one training squadron. This comprises 14 aircraft approved in 2009 and 58 approved in April 2014. The funding for the recently approved 58 aircraft and associated elements will be transferred to the DMO post the 2014-15 budget.

During 2014-15 production of Australia’s first two JSF Aircraft will be completed at the Lockheed Martin facility in Fort Worth Texas. The aircraft will then be ferried to the International Pilot Training Centre at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona to support the commencement of Australian pilot training.

Some of the major risks for the project include the establishment of an electronic warfare reprogramming capability and the stand up of sustainment systems and facilities required to support Australian operations....”

Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/14-15/ ... 04_DMO.pdf

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2015, 01:19
by spazsinbad
Recently 'oldiaf' as is the want posted only an URL to a 'BOB Farley'? DIPLOMAT? article about such and such which included some nonsense by Farley about F-22s for Oz. Bugga Me if I can find that forum link here [having found the Farley online article then I could find the URL part string via search forum - so here it is: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24027&p=307018&hilit=thediplomat#p307018 ] - probably I could find the DippyPlomy artickle but anyway I thought just to add this info for the sundries and over runs. Earlier posted here on - OH NO NOT ANOTHER THREAD 'bout Canandnandada: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=18504&p=242220&hilit=Harvey#p242220

TOBEfair FARLEY says 'IMAGINE' but even so there was no need for us OzLanders - we know our stuff dood.
Imagine: F-22 Raptors For Export So, who wants the F-22 Raptor?
08 May 2015 Robert Farley

"...Today, the F-22 might fly in the air forces of Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Australia.... Australia would likely have become interested as well, and Singapore has proven a reliable customer for the most advanced U.S. systems...."

Source: http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/imagine- ... or-export/

Nothing 'stealthy' about the F-22
21 Feb 2007 DMO 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 (17Kb) No longer - so attached

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2015, 09:13
by beepa
RAAF current capability snapshot including the F35..things are looking good.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2015, 15:01
by maus92
Push for inquiry into Australia's $24 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter purchase
Daniel Flitton, Senior Correspondent | Sydney Morning Herald | November 27, 2015 - 3:29PM

"A push to examine the wisdom of Australia's planned $24 billion fleet of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters - ranking as the nation's largest ever defence purchase - is underway in the Senate.

Greens defence spokesman Peter Whish-Wilson on Friday has urged the Senate's standing committee on foreign affairs and trade to inquire into the suitability of the stealth jet for Australia's strategic interests.

The move comes after the election last month of new Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on a promise to abandon plans to purchase the troubled fighter.

Officials from Australia's Defence Department told a Senate hearing a Canadian withdrawal from the F-35 project would not have a cost to Australia, only for US Air Force Lieutenant-General Chris Bogdan to soon afterwards estimate the price of each aircraft would likely increase by up to US$1 million.

"This is about the public's right to know how their money is being spent and if we are getting value for money," Senator Whish-Wilson said.

"I would like to see many of the criticisms levelled at this procurement answered by a wide range of experts and discussed in detail at this inquiry.""

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... z3shSQoMXC
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

This is the problem when acquisition programs take so long to come to fruition: the initial proposal is low-balled; the pricing inevitably increases, and program official defend their figures, until it becomes obvious that they have been disingenuous. In Canada, they were caught, and paid the price. There has to be a better way.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2015, 15:08
by spazsinbad
I have earlier read this bollocks above & decided NOT to post it here because 'THE GREENs' are a very minor party in the Australian Federal Parliament (and I think ONLY ONE representative on the Committee responsible for oversight of the F-35. The GREENS can call for all kinds of things and yes they will get some mileage in a friendly newspaper with a friendly journalista but that will be it. THE KEY TO THE ENTIRE STORY IS THE LAST SENTENCE: [conveniently NOT quoted]
"...A vote on the proposed inquiry will be held Monday." [WAKE ME UP WHEN IT IS OVER]

Then there is some disingenuousness but we all expect that from naysayers.
"...Former prime minister Tony Abbott was reported to have favoured Australia also acquiring the jump-jet variety of the jet, but this was abandoned in favour of the traditional take-off version...." [ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. The former PM along with the former DefMin were interested in another look at having F-35Bs on LHDs and that was all. SHEESH.]

Whilst the comment at the end from 'maus92' may have merit in his eyes however the recent SENATE Enquiry addressed this point about extra Canadian Cost which has been quoted here earlier plus the ONGOING delays so called have been covered over and over by same committee with different members over the years and STILL IT KEEPS ON KEEPING ON!

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2015, 19:31
by SpudmanWP
The reason why they said that the Canadian decision will not cost the Australians anything is that they have a "margin" built into the authorized funds total. IIRC They talked about this margin back when there were engine problems and how the fix would affect the cost.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2015, 21:55
by spazsinbad
Yes 'SWP' the project has a budget where price and exchange rate fluctuations are factored into this budget and reviewed regularly. And here is the reason why the overwhelming majority in Federal Parliament will ignore the request to hold 'yet another inquiry' on top of the regular overviews of the project oft quoted in this forum. Both the Liberal Party at moment in Government and the former Labor Party government are adamant about purchasing the F-35A for the RAAF as per 2014.
Joint Strike Fighter: Purchase of 58 extra aircraft not new spending, Tony Abbott says
24 Apr 2014 Emma Griffiths

"Prime Minister Tony Abbott says the multi-billion-dollar program to purchase new jet fighters for the Defence Force does not involve any "new spending" by taxpayers.

The Government has given the go ahead for the purchase of 58 more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) at a cost of $12.4 billion - making it the nation's most expensive Defence asset.

Asked if he was worried taxpayers would question the cost of the program at a time his Government is warning of wide-ranging cuts, Mr Abbott responded: "I want to stress that this is money that has been put aside by government over the past decade or so to ensure that this purchase can responsibly be made."

"This is not new spending today. In the context of a tough budget, this is spending money that we need to spend that has been sensibly put aside in the past to ensure that our nation's defences remain strong."

The extra aircraft will bring Australia's total Joint Strike Fighter force to 72 aircraft, with the first of them to enter service in 2020.

The Prime Minister said the Government was "not going to sacrifice the defence of our nation".

"In the end, government has no higher priority than the defence of the nation, and an effective Defence Force for a country such as Australia requires modern and capable joint strike aircraft such as these. It requires a small but powerful and flexible army and it also requires a strong and effective navy, including a substantial submarine force," he said.

The Government says it will also consider the option of buying another squadron of the next-generation fighter jets to eventually replace the RAAF's F/A-18 Super Hornets.

As part of the announcement, more than $1.6 billion [out of the total of 12.4 bill] will be spent on new facilities at air bases in Williamtown in New South Wales and Tindal in the Northern Territory
.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has backed the purchase of extra aircraft.

"It was Labor who believed that the Joint Strike Fighter was an appropriate addition to our air power," he told Radio National.

"There had been some problems in terms of aspects of the aircraft but it appears that they have been ironed out."...

...The Government says it has the option to bow out of the program if the price blows out, but Mr Abbott said that appeared unlikely.

"We are expecting to pay about $90 million per aircraft. We think that as time goes on, the cost per aircraft will actually reduce," he said.

Defence Minister David Johnston added "the curve on costs is headed in the right direction".

"We are purchasing each year, there is flexibility in that purchasing regime for us to defer, for us to be unhappy as a customer, we've built that flexibility in," he said.
..."

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-23/a ... ng/5406716

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2015, 06:11
by optimist
I think that A$90m has gone to around A$120 flyaway, with the current exchange rate. It would be easier if we just used US$ and convert on the day.

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2015, 06:26
by spazsinbad
It seems to me you do not understand. The Oz Dollars quoted are today (at the time of the quote) dollars so you will have to look at the date of the quote to know when. DOING THEIR BEST to predict the future the quote in dollars is as it is and it is STILL WITHIN THE BUDGET. How easy is that? The reason for a FudgieBudgie (soft budget with allowance for the increases particularly) is for all the reasons you want to repeat over and over again. This way everyone remains calm.

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2015, 10:35
by mk82
maus92 wrote:Push for inquiry into Australia's $24 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter purchase
Daniel Flitton, Senior Correspondent | Sydney Morning Herald | November 27, 2015 - 3:29PM

"A push to examine the wisdom of Australia's planned $24 billion fleet of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters - ranking as the nation's largest ever defence purchase - is underway in the Senate.

Greens defence spokesman Peter Whish-Wilson on Friday has urged the Senate's standing committee on foreign affairs and trade to inquire into the suitability of the stealth jet for Australia's strategic interests.

The move comes after the election last month of new Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on a promise to abandon plans to purchase the troubled fighter.

Officials from Australia's Defence Department told a Senate hearing a Canadian withdrawal from the F-35 project would not have a cost to Australia, only for US Air Force Lieutenant-General Chris Bogdan to soon afterwards estimate the price of each aircraft would likely increase by up to US$1 million.

"This is about the public's right to know how their money is being spent and if we are getting value for money," Senator Whish-Wilson said.

"I would like to see many of the criticisms levelled at this procurement answered by a wide range of experts and discussed in detail at this inquiry.""

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... z3shSQoMXC
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

This is the problem when acquisition programs take so long to come to fruition: the initial proposal is low-balled; the pricing inevitably increases, and program official defend their figures, until it becomes obvious that they have been disingenuous. In Canada, they were caught, and paid the price. There has to be a better way.


Really Maus92....Australian Greens....ahahahaha....bwahahaha....seriously....

Don't be such a wank*r Maus92 and do keep up with Australian politics. You really look like a d*ckhead but we knew that a long time ago don't we :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2015, 11:18
by krorvik
optimist wrote:I think that A$90m has gone to around A$120 flyaway, with the current exchange rate


*Current* snapshot exhange rates mean very little in the face of multiyear large aquisitions. The buy is spread out, and that also means the cost will be smoothed out by fluctuations in the exchange rate.

This is something the fighter programs are taking into evalutaion - in both directions.

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2015, 12:44
by spazsinbad
Dated 2012 and there may well be a more up to date source but this'll do for now from a REGULAR F-35 AUDIT REPORT:

http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/Files/Audit Reports/2012 2013/Audit Report 6/201213 Audit Report No 6 OCRed.pdf

I will guess this report has been referenced here before - with the budget info - I'm just going to add this graphic now...

Search this F-35 Section of this forum using this string (+ included): +audit +report +anao There will be gems....

YES one may wonder: wot does the graphic have to do with the budget? Search the PDF mentioned using the word 'budget' and or download / follow the search hits material at your leisure. Me? It is getting late 2300 and it has been a long day. Wot caught my eye for the graphic was the level of detail shown and I'll use it in my PDFs so adding it here is just a bonus.

Meanwhile here is another SMH estimate of the cost in 2014 [$95 Bill + Engine - Weapons]:
Australia to buy 58 Joint Strike Fighters
22 Apr 2014 David Wroe & Mark Kenny

"...Defence Minister David Johnston said on Wednesday that the purchase would give Australia’s air combat capability "the sort of technological edge that it must continue to have".

He defended the billions in spending - less than a month before Treasurer Joe Hockey delivers a budget with expected cuts to health and welfare, saying the money for the fighters had been put aside since the government’s initial order of 14 aircraft.

"The money is contained within the defence budget in the outyears of the budget and beyond," Senator Johnston told ABC radio. "We are committed to defending Australia with the best available platforms. This clearly is a regionally dominant and cutting-edge platform that will see Australia right out to 2050."

Opposition leader Bill Shorten backed the purchase, saying the previous Labor government believed the Joint Strike Fighter was the "right way to go".

When asked if the order should be scaled back given the tough budget climate, Mr Shorten said the fighter program was a long term-investment.

"These defence purchases are necessary for our forward security plans over a number of decades," Mr Shorten [Major Party Labor Opposition Leader] told ABC radio.

The lifetime cost of the new batch of fighters, which includes maintenance, weapons and spares, will reach $12.4 billion, making it one of Australia's most expensive ever military acquisitions alongside the Collins Class submarine and the long-retired aircraft carriers. [SOB] :shock:

The announcement is also a win for the RAAF bases at Williamtown in NSW and Tindal in the Northern Territory, which will be the home bases for the squadrons. They will need about $1.6 billion in new facilities and infrastructure, Mr Abbott will announce...."

...Cost per plane about $95 million, not including weapons

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

BTW the fine print in the graphic below will be much more readable when it is left mouse clicked and hit the 'F11' key.

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2015, 13:34
by spazsinbad
There is no date on this NOW very old article - it should be obvious it has been written c.2002 I guess.... BestRedSource NOW an 8 Page PDF made from the URL below is attached. NOTE the use of the word 'budget' throughout.
The case for the JSF
c.2002 Chief of Air Force CAF
CAF Air Marshal Angus Houston outlines the best choice for our next frontline combat aircraft

"...Our involvement in systems analysis
WE HAVE a great deal of absolute information about the JSF capability that the US intends to release to us.

About 30 Defence Science and Technology Organisation scientists are working independently on analysing JSF capability to ensure it will deliver what we need.

This will allow the government to be fully informed when the time comes to make an acquisition decision. As a partner in the project, our pilots and scientists have had the opportunity to participate in the structured systems analysis and evaluation being conducted in a dedicated simulation facility in the US.

This facility uses a combination of computer modelling and man-in-the-loop simulations of operational scenarios and is loaded with the latest JSF performance data as the system development phase proceeds.

The simulations are also loaded with the threat systems of greatest interest to us.

Our participation means we are able to monitor how the project is developing in considerable detail, access a great deal of technical information, and refine our independent assessments of the JSF’s operational suitability to our concepts for operations.

Important set of numbers
THERE has been no government decision yet on the number of aircraft to be acquired under the new air combat capability project.

The 2000 Defence White Paper and subsequent reviews propose the acquisition of “up to 100 aircraft”, and the Defence Capability Plan 2004-2014 identifies a notional budget for the project of $11.5bn to $15.5bn.

But much intensive operational analysis and force balance studies remain to be done before a final decision on numbers will be made.

Key issues to be taken into account in determining the number of aircraft to be acquired include:

• the balance between numbers of JSF, AEW&C and air-to-air refuelling (AAR) aircraft, the aim being to achieve the most cost-effective force structure overall (noting that AEW&C and AAR aircraft make significant contributions even when not supporting combat aircraft);

• the contribution from other force elements such as the new Air Warfare Destroyers; [so the RAAF can squeeze out of Fleet Air Defence role?]

• the number of geographic areas that may need to be supported simultaneously;

• potential for concurrent air superiority, strike (maritime and land) and ground support operations – noting that as a true multi-role aircraft the JSF can perform all tasks, even on the same mission;

• rotation of forces, which recent operational experience has shown is a major issue;

• aircraft required in a maintenance pool, expected to be low given the JSF’s expected reliability and minimal deeper maintenance requirements; and

• attrition aircraft to cover losses throughout the service life of the aircraft.

The JSF will require the Air Force to rethink the basis of squadron sizing, taking into account the increased endurance of the JSF and the expected increased availability of aircraft....

... It can be acquired in operationally meaningful numbers within the available budget...."

Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews ... ture01.htm

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2015, 00:50
by SpudmanWP
The Motion to vote for a Review of the F-35 Australian program has been postponed till Dec 2nd.

"3 – Senator Whish-Wilson – Reference to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee (F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)) Postponed to 2 December 2015"

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

Senator Whish-Wilson is the same one that was quoted in the articles leading up to the motion.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... l9ubr.html

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2015, 07:19
by Corsair1963
SpudmanWP wrote:The Motion to vote for a Review of the F-35 Australian program has been postponed till Dec 2nd.

"3 – Senator Whish-Wilson – Reference to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee (F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)) Postponed to 2 December 2015"

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

Senator Whish-Wilson is the same one that was quoted in the articles leading up to the motion.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... l9ubr.html


I am sure with can thank Trudeau for this............ :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2015, 10:29
by optimist
SpudmanWP wrote:The Motion to vote for a Review of the F-35 Australian program has been postponed till Dec 2nd.

"3 – Senator Whish-Wilson – Reference to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee (F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)) Postponed to 2 December 2015"

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

Senator Whish-Wilson is the same one that was quoted in the articles leading up to the motion.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... l9ubr.html

It really is a non-event from a very minority party, senator. Both the Gov and opposition fully support the F35

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2015, 16:56
by SpudmanWP
I know it's a non-event, I just posted it due to teh expected vote on Monday and the press not talking about the postponement.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2015, 00:58
by meatshield
SpudmanWP wrote:I know it's a non-event, I just posted it due to teh expected vote on Monday and the press not talking about the postponement.


The greens party are a bunch of left wing nut jobs. If elected to run the country they would slash defence spending and then buy lots of white flags.

Rant over...... :bang:

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2015, 06:02
by Corsair1963
Still adds Aid and Comfort to the ENEMY! :?

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2015, 06:20
by popcorn
Corsair1963 wrote:Still adds Aid and Comfort to the ENEMY! :?

Only to the ABJSF crowd..

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2015, 07:30
by Corsair1963
popcorn wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Still adds Aid and Comfort to the ENEMY! :?

Only to the ABJSF crowd..



Like I said..... :wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2015, 23:24
by spazsinbad
Allo Allo Allo - Well Well Well... This is embarrassment to say the least. What is the LABOR Party playing at here? Politics is a strange bidness indeed AND as the LIBERAL Senator says "The Labor Party should be ashamed". PDF page is attached.
COMMITTEES - Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee Reference
02 Dec 2015 HANSARD

"...Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (15:56): I, and also on behalf of Senator Lambie and Senator Xenophon, move:
That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 May 2016:
The planned acquisition of the F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter), with particular reference to:
(a) the future air defence needs That the aircraft is intended to fulfil;
(b) the cost and benefits of the program to Australia, including industrial costs and benefits received and forecast;
(c) changes in the acquisition timeline;
(d) the performance of the aircraft in testing;
(e) potential alternatives to the Joint Strike Fighter; and
(f) any other related matters.

Senator CONROY (Victoria—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:57): I seek leave to speak for a minute on this motion.
Leave granted.

Senator CONROY: While Labor strongly support the right of the Senate to inquire into a whole range of issues, we do not want the fact that Labor are supporting this Senate inquiry to remotely suggest that Labor do not fully support Australia's participation in the F35 project. We are strongly behind it, we have a long record of being strongly behind it and we continue to support Australia's participation in this project. [wot a snide snivelling turdburger]

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Assistant Cabinet Secretary) (15:57): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RYAN: The government does not support this motion, and, despite what Senator Conroy just stated to the chamber, the fact that the opposition is doing so is embarrassing. Successive Australian governments have been committed to the JSF program, including in Labor's 2009 and 2013 white papers.
Senator Conroy: [LABOR] We continue to be.


The PRESIDENT: Order on my left!
Senator RYAN: Both the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister, Senator Conroy, have made strong statements supporting the JSF. To date, Australian industry has secured contracts valued at US$448 million. We estimate that Australian industry will win at least US$1.5 billion in JSF related orders. This creates jobs. Last week the UK confirmed their program of 138 jets and will procure JSF earlier than planned. The government is committed to acquiring a fifth-generation JSF aircraft and the significant opportunities it provides for Australian industry and suspects that this is another deal whereby a vote in the Senate is being used for other purposes.

Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (15:58): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: I respect the Labor Party and thank them for their support in this inquiry. This is simply about us doing our job—asking questions about what was the largest defence acquisition in this nation's history: $25 billion for a strategic capacity around Joint Strike Fighters that many people question. There are a number of stakeholders across this public debate. This is an opportunity to scrutinise all aspects of this acquisition of the F-35, and it is simply us doing our jobs. I do not like the dog whistle politics from the government that goes with this. This is what we were elected to do and I think it is an opportunity for everybody to put the facts on the table and let the Senate look into this acquisition. It is worth pointing out that there has not been any public scrutiny of this. Our previous Prime Minister doubled down on this, financing 70 new aircraft with no warning at all. It is time we had a good look at this acquisition.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Whish-Wilson be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [16:04]

(The President—Senator Parry)
Ayes ...................... 37
Noes ...................... 27
Majority ................. 10 "

Source: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... tion%2Fpdf (1.5Mb)

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2015, 00:07
by meatshield
This is a stunt. The labor party on the one hand supports the f35 and then they go and do this. It defies description :bang:

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2015, 00:24
by spazsinbad
:devil: Yeah - those Labor cretinous bastards. However some good is likely to come of it with the Labor and Liberals actually for the purchase, they should provide good info - and reasonings for it - from their respective times in government. I hope so anyway so as to snaffle up the good stuff. :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2015, 00:44
by meatshield
They already have the info. I've seen the old co of the raaf fronting numerous senate hearings trying to explain how bad it was to go up against a 5th gen aircraft in a 4th gen aircraft. How many times do they have to say the same thing..... :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2015, 01:07
by spazsinbad
:twisted: Yes but NO but - YES but.... We know the only way to brief is to say it three times. First time youse tell 'em what youse going to tell 'em. Then youse tell THEM. Then... you TELL THEM wot you TOLD THEM! And there is always new information to refute the new scuttlebutts. :roll:

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2015, 07:24
by spazsinbad
Joint Strike Fighter [GO! Youse YOOsual Suspects - APA I'm lookin' at YOO!]

"On 2 December 2015, the Senate referred the following matter to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 May 2016.

The planned acquisition of the F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter).

The closing date for submissions is 19 February 2016...."

TERMS of REVERENCE:
Inquiry in to the planned acquisition of the F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter), with particular reference to:
a. the future air defence needs that the aircraft is intended to fulfill;
b. the cost and benefits of the program to Australia, including industrial costs and benefits received and forecast;
c. changes in the acquisition timeline;
d. the performance of the aircraft in testing;
e. potential alternatives to the Joint Strike Fighter; and
f. any other related matters.

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



Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... nt_fighter

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2015, 07:59
by optimist
although any individual or group can, I think F-16.net should put in a joint submission.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... submission

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2015, 19:24
by spazsinbad
An oldie but a goldie summary of the 2001-2002 FedParliament conniptions 'bout the F-35 purchase - also attached from:

Defence participation in the F-35 project Review of the Defence Annual Report 2001-2002

http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_bus ... apter5.pdf (83Kb)

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2015, 04:31
by spazsinbad
Note in this otherwise 'irrelevant to the topic article' that the (I presume) US dollar amount - today - is specified in the FrightGlobe article. Otherwise when story about Oz written by Ozians IF otherwise not noted then any dorrar amount is in Oz deneiro.
Australia signs training contract with Lockheed-led consortium
09 Dec 2015 Ellis Taylor

"A consortium led by Lockheed Martin has been formally awarded a A$1.2 billion ($870 million) contract to train Australian Defence Force (ADF) pilots using Pilatus PC-21 aircraft....

...Included in the deal is the acquisition of 49 PC-21 trainer aircraft, seven flight simulators and updated courseware for an initial seven-year term from 2019.

Defence minister Marise Payne says that this will ensure that undergraduate pilots across the Royal Australian Air Force, Royal Australian Navy and Australian Army will be better equipped to transition to advanced military aircraft, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and MRH-90 helicopter.

“For the first time in Australia, pilot training will include simulators in undergraduate training. This will become the new benchmark for training and preparing military pilots for fourth and fifth generation platforms,” she adds.

The Department of Defence says that the new arrangements will also allow the ADF to increase the number of graduate pilots from 77 to 105 per year.
...

...The ADF will continue to provide the instructors for the programme, which will see basic training delivered at RAAF Base East Sale in Victoria. Advanced flying training will continue to take place at RAAF Base Pearce in Western Australia...."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ed-419859/

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2016, 18:31
by element1loop
spazsinbad wrote:The 72 [2+12+58] aircraft are expected to be fully operational by 2023, Abbott said today. Australia is retaining the option of purchasing a further squadron of 18 [+72=90] Joint Strike Fighters, he said...."

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... e-fighters


Spaz,

I've been thinking about structure lately and came to the view that a good way to provide scale capacity to RAAF squadrons would be to drop from 24 to 18 aircraft per squadron.

And now it seems that may be what's planned, i.e.

18 / 72 = 4
18 / 90 = 5

So it appears the further option of another 18, as a squadron, would in fact be a 5th squadron.

If you have to expand the force, you could then scale size of the force via attaching 6 more aircraft to three squadrons (obviously not the active one, or one{s} ) until you could form a 6th squadron.

Rinse 'n repeat as required.

I understand it would be lead time in years for builds, but we've leased F-4s when the F-111 was late but needed interim capability so it could be done that way if it had to be. But what do you think of the idea of that approach to scaling expansion of capability if things began to look grim?

Personally I'd like to see the force decentralize geographically to make it harder to act against a few concentrations, but that's hard to do if your squadrons are 24 jets within a <100 F-35 force. Which is what got me thinking about an 18 aircraft squadron to both disperse and expand with.

Now to take this a step further (just another example of the possibilities here):

Of course if you structured with 12 aircraft squadrons (like the Growlers may be) for the F-35s you get:

72 / 12 = 6 squadrons

In which case you would only have to add 3 more F-35A to four of those 6 squadrons, to from a 7th squadron.

Which would be both more manageable and less disruptive for the 12 in the core squadron.

So to form that seventh squadron you could take 3 experienced pilots from each of the 4 established squadrons, to form a 7th, and the three new pilots in each of the four, then replace them.
Rinse repeat.

With 12 aircraft per squadron you could still launch 2 flights of four, with a total internal load for instance of 64 x SDBII, and 16 x AIM-120.

Still a pretty punchy small attack capacity, per squadron, no?

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2016, 20:20
by spazsinbad
Somewhere on the web there is likely an explanation for RAAF F-35A Squadrons - I await the White Paper - now 2016 - to understand why there is no RAAF F-35B future squadron (part of the last tranche). Personally I have no clue why the RAAF do anything except what they may have published in the last few years. I'm ex-Royal Australian Navy Fleet Air Arm. Total Navy time 9.5 years with seven years in the FAA if my one year RAAF basic/advanced flying training time included, flying A4G Skyhawk eventually via Winjeel, Vampire, Sea Venom & later Macchis. RAN time from beginning 1966 to mid 1975. Do you know what we did and why? Today RANFAA becomes a highly capable ASW Helo force to be reckoned with - it seems.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2016, 23:43
by spazsinbad
A Spanith Hairier circuit/base/VL on the LHD - piece of cake - but NO GLOVES, sad. Great camera view of a VL on LHD. :mrgreen: :twisted: COME ON RAAF CRABS - GET WITH THE PROGRAM! :devil: You know you want to. :doh: :roll:
LHD Juan Carlos I, in-cockpit Harrier landing
Published on Jan 4, 2016 ON THE ROGER

"Vid by Armada Espanola pilot.
Read more at http://ontheroger.proboards.com


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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2016, 00:34
by element1loop
Oh yaaa!

(my worst canuck impression ... damn you fargo!)

Very nice. OTR as well. :)

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2016, 01:14
by element1loop
spazsinbad wrote:I await the White Paper - now 2016 - to understand why there is no RAAF F-35B future squadron (part of the last tranche). Do you know what we did and why? Today RANFAA becomes a highly capable ASW Helo force to be reckoned with - it seems.



I suspect this will be part of it:

2016 B model price = $187,385,555 (propulsion is 3 times more $ as well)
2016 A model price = $130,010,681

F-35B
Thrust: 26,000 lbs; Thrust with afterburner: 38,000 lbs; Vertical: 40,500 lbs
Weight Empty: 32,000 lb
Fuel Capacity: Internal: 13,500 lbs

Drop Tanks:
(weight calc Jet1A density, sans pylon lb)
2 x 426 US Gal (5,717 lb)
2 x 480 gal (6,442 lb)
2 x 600 gal (8,052 lb)

To get good range you'd need tanks (unless using LRASM, JSM, JASSM, such) 13,500 lb internal may be a bit limiting in opening, you'd have to get closer without tanks, so 5th gen mode more limited. And in 4th gen mode you're more limited in available payload.

Why the C model has ~19,750 lb (plus tanking) in my feeble view.

May end up with more A before B is my guess.

--

re rest, nope, love the romeos, finally got that right (grrrr).

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2016, 01:29
by Dragon029
element1loop; in regards to the proposal, the RAAF prefers to keep it as is in order to be more efficient. Every time you add another squadron, you add another squadron HQ, with it's own CO, admin officers, etc. As a squadron of 24, you have your mix of newbies, mid-experienced and well experienced pilots; by having that mix, you allow a greater transfer of knowledge.

In addition, if you had (eg) 6 squadrons of 12 planes, if a few guys get sick, there goes a big chunk of your fighting capability for a squadron, meaning you either have to pass the tasking to another squadron, or send up two half-squadrons that perhaps don't know each other very well. Fast jet pilots are generally quite professional on the job, but that extra bit of cohesion can be the difference between life and death.

Overall, 24 per squadron is a decent size; not too small that you run into the above issues, not that big that you lose unit cohesion, etc.

As for the F-35Bs, it's my opinion that there's too much cost involved for a capability that generally won't be needed.

Personally, I think we'd be best off having the USMC operate off our LHDs. A deal could be struck so that if the RAN spends the money required to make the LHDs capable of routine F-35B operations, the USMC could use it as another staging base, and simultaneously allow us to fly some of their F-35Bs from our LHDs on a semi-permanent rotation. They get to spend less money training pilots, we all get better integration with our forces and we don't have to worry about buying V-22s and ferrying them out to our LHDs when certain spares are required.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2016, 01:45
by spazsinbad
'element1loop' the topic of Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs has been done to death here but I raise it because an explanation has not been forthcoming - apparently in White Paper now 2016. This very long thread has a tonne of discussion amongst other shorter threads about the topic - so go here - just for the beer. Read backwards or jump in as the mood takes:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&start=1065 Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

Meanwhile this idea sounds very useful from 'theDRAGON'.
"...Personally, I think we'd be best off having the USMC operate off our LHDs. A deal could be struck so that if the RAN spends the money required to make the LHDs capable of routine F-35B operations, the USMC could use it as another staging base, and simultaneously allow us to fly some of their F-35Bs from our LHDs on a semi-permanent rotation. They get to spend less money training pilots, we all get better integration with our forces and we don't have to worry about buying V-22s and ferrying them out to our LHDs when certain spares are required."

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2016, 02:02
by element1loop
Dragon029 wrote:Every time you add another squadron, you add another squadron HQ, ...


Thanks dragon, I figured the cost and convenience is a big factor in why it is, as it is, just the defensive implications bother me, re subs. We may know they're there, but will we do anything? No. They'd be able to operate in close, and in grim moments we'd have nothing to realistically respond to if fired on with LAMs. I've heard people say fighters with A2A weapons would deal with those. Yeah right ... maybe an Aegis ashore system could with a bunch of ESSM BlockII. But at the moment the bases seem to geographically concentrated. Dispersing assets to avoid that sort of grim day news would require smaller squadrons.

So what do you make of the Abbott comment stating the option of a squadron of 18 more? Why say squadron if it was not meant? (yeah I know, nit picking, but still, it look indicative to me.)

Interesting idea re Marines co-operating LHD, I like it. Only issue is role preoccupied with the actual raison-detre of amphibious capability and helicopters. I'm sure the Army regard the spaces as their turf - rightly so too. 5th gen, but joint first.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2016, 03:17
by spazsinbad
Only two submissions so far to the Greens/Labor voted Senate inquiry soonish into purchase of Oz F-35As (I'm waiting for the Oz F-35B inquiry :mrgreen: ) Go here for the two submissions from NaySayers Mills & Price - both from REPSIM.

I have no expertise in their simulations but wonder about them for example when PRICE says this at the end of his submission:
Joint Strike Fighter - Submission 2
13 Dec 2015 Michael Price

"...There are superior solutions to meet the needs of Australia, not the needs of the RAAF, and they are also affordable. Defence cannot claim they were unaware of this, however my personal experience of the vast majority of military officers is that they are educated but not intelligent and this applies to other countries as well. When faced with unpalatable information they rely on the five commandments encapsulated as I SAID which stands for Ignorance, Stupidity, Arrogance, Incompetence and Denial. They cannot concurrently hold two or three conflicting propositions in their minds and progress an effort to resolve the matter. Ambiguity is incompatible with their work mindset. They simply choose an outcome and do all in their power to achieve it. It does not matter if it is right or wrong – they will get posted in two or three years and nobody ever gets held accountable – they protect their own, as was demonstrated in the Defence Abuse Inquiry. It is in the nature of their culture.

Australia is already saddled with one non-effective combat lemon in the F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet aircraft which are two of only a few aircraft in the world that are inferior to the JSF. They cannot carry an effective strike load of heavy bombs – like the GBU-28 which is required to destroy some major targets and they cannot fly fast enough or high enough to out run or out manoeuvre potential adversaries like the Su-30. Air to ground missiles that the Super Hornet can launch are ineffective against hardened ground targets as was learnt from the Second Gulf War strike analysis conducted by the Allies. The AGM-142 was acceptable as a two tap capability but due to the stupid RAAF proposition, agreed to by a stupid government, to trash the F-111 capability Australia has lost its only effective airborne strike capability.

I reiterate that the simulation approach and outcomes are not merely a critical component of any sane contract on the JSF but, if it is flawed then not only will the treasure and good lives of people of many countries be squandered when reality bites against the first peer competitor to the JSF but the ―domino‖ effect of proven air combat inferiority will impact not only on the losers but it will hearten the victor and possibly embolden them and similar adversaries to be confident that they can gain air superiority over a large chunk of NATO as well as other lemmings, Australia included.

In summary, the projected air to air combat outcome of the JSF against any peer competitor with modern aircraft and weapons can be succinctly encapsulated into the simple phrase ―a coffin looking for a grave.

The questions that now arise in the minds of any reasonable people will be where is the boundary of incompetence, stupidity, fraud and corruption? Who profited from this misfeasance? And more importantly, what will now be done to those people responsible? And where does Australia now stand?"

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=407329 (PDF 0.5Mb)

Interesting slant on history from Chris Mills (a couple of years older but on my RAAF basic / advanced flying course - all of 1968 - fresh out of the RAAF Academy).
THE PLANNED ACQUISITION OF THE F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
07 Dec 2015 Chris Mills, AM, MSc, BSc Wing Commander (Retd)

"...The Royal Australian Air Force Surrenders Regional Air Superiority to the Royal Malaysian Air Force – RMAF Butterworth 1975
History informs us that we have been deficient in maintaining superior air combat capabilities in the past. The bombing of Darwin on 19 February 1942 exposed a RAAF woefully ill-equipped and unprepared. In Korea, the RAAF’s obsolete P-51 Mustangs and outclassed Gloucester Meteors saw them relegated to the ground attack role due to the presence of the superior MiG-15. There was no thought of deploying the Mirage over North Vietnam where the highly effective North Vietnam Integrated Air Defence System could bring SAMs, AAA and advanced MiGs to the fight. The USAF and USN struggled with high air combat losses and at the end of the war the USAF had one Ace, where the NVAF had 15.

My personal experience of loss of air superiority occurred in 1975. I was flying an air combat mission in a Mirage near Butterworth, Malaya at the moment this happened. The RMAF had re-equipped 12 Squadron with the F-5E Tiger, and invited RAAF’s 3 Squadron to a four versus four (mock) air combat engagement. Our lead was the Squadron’s Operations Officer, and I was his wingman. As we merged, it quickly became apparent that we were inferior: the F-5E could out-turn and the Mirage, they had much more modern air-to-air missiles and a better gunsight. We could out-climb and out-run them, advantages useful for escaping, but not for killing the enemy. The F-5E had a very small cross-section, and was difficult to spot on radar or visually.

I was the only person in that fight to record an F-5E kill, and while I would like to say it was because I was a superior pilot in a superior aircraft, it was not true. I was ‘spat out’ of the intensive turning fight and managed to record gun-camera film on the RMAF Section Leader as he was concentrating on ‘hosing’ my Leader from a range of 300 metres.

One of the fallacies of air combat is that a good pilot will compensate for a bad aircraft. In this case, my Flight Lead had about 2,000 hours on type and was considered to be one of our Mirage ‘Aces’. The RMAF pilots had about 50 hours on type.

Another fallacy is that we will receive adequate ‘warning time’ to respond to the introduction of a new air combat aircraft in the region...."

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=407251 (PDF 2.8Mb)

OOPS - needed a space between URL and info about PDF - scusi

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2016, 03:37
by element1loop
Henny-Penny and Carlo have a love-child? :D

Public media 'debates' and submissions on 'air power' ... :doh:

btw, 500 Internal Server Error on your last link.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2016, 03:51
by spazsinbad
OOps - needed a space between the MILLS PDF URL and Info about PDF - corrected now.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2016, 04:51
by element1loop
spazsinbad wrote:Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=407251 (PDF 2.8Mb)


I see Mills is taking this angle, again, ignoring the fact Gen. Hostage has budgets and programs to cover in Feb 2014.

Chris Mills wrote:... In an interview with the Commander of the USAF Air Combat Command, currently the Service with the most powerful air combat capability on earth, General Michael Hostage said on 3 February 2014:

‘If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.’


Such comments by Gen Hostage are not all that definitive or final in my estimation, namely:

General Hostage wrote:“The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth,” Hostage told me, “The F-35 is geared to go out and take down the surface targets.” In fact, it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can accomplish in the early stages of a war. The F-35’s radar cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war.

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-16 ... whos-best/


The main advantage (other than kinematic) 2 x F-22A have is missile numbers per 12 x AIM-120D (plus new BVR range AIM-9X Block II+ to be delivered post 2017).

Current 4 x F-35A carries 8 x AMRAAM, so of course the current F-35As would need 2 x (4 x F-35A) to obtain 16 x AMRAAM, for a roughly equivalent BVR capability, "in the early stages of a war.". i.e. when the enemy BVR fighters will be most active.

However a late Block-4 flight of 4 x F-35A may in fact carry 16 or 24 AIM-120D internally. So the 4 x F-35A will actually be at BVR missile number parity with the 2 x F-22A from that time. And with the right loft angle, even from Mach 0.95, 33 to 45 degrees nose-up through FL450, most of the kinematic advantage of the F-22A also won't matter much, at least in terms of terminal range, especially if late mid-course update is the real pk leverage and killer. Comms and passive SA then is the advantage you want. Who has the EOTS?

Thus I think it reasonable that after about 2023 the 4 x 35A will in fact be at least as equivalent in BVR capability to 2 x F-22A. In fact the 4 x F-35s may be more formidable than 2 x F-22A in VLO BVR, simply because of better SA sensor integrations and datalink (though I'm sure the F-22A will be on the same page by then) and the tactical flanking capability and cooperative-engagement multi-axis attack of 4 flanking F-35A makes aggressive BVR very possible and effective.

So that balance is going to swing the F-35 way with block upgrade.

Scenario:
Imagine you're lead of a flight of 4 x J-31 operating off a Chinese carrier (far fetched maybe, but let's go with it) and flying toward air-sea gap - declared hostile.

Q:
Would a flight of E-7A controlled cooperatively engaging 4 x F-35A with 24 x AIM-120D be more of a worry to you than a flight of 2 x F-22A with only 12 x AIM-120D, and only two firing axis directions?

General Hostage is currently correct in his statements but by mid next decade it will be a very different long-range capability developing. At that time US and allied F-35A air forces will be fairly rapidly building up a formidable VLO BVR support to the F-22A, and a stand alone capability as well, and it will keep growing as AIM-120D gets into FMS production and planned updates.

It seems to me the ~180 F-22A will cease to be a significant issue, at that point, and it's not clear why the F-15s would be necessary for A2A role after that. They would become more liability than safety net (or deterrent), at that point.

Take the brass's comments with a grain of salt sometimes Mr. Mills, or at least think about its validity. RAAF implicitly ruled-out the WVR fight envelope ten years ago, when AVM Houston said (paraphrased) the IR missile fight was 50 : 50 gamble. Why go on and on about gun fights within a parliamentary submission, in 2016?

It's long-range datalinked (V-LPI) VLO BVR tactics from here.

And if you think a decidedly non-low Su35 Flanker is competitive with VLO F-35A signature at >100 km range (radar or thermal), or that the OLS-35 will save the day for the Su35, you are mistaken.


edit: removed sharp remark in last sentence

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2016, 05:19
by Dragon029
element1loop wrote:re subs. We may know they're there, but will we do anything? No. They'd be able to operate in close, and in grim moments we'd have nothing to realistically respond to if fired on with LAMs.

Do you mean long range cruise missiles? Overall, there's not much we can do against those if they get close; the ADF's advantage is it's long range maritime ISR and strike capabilities, via things like our subs, Super Hornets and AP-3Cs, and soon, our P-8s and F-35s.

But at the moment the bases seem to geographically concentrated. Dispersing assets to avoid that sort of grim day news would require smaller squadrons.


We have many bare bases around the country that we could shuffle our fighters amongst in the event of serious war (and while it pales in comparison to that of the US, we also have a considerable air-lift capability to facilitate the moving of resources), but in the mean time, part of the reason that the RAAF can afford things like P-8s, MQ-4Cs, F-35s, SHs, Growlers, etc is because it somewhat neglects it's airbases, with some long overdue to receive hangars.

So what do you make of the Abbott comment stating the option of a squadron of 18 more? Why say squadron if it was not meant? (yeah I know, nit picking, but still, it look indicative to me.)


I suspect that 18 was chosen for one of three reasons, or some mix of them.

1. It reflects roughly what the budget of buying 28 A variants (to bring the total fleet to 100) would allow if they were B variants (with some of that funding presumably going towards the Navy for LHD upgrades).

2. Although the LHDs can operate 12 aircraft off of them, they might only want to operate at half-capacity in order to operate more cost-effectively and to afford more space for humanitarian / Army operations. In such a case, you have a squadron of 18 split into 3 flights of 6, rotating through a raise, train, sustain process (6 deploy, 6 are for training, 6 are in repair / spares).

3. The plan wasn't fully developed.

Remember, squadrons don't have to be the same size throughout the RAAF; while the F-35Bs would only be a different variant, it's different enough that it'd be akin to the Growler - the Growler is different enough to the Super Hornets that 6 SQN will be handing all it's Super Hornets over to 1 SQN and only operating Growlers.

Interesting idea re Marines co-operating LHD, I like it. Only issue is role preoccupied with the actual raison-detre of amphibious capability and helicopters. I'm sure the Army regard the spaces as their turf - rightly so too. 5th gen, but joint first.


I agree; the Army's pretty keen to get their feet wet, but perhaps they can appeased by doing more joint ops on USMC LHDs as well.

On a side note; I'm not very concerned by those submissions (although they make me interested in submitting one of my own); the first one is hot-headed enough that it'll be largely dismissed, the second will be taken more seriously, but the quotes being used have already been brought up in senate hearings, so they'll be dismissed quickly enough as well.

Edit: the link for submission and to find T&Cs: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... nt_fighter

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2016, 07:17
by element1loop
Dragon029 wrote:Do you mean long range cruise missiles? Overall, there's not much we can do against those if they get close; the ADF's advantage is it's long range maritime ISR and strike capabilities, via things like our subs, Super Hornets and AP-3Cs, and soon, our P-8s and F-35s.


Yes, sorry, sub-launched land attack missiles.

Dragon029 wrote:We have many bare bases around the country that we could shuffle our fighters amongst in the event of serious war (and while it pales in comparison to that of the US, we also have a considerable air-lift capability to facilitate the moving of resources), but in the mean time, part of the reason that the RAAF can afford things like P-8s, MQ-4Cs, F-35s, SHs, Growlers, etc is because it somewhat neglects it's airbases, with some long overdue to receive hangars.


We'll that's the problem you see, are we going to start it, or will the other guy? I think you'd agree we're unlikely to start it, which means if it occurred it would mean we're attacked (by you know who). And of course that's a high-intensity fight right off the bat, so a concerted attack is what I mean, at three or more fixed major operating bases, sans prior hostilities.

So would we in fact disperse aircraft, as we ideally plan to? Would we have AWD or ANZAC in between, close in to shore to be effective if we knew a sub was near? Could a long-range SLCM just fly around the frigate or DDG to the target, despite the RAN? Or have a slow boat to China Collins in place? Look where they're based. I don't think we can or will be responsive enough, or reliable in seeing it coming (as you agree).

In which case you ultimately need a high capability point-defense (either ours, or someone else's).

But before going down the path to missile on missile, during a period of rapid RAAF and ADF transformation and new platforms with stretched budget, we can disperse them with more and smaller squadrons, which makes it much harder to be successful at such a strike required on a larger number of targets.

Then work on a scaleable AEGIS ashore, and put whatever missile type is required in that system, as the region evolves, for the main operating bases.

But just having more and smaller squadrons in more places means the attractiveness of that sort of knock out attack drops off. Plus it becomes much easier to notice an opponent's sub force setting up for such an attack, and to do something, hmm, passive-aggressive about it, earlier.

So I would welcome a smaller squadron structure, that moves around more.

Dragon029 wrote:I suspect that 18 was chosen for one of three reasons, or some mix of them.

1. It reflects roughly what the budget of buying 28 A variants (to bring the total fleet to 100) would allow if they were B variants (with some of that funding presumably going towards the Navy for LHD upgrades).

2. Although the LHDs can operate 12 aircraft off of them, they might only want to operate at half-capacity in order to operate more cost-effectively and to afford more space for humanitarian / Army operations. In such a case, you have a squadron of 18 split into 3 flights of 6, rotating through a raise, train, sustain process (6 deploy, 6 are for training, 6 are in repair / spares).

3. The plan wasn't fully developed.

Remember, squadrons don't have to be the same size throughout the RAAF; while the F-35Bs would only be a different variant, it's different enough that it'd be akin to the Growler - the Growler is different enough to the Super Hornets that 6 SQN will be handing all it's Super Hornets over to 1 SQN and only operating Growlers.


Interesting thoughts, especially #2.

I must say people here seem more positive about B being acquired, I've all but given up on that occurring soon. Though in the context of deploying a non-BS amphib capability there is the requirement of RAAF to provide RAN deployed air cover, so it must have meat on its bones for that force to deploy globally. Isn't that what we're told the new build structure is to do? Perhaps you and Spaz are right to be optimistic or expectant on that score.

Dragon029 wrote:I agree; the Army's pretty keen to get their feet wet, but perhaps they can appeased by doing more joint ops on USMC LHDs as well.

On a side note; I'm not very concerned by those submissions (although they make me interested in submitting one of my own); the first one is hot-headed enough that it'll be largely dismissed, the second will be taken more seriously, but the quotes being used have already been brought up in senate hearings, so they'll be dismissed quickly enough as well.


Now there's a very attractive interoperability proposition on the face of it.

As for the submissions, I'm familiar with how those go, all those egos splashing their noise about, a choice example is given below for a wee parting giggle:

"Dr [Carlo] KoppTo put this into context, I am one of the few people in Australia who has performed genuine academic research on network-centric warfare and also the technology from which these networks are built, to the extent that my doctoral thesis was actually on the adaptation of fighter radars for long-range networking. I am probably the best qualified person in Australia to comment on this." - Inquiry into Australian Defence Force Regional Air Superiority - Official Committee Hansard of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade - Defence Subcommittee, 2006, Canberra.

I think you'd call that an appeal to authority, among other things.

And it's all taarruuuue! :D

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2016, 07:36
by SpudmanWP
element1loop wrote:Would a flight of E-7A controlled cooperatively engaging 4 x A with 24 x AIM-120D be more of a worry to you than a flight of 2 x A with only 12 x AIM-120D, and only two firing axis directions?


Don't forget about the hundreds of SM-6s from "somewhere" over the horizon.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2016, 07:51
by element1loop
SpudmanWP wrote:
element1loop wrote:Would a flight of E-7A controlled cooperatively engaging 4 x A with 24 x AIM-120D be more of a worry to you than a flight of 2 x A with only 12 x AIM-120D, and only two firing axis directions?


Don't forget about the hundreds of SM-6s from "somewhere" over the horizon.


Calculate fly out time of SM6 from 'somewhere', to location of BVR fight targets, and compare it to the fly out time of the AMRAAM to the likely engagement radius, from an F-22A. It'll be over minutes before the SM6 gets there. Or not at all, over the interior. Probable null result expended SM6 from a VLS cell that can't be reloaded embarked. :)

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2016, 08:11
by SpudmanWP
Use the SM-6s first (when they don't know it's coming) and the AMRAAMs for mop-up (when engagement times are time critical).

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2016, 08:18
by Dragon029
element1loop wrote:We'll that's the problem you see, are we going to start it, or is the other guy. I think we would agree we're unlikely to, which means if it occurred it would mean we were attacked. And of course that's a high-intensity fight right off the bat, so a concerted attack is what I mean, at three or more fixed major operating bases, without prior hostilities.


It's a possibility, but I think it's unlikely - just consider how much surveillance the United States has just in the form of the NSA. Now consider what the United States would be doing against foreign nations where it doesn't need legal approval. Also consider all the satellites that are being used in orbit, the ELINT assets that have in the region, their submarines, etc. While we don't have 100% access to what they do, we do have a fair bit of access as a member of the Five Eyes, especially with us being in such a geographically important location.

On to of that, we also have our own capabilities; our subs undoubtedly get up to mischief, we have air assets capable of ELINT, our frigates have their own capabilities as well. We also have assets like JORN, which is quite an impressive piece of kit (the fact we've been continuing to invest in it for 40 years should speak to that; I myself have heard some stories which also advocate for it's range and capabilities).

So would we in fact disperse aircraft, as we ideally plan to? Would we have AWD or ANZAC in between, close in to shore to be effective if we knew a sub was near? Could a long-range SLCM just fly around the frigate or DDG to the target, despite the RAN? Or have a slow boat to China Collins in place? Look where they're based. I don't think we can or will be responsive enough, or reliable in seeing it coming (as you agree).


If we have enough intel, we might just do something like schedule extra training for that day (or week, etc), or perhaps we'd schedule an exercise that splits the jets up and sends some of them to other airbases (send some up to Darwin and Townsville for something like Pitch Black for example).

As for RAN interception; I'm not entirely sure - the biggest challenge would be detecting it. If we know it's coming in advance, we could put AWDs / FFGs near Williamtown and Amberley, but it's still theoretically possible to swoop around elsewhere and attack from the west. Tindal is also exposed, although being in the middle of nowhere gives 75 SQN ample opportunity to scramble if the missile is detected near the coast.

Back to the intel part above though - what this also means is that the only reasonable tactic that includes subs launching missiles at RAAF bases, is a massive attack sub-launched attack, followed immediately by a massive air offensive. Trying to attack by sea is made highly ineffective by simply how far removed we are, combined with where our major cities and assets are. What this also means is that by the time they're able to land the few troops they were able to airlift over, the United States is already on the way with a superior number of assets.

Personally, I don't see our national defence as being an issue so long as the United States is our ally and so long as the enemy doesn't built massive container subs or something; even then, seeing tens of thousands of troops, trucks, tanks, etc move to hidden coastal sub bases, then not ever leave is pretty damn suspicious.

Then work on a scaleable AEGIS ashore, and put whatever missile type is required in that system, as the region evolves, for the main operating bases.


Another alternative could be to just put up some JLENS aerostats around the bigger bases and have some interceptors to go with it; such a solution would likely be cheaper than AEGIS Ashore and be a bit more flexible (less land is required, etc).

Something you have to remember out Australia and the ADF is that we're very heavily reliant on global stability and imports / exports. That means that as per the ADF's mission statement, we need to be capable of assisting in taking care of interests abroad. Spending large amounts of money on things like base developments, admin overhead, point defences, etc to combat the hypothetical threat isn't terribly cost effective. That's not to say we ignore national defence, but rather that we go for "multirole" capabilities. For example, our Triton UAVs will be used for maritime surveillance, as well as ISR in international hotspots and over low intensity combat zones.

Interesting thoughts, especially #2.

I must say people here seem more positive about B being acquired, I've all but given up on that occurring soon. Though in the context of deploying a non-BS amphib capability, there is a requirement of RAAF to provide RAN deployed air cover, so must have meat on its bones, for that force to deploy globally. Isn't that what we are told the new build structure is for? Perhaps you and spaz are right to be optimistic and expectant on that score.

The AWDs are pretty advanced and by being an amphibious force, our LHDs are quite unlikely to go places that our F-35As can't also via KC-30.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2016, 08:56
by element1loop
Dragon029 wrote:Back to the intel part above though - what this also means is that the only reasonable tactic that includes subs launching missiles at RAAF bases, is a massive attack sub-launched attack, followed immediately by a massive air offensive. Trying to attack by sea is made highly ineffective by simply how far removed we are, combined with where our major cities and assets are. What this also means is that by the time they're able to land the few troops they were able to airlift over, the United States is already on the way with a superior number of assets.


I'm not actually concerned about invasion or anything like that, I don't want to give that impression. I am thinking more in terms of a limited objective pre-emptive knockout strike. Something that paralyses, and removes RAAF from a regional response equation, so other enemy operations can happen within SEA. And thus RAN's presence is also removed i most part from the equation, if amphibs need to operate with F-35A, Growler and KC-30A support from Amberly and W/town.

Dragon029 wrote:
Then work on a scaleable AEGIS ashore, and put whatever missile type is required in that system, as the region evolves, for the main operating bases.


Another alternative could be to just put up some JLENS aerostats around the bigger bases and have some interceptors to go with it; such a solution would likely be cheaper than AEGIS Ashore and be a bit more flexible (less land is required, etc).


I'm not attached to Aegis Ashore, I only mention it as it will work, and is scale-able, and is a fixed installation (not an army SAM that's needed elsewhere) that can evolve to higher levels of capability if required, plus can be extended in a unitary expansion. But anything that works would be better than almost nothing.

The other point is such a knockout blow would of course have support from forces in place domestically. Tethers can be cut, etc. Something with minimal exposure is called for I think, just to make it a wee bit too hard to pull it off.

Dragon029 wrote:Something you have to remember out Australia and the ADF is that we're very heavily reliant on global stability and imports / exports. That means that as per the ADF's mission statement, we need to be capable of assisting in taking care of interests abroad. Spending large amounts of money on things like base developments, admin overhead, point defences, etc to combat the hypothetical threat isn't terribly cost effective. That's not to say we ignore national defence, but rather that we go for "multirole" capabilities. For example, our Triton UAVs will be used for maritime surveillance, as well as ISR in international hotspots and over low intensity combat zones.


Tritons are great, but only if they don't burn on a SA hardstand.

Taking that option out of the equation is what needs to be done.

As for the style of Australia's proactive interaction, I entirely agree with it. Downsizing the military to the minimum needed for the past 70 years has freed resources to invest in the infrastructure and national development, to build a bigger economy and revenue base, faster, that could one day support a larger more viable defence force when the next large power arose.

And in our region its been since WWII coming. As I see it, that power has arrived on the scene and it's time to put certain things beyond its reach, so it knows it will have a fight on its hands. It's good if our major allies know that too. And it means the ADF, as a whole, can be confident that if challenged it will not suddenly be undercut at the core of its enabling capabilities.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2016, 09:03
by element1loop
SpudmanWP wrote:Use the SM-6s first (when they don't know it's coming) and the AMRAAMs for mop-up (when engagement times are time critical).


:doh: I'm slow. :D

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2016, 11:39
by Dragon029
element1loop wrote:I'm not actually concerned about invasion or anything like that, I don't want to give that impression. I am thinking more in terms of a limited objective pre-emptive knockout strike. Something that paralyses, and removes RAAF from a regional response equation, so other enemy operations can happen within SEA. And thus RAN's presence is also removed i most part from the equation, if amphibs need to operate with F-35A, Growler and KC-30A support from Amberly and W/town.


Fair enough, although such an attack would mean outright war.

The other point is such a knockout blow would of course have support from forces in place domestically. Tethers can be cut, etc. Something with minimal exposure is called for I think, just to make it a wee bit too hard to pull it off.


The tethers would likely be located in secure locations on land; you could probably even put them in the airbases themselves so long as you have collision beacons on the tether and set them a fair enough distance from the runway. Then, if the enemy wanted to sabotage the platform, they'd have to go to roughly the same lengths required to sabotage the jets themselves, or detonate the airbase fuel reserves.

Tritons are great, but only if they don't burn on a SA hardstand.

Taking that option out of the equation is what needs to be done.


Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by SA hardstand. As for the option; you want that option, unless you can afford to increase Defence spending to something like 3 or 4% of GDP. Even then, having that flexibility in your assets gives you the ability to do things like surge deploy. For example, if we spent the money for a long-range SAM system on mobile platforms instead (more E-7s perhaps, more AWDs or new frigates, maybe software upgrades to the Triton to give it cruise missile detection (if it doesn't have it already), etc) you have the ability to either have it here defending Australia, or you can send it to where it's needed more (to assist in the defence of an ally against an unnamed protagonist).

As for the style of Australia's proactive interaction, I entirely agree with it. Downsizing the military to the minimum needed for the past 70 years has freed resources to invest in the infrastructure and national development, to build a bigger economy and revenue base, faster, that could one day support a larger more viable defence force when the next large power arose.

And in our region its been since WWII coming. As I see it, that power has arrived on the scene and it's time to put certain things beyond its reach, so it knows it will have a fight on its hands. It's good if our major allies know that too. And it means the ADF, as a whole, can be confident that if challenged it will not suddenly be undercut at the core of its enabling capabilities.


I agree; as said above though, I think it's important to have that flexibility when we're talking about acquisitions that endure for 20-50 years. The RAAF has been sometimes described as an expeditionary air force; in my opinion, that applies and should continue to apply to the ADF as a whole, even if we don't operate on the same scale as the United States (after all, who does?).

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2016, 13:23
by element1loop
Dragon029 wrote:Fair enough, although such an attack would mean outright war.


Yes. That is what such subs and SLCMs are built to do (also). If such outright war started I would rather Aust be in position where we're not already at a great disadvantage after the first hour. Being ready is a deterrent also, as well as a limiter on the opportunities to exploit an easy target. As you said earlier, not much we can do about them (SLCMs) in that situation (yet).

Dispersal is something we can do first though, and to also produce the structure to scale and expand, in such a situation. It increases survivability and flexibility, and also presence.

Is it worth paying for?

I would say yes, at this point.

SA = South Australia :)

Dragon029 wrote:As for the option; you want that option, unless you can afford to increase Defence spending to something like 3 or 4% of GDP.


I don't see it that way, it can be done much cheaper than that. It's false economy to propose to buy more platforms if you have not adequately secured what you've got. Yes a Triton probably can detect SLCMs, but what's going to shoot them down?

I suggested an ESSM BkII system, not a long-range King-Kong SAM network. I don't want overkill. It could be a development of the CEAFAR AESA ANZAC approach. I'm only talking about point defense, but a high performance networked one and preferably one that will scale compatibly as required. We can also look more closely as what some of the Scandinavians are doing with GBAD developments based on AIM-9X BKII or AMRAAM as a bare-base networked deployable capability.

And yeah, sure, linked to Triton, over the littoral - done! :D

Dragon029 wrote:I agree; as said above though, I think it's important to have that flexibility when we're talking about acquisitions that endure for 20-50 years. The RAAF has been sometimes described as an expeditionary air force; in my opinion, that applies and should continue to apply to the ADF as a whole, even if we don't operate on the same scale as the United States (after all, who does?).


We are on the same wavelength here. I'm not suggesting any fortress mentality. I'm only saying make sure the enablers are all going to be intact, as then everything else will still be available. The ADF will have the capability enablers that can be used at whatever level required, and maintain the survivability and effects that have been developed.

In other words, the initial attempt to degrade it via submarine attack must fail. That is all I want it to do.

As for cost, it is progressive restructuring for a more resilient arrangement, that's defended and physically deterring to sub attack, plus much harder to strike, or strike successfully.

Right now RAAF's core is relying on the deterrent effect of being closely allied with US forces, rather than on being able to put down such a sub attack physically, and still be able to then rapidly find and sink the attacker(s). I'd want such an attack to not just fail, but be a resounding defeat. I'd want to be on the front foot immediately, not trying to rebuild lost core capability.

The dominant method of deterrence we're currently using, of relying on and being very close to Great Power friends that we trust as the main mechanism of national security, did not work out in 1941. I don't expect it will work out well if our latest Great Power friend is like wise challenged, or ends up in conventional conflict. Since WWII we were more remote from any genuinely large expeditionary power who was not also our ally, and that is not true any more.

So one way or another we're going to pay more. I would rather it was done in a managed progressive way now, and thus provide the best possible fighting chance to maintain effective forces.

But the first interim step is to disperse what a capable sub would consider undefended high-value target concentrations. And that isn't going to take 3 to 4% of GDP. :)

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2016, 14:34
by popcorn
All thd RAAF need do to refute any criticism is expound on Plan Jericho and explain how the F-35 enables the creation of a networked and joint combat capability to meet whatever security challenge that may arise. By elevating the discussion to a strategic level and highlighting how the F-35 will integrate with other advanced systems eg. Poseidon, Triton, Growler, Wedgetail, AEGIS, etc. the critics are relegated to irrelevant nitpickers.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2016, 01:08
by element1loop
popcorn wrote:All thd RAAF need do to refute any criticism is expound on Plan Jericho ... the critics are relegated to irrelevant nitpickers.


The present situation is a vast improvement though popcorn and the system being built is a cracker. My concern is for its proper basic kinetic hardening. The isolated mindset about that simply has not changed in concert.

If it's a Joint force, the Collins class are designated SSGs, so maybe RAAF should listen to what RAN Sub commanders have to say about hardening requirements. Has anyone asked them? It is a Joint force, right? Are they game to speak up and formalize a requirement to harden? Are the Collins themselves hardened against such base attack?

Nope.

That's the real test (outside combat) of ADF as a Joint force and capability development. The Joint overlay of project Jericho transformation will in fact still be 'awesome!'. :)

However, I'm still wondering when a strategic bomber will be delivered and can't believe a continent surrounded by three oceans is populated by people dopey enough to still not have SSGN n-propulsion in 2016, let alone 2036, so a few major deterrence issues are still at the head-in-the-sand stage. Hope we don't learn the hard way.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2016, 03:22
by spazsinbad
Back in 2008 Kopp asked Oz to 'harden up': Hardening RAAF Air Base Infrastructure 5th February, 2008
A Monograph by Dr Carlo Kopp, MIEEE, MAIAA http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-02.html

In 2016 NAS Nowra gets long needed upgrades - helos fall apart if you look sideways at 'em - so no need for shelters. :mrgreen:

http://www.southcoastregister.com.au/st ... -facelift/


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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2016, 03:49
by element1loop
spazsinbad wrote:Back in 2008 Kopp asked Oz to 'harden up': Hardening RAAF Air Base Infrastructure 5th February, 2008
A Monograph by Dr Carlo Kopp, MIEEE, MAIAA http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2008-02.html



hahaha ... get to the chopper! :mrgreen:

We don't have money for that? ...soes ... naval air in the pipe, huh?

Epic complacency even Kopp can see. Pity he's so wrong on other matters.

"Oh yaaa!"

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2016, 03:56
by spazsinbad
I think Intelligence and Satellites can give warning - mentioned earlier. Most naval aircraft would be embarked - few targets ashore. Which is a nice segue into the shell games that can be played (mentioned many time over in the Oz LHDs with Oz F-35B discussions) having F-35Bs embarked on LHDs up north moving around with the aircraft moving on / off to bare bases or temporary FOBs via other helo assets onboard for support but mostly just moving about the north supported by mobile RAAF assets for refuel/rearm if required and mobile maintenance. How does one find these buggas in a hurry?

Anyway now it is time for WHY (an explanation) 'hardening' what exactly is so important and WHY has it been ignored? Is there any online info about the RAAF looking at 'hardening'? Probably ignored for being ineffective and not cost effective?

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2016, 05:35
by element1loop
spazsinbad wrote:Anyway now it is time for WHY (an explanation) 'hardening' what exactly is so important and WHY has it been ignored? Is there any online info about the RAAF looking at 'hardening'? Probably ignored for being ineffective and not cost effective?


Mobility is the element needed. Smaller squadrons can increase presence and mobility, you could even base or rotate assets out of Alice Springs.

But not just platforms, technical people and operational maintenance, deep maintenance and logistics facilities are fixed at main operating bases. So a point defense is required.

As for building shelters, etc., you really only need berms to keep frag limited (already doing that), and enough protection from falling chunks of concrete and steel plus shock protection (no so much at present). I notice Albaross has its engineering underground. Can't complain about that.

The main thing is to focus on detecting and killing cruise missiles before they hit. Tricky in civil Class-C, especially if they go for altitude to get range. So intel must provide guidance of possible attack to cue systems that can intercept including surface fleet, helo, ASW aircraft and Triton.

From 2008:
AIRCDRE Tim Owen, Commander, RAAF SRG wrote:"More importantly, the data gathered by our surveillance platform must be disseminated in a timely fashion to maintain its tactical/operational relevance. To ensure this happens our future platform must be fully network-enabled through datalinks and satellite communications.

On the maritime front the key challenge will be adapting to evolving submarine technology. The ability to detect and track quiet diesel/AIP submarines in the littoral environment is an ever-increasing problem and the maritime community worldwide has made a concerted effort to reduce the gaps in technology. Multi-static sonobuoy technology may not be the panacea, but it must form the backbone of future ASW sensors. All this technology is currently available but it will continue to evolve.

http://www.australiandefence.com.au/D0D ... 50568C22C9 "


I presume he means dipping as well as fixed and aircraft and ship delivered expendables, plus self-recovering UUV. So hopefully that's well advanced, eight years later.

So they may feel they can find them reliably (in the areas that really matter), and can kill them as fast as you like.

I don't doubt that capacity more or less exists.

If you sometimes find and track two subs from same country moving offshore down or up the east coast at the same time, do you know if they intend to fire? What if they do it off and on randomly for years, sometimes simultaneously? Then one day two subs fire at the same time with one or more salvos, before you can nail them?

Will the surface fleet catch the missiles? Unlikely to be in position to do so if the sub and its intel and sensors are any good. And it's likely they'll be good enough.

Hence a pressing need for dedicated fixed point-defense missiles at main operating bases (including naval).

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2016, 05:52
by spazsinbad
Well the ADF has listened to the 'find the subs advocates' - we have ROMEO helos equipped with dipping sonar and other good ASW gear along with new P-8s for ASW and Tritons for overwatch. I think ADF will be ASW capable very quickly if there are no hiccups. Friendly subs will be needed to train with and we are getting new ADF subs soonish. I guess the old ones will soldier on for awhile in this training role.

You take some great leaps for the sake of enemy surprise. Foreign subs are tracked hence the recent conniptions in UK for example when a Russian sub was cavorting nearby freely and then the hasty purchase of P-8s for the UK.

ASW is a heck of a topic and I know little - however western navies/AFs are getting serious about it again after a hiatus.

Anyway this topic should be somewhere else - it has little to do with the thread title so thanks for the hijack. I'll just excerpt the old words from KOPP from 2008 re Oz - details above:
""...Hardening RAAF Bases
The very limited hardening and passive defensive measures applied to RAAF bases in the north are a product of the regional capability environment of more than a decade ago, when PGMs were scarce or absent in regional inventories, and standoff or cruise missiles operated only by the US and Soviets. The region is now a very different place, and the RAAF's northern basing can be considered, for all intents and purposes, naked if subjected to a pre-emptive attack using cruise missiles or other PGMs.

In strategic terms, given the small size of the RAAF combat fleet, attrition in combat is not an option to be seriously considered. Hardening the basing infrastructure with lots of concrete is much cheaper than replacing billions of dollars of slow to replace hardware.

In terms of priorities, RAAF Tindal, Darwin and Learmonth are the highest priorities, as they are in the strategically most important locations, and have the best runways making them more useful in a contingency than the gapfiller bases at Curtin and Scherger.

With advent of cruise missile capabilities across the Asia-Pacific-Indian region, early interception becomes a key priority, and this drives up the strategic importance of the Cocos Islands runway, and the Christmas Island runway, primarily as diversion sites, but also as additional Forward Operating Bases (FOB).

Over the next decade Australia will thus have to properly develop and harden its northern airbase infrastructure if it intends to use these sites in a real contingency.

Hardening of Australia's northern bases involves a number of specific measures:
1.Runway improvements to provide at least one 10,000 - 12,000 ft length runway for each base. This is required to accommodate the full spectrum of aircraft types, including tankers and heavy airlifters.

2.Runway surfaces will need to be rated to PCN 100 to 150 so as to provide durability with repetitive use by heavy aircraft, and also to provide damage tolerance.

3.Each base requires a 10,000 to 20,000 tonne capacity hardened concrete underground fuel storage farm (for instance multiple cylindrical 2,000 tonne tanks)

4.Bases located at coastal sites will require an offshore fuel loading jetty or seabed pipeline to permit rapid replenishment of aviation fuel supplies. Tindal will require provisions for replenishment by rail from Katherine.

5.Redundant hardened munitions bunkers with redundant access roads will be required.

6.A buried hardened command bunker for C3, ops, and ATC. Underground air raid shelters should be constructed for other areas of each base.

7.Wagon wheel and other redundant taxiway arrangements should be introduced, where not extant.

8.Hardened Aircraft Shelters capable of resisting at least a bunker busting 1,000 lb class supersonic cruise missile warhead in the class of the AUP-3M will be required not only for fighter aircraft, but also for KC-30 tankers, C-17s, Wedgetails, AP-3C/P-8 LRMPs and other large aircraft. This does offer the added benefits of denying satellite recce visibility and protecting the aircraft from the harsh environment.

9.The recent emergence of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and microwave (HPM) weapons requires that all shelters be hardened against this form of attack.

10.Concrete pads for the requisite number of tents or prefab housing modules needed to support an extended deployment.

11.Underground water and electricity distribution to areas to be used to house personnel, redundant desalination plants and electricity generation of necessary capacity. Sewerage facilities of required capacity.

12.A stormwater drainage system to handle monsoonal weather conditions, including runways, taxiways, shelters, carports, concrete housing pads, bunkers etc.

13.Provisions should be made for the deployment of air defence systems, especially search radars and defensive missile batteries.

There exist a large number of well hardened NATO and former Warsaw Pact bases which can be used as templates for the design of a robust base hardening package.

Conclusions
The advent of PGM technology in the region has rendered extant RAAF air base hardening measures ineffective, opening up the strategic option of a pre-emptive attack, especially using submarine or air launched cruise missiles, against forward deployed RAAF assets at northern bases.

It follows that Australia should invest in a robust program to harden all RAAF basing in the north, and apply like hardening measures in the development of the Cocos Islands and Christmas Island.

Australian Industry and Research Organisations (e.g. CSIRO, Universities) are at the leading edge of construction technologies globally, and Australian research and industry innovations are held in very high regard internationally.

It follows that Australian industry and researchers can make valuable contributions to the development of new air base hardening capabilities, which in turn could directly benefit coalition partners and other allies of Australia."

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2016, 06:01
by element1loop
spazsinbad wrote: ... it has little to do with the thread title so thanks for the hijack.


Not intended Spaz, just responding to a discussion relevant to F-35's future, and operation, and to a comment within the thread. :? You did keep it going as well, I was done with it two comments back. 8)

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2016, 06:30
by spazsinbad
So we have finished - with a reminder that the RAN specialised in ASW back in the carrier days with S2E/Gs and Wessex 31Bs/SeaKings. The ADF ASW school AJASS of old USED TO BE at NAS Nowra - I wonder where it has gone? bollocks: http://www.defence.gov.au/ADFWC/about.asp

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2016, 07:04
by element1loop
spazsinbad wrote:So we have finished - with a reminder that the RAN specialised in ASW back in the carrier days with S2E/Gs and Wessex 31Bs/SeaKings. The ADF ASW school AJASS of old USED TO BE at NAS Nowra - I wonder where it has gone? bollocks: http://www.defence.gov.au/ADFWC/about.asp


Spaz, please mate. :mrgreen: To be be clear, I knew of prior capabilities (cold war). Did you not read the last longish reply above? I wrote:

So they may feel they can find them reliably (in the areas that really matter), and can kill them as fast as you like.

I don't doubt that capacity more or less exists.


Couldn't have been much clearer. You focused on 'hardening' buildings, but I largely ignored that aspect, and focused on point-defense to prevent the damage in the first place. Why? (you asked above, so I replied) Because you don't know if the sub or subs you do detect and track intend to fire. If they fire, and there is no SLCM defense to target, damage is done. I'm focused on how for there to be no, or very low damage if that occurred and then to kill the sub(s) already known to be present (see the initial comments, I said that at the beginning). I am not "advocating" to find subs, but to make them fail. Again, I thought I was being specific and clear. Thanks for the misrepresentation. :mrgreen:

We're good here - cheers.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2016, 07:18
by spazsinbad
No problem - although you assume the surprise will be one-sided. What stops the ADF from taking out the unknown sub as our form of surprise. What the ADF will likely do is at least let the unknown sub know that they know where it is and perhaps in dire straits force it to surface OR sink it. Subs know when the game is up and will act appropriately or not.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2016, 07:27
by element1loop
spazsinbad wrote:No problem - although you assume the surprise will be one-sided. What stops the ADF from taking out the unknown sub as our form of surprise. What the ADF will likely do is at least let the unknown sub know that they know where it is and perhaps in dire straits force it to surface OR sink it. Subs know when the game is up and will act appropriately or not.


Covered that. From 4:17 PM comment on previous page:

element1loop wrote:But just having more and smaller squadrons in more places means the attractiveness of that sort of knock out attack drops off. Plus it becomes much easier to notice an opponent's sub force setting up for such an attack, and to do something, hmm, passive-aggressive about it, earlier.


Sorry for pooping all over your thread with this, it seemed related at the time, with respect to the potential of smaller squadrons that the Abbott quote triggered me with. I goofed. :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2016, 08:55
by spazsinbad
Speak of AJASS and the old sinkers start blowing spume through their snorkels: [Sea Venom behind Neptune 'J' Hangar]
The Role of AJASS at RANAS Nowra
Jan 2016 Story and Photographs courtesy of Kim Dunstan

"...To build cooperation between the RAN and RAAF the Australian Joint Anti-Submarine School (AJASS) was established in December 1951, at RANAS Nowra....

...From the start AJASS played a leading role in developing Australia’s ASW capability. Besides conducting regular joint anti-submarine ‘war games’ with RAAF, these exercises were often run in conjunction with allied navy and air forces – in particular the British, US, NZ and French services – who would deploy ASW aircraft to Nowra. In addition to the AJASS anti-submarine work, each year major fleet exercises were conducted with SEATO nation partners in the South-East Asia region.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the easing of tensions AJASS was moved to the RAAF base at Williamtown, in December 1990, to be reorganised and renamed the Australian Joint Maritime Warfare Centre, later to be amalgamated with The Australian Defence Force Warfare Centre...."

PHOTO: http://3j8lrq31uyjk1yo9b01c7jub.wpengin ... -Nowra.jpg

Source: http://www.faaaa.asn.au/ajass/

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2016, 02:41
by spazsinbad
Five more submissions to the enquiry have rocked up here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... ubmissions

Some seem to be inspired/informed by APA - one other seeks to know WHY the F-35 was selected all those years ago - it is the seventh anonymous submission (shades of the Canadian 'throw a spanner in the works' strategy). Otherwise to my skim reading the submission asking for Oz to participate in T&E in USA now (we will do our own once aircraft in Oz also) is a good informed questioning one by a former 'Director General for Test and Evaluation (T&E) from 7 December 2010 until 19 January 2015'. Look to submission PDF no. 5 by Dr Keith F. Joiner, CSC Group Captain (Ret’d): http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=407572 (PDF 78Kb)

A former RAAF Nav in F-111s moans in sub no.4 - at least it is brief. Another wants to start F-22 production but no mention of permission to export to Oz & it has been made clear many times by RAAF we need a multi-role aircraft - but; whatever.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2016, 04:46
by spazsinbad
A 1964-65 SECRET document about replacing HMAS Melbourne with a refurbished ESSEX Class carrier and PHANTOM F-4s - I'm gobsmacked - we know MELBOURNE was refurbished in 1967-8 and A4Gs with S2Es with Wessex 31Bs for ASW were acquired/modified (helos). It is here because it shows what goes on behind the scenes that is SECRET then but known some 30 years later. What will we know about the F-35A purchase by Oz in some 15+ years time? Don't hold your breath - breath with me and relax. :devil: Australian Pounds COST quoted - don't ask me dollars today. Oz Dollars start early 1966.

RAN proposal for a replacement aircraft carrier and fixed wing aircraft Contents range 1964 - 1966; Series number A1945; Control symbol 244/3/64, Access status Open; Barcode 1565492

http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNR ... ?B=1565492 (242 pages)

Conclusion Page: http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNR ... S=52&N=242

COST: http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNR ... 2&T=P&S=55

Oz Skyhawks were initially A-4Es but with A-4F mods to become A-4Fs but then changed again so designation changed eventually to A-4G but we always at the time 1970s referred to them as A4Gs, without the hyphen - less manual typing.

http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNR ... S=64&N=242 (same doc as above)

From about page 82 in original doc online there is a discussion of British/RN ASW tactics so this document has it all.... :mrgreen:

Funny HaHaS RN/RAF related start here from page 158 : http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNR ... ?B=1565492

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2016, 19:34
by spazsinbad
Because there are calls in some submissions to the Oz F-35 inquiry, to have F-22 production started to then somehow get permission to sell to Oz, here is the latest NONstarter.
Reviving F-22 Raptor production a ‘non-starter’
20 Jan 2016 James Drew

"The tooling and equipment needed to produce the twin-engine air-superiority fighter, which was barred from export because of its sophistication, remain in storage along with video instructions for various assembly processes.

This equipment will aid in the remanufacture of spare parts for the aircraft and its two Pratt & Whitney F119 engines, but some Raptor advocates want to see the assembly lines in Marietta, Georgia and Fort Worth, Texas reborn....

...That idea is “pretty much a non-starter,” service secretary Deborah Lee James said when asked about the prospect of resuming serial F-22 production at a recent CSIS event in Washington DC....

...“The very prospect of re-opening that [F-22 line] is pretty much a non-starter,” says James. “We’ve got what we’ve got. We’ve got the F-35 coming, approaching initial operating capability. It’s not the same, but they will complement one another and we’ll have to go forward as is.”"

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

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2016, 23:29
by maus92
Aussie Who Led Weapons Tests Knocks F-35
Official urges Australia to take a bigger role in the fighter project or pull out
Joseph Trevithick | WIB

"Australia’s former top weapons tester has warned of serious problems with the country’s $24 billion share of the F-35 stealth fighter program.

The ex-official, Keith Joiner, issued the warnings in a Jan. 4 letter to the Australian Senate’s formal inquiry into the Joint Strike Fighter project. Joiner’s biggest criticisms involve the F-35’s repeated delays, lack of Australian input in the project and the fighter’s powerful computer brain.

The retired official wrote that Canberra must either speak out about the stealth warplane’s problems or pull out of the project. He also favors delaying Australia’s commitment until developer Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon prove the F-35 will deliver on its promises.

“Put simply — get in or get out!” Joiner declared. “Stop being naive that just because something should work it will work.”"

"But for Australia, the software may be one of the JSF’s biggest liabilities, according to Joiner. To ma"

ke the most of these features, the stealth jet’s gear will have to be compatible with the RAAF’s existing aircraft, such as the E-7 Wedgetail radar plane. The F-35s will need powerful and reliable linkages to get all this information in near real time and properly “fuze” everything together.

But Australia has cut or scaled back its own work on new data links and improved satellite communications systems. If the E-7 and sites on the ground can’t “talk” with the new planes, the JSF’s biggest advantage is suddenly … moot...."

"...based on his experience, Joiner said he felt Australia’s F-35 project officers were “timid,” “defensive” and unwilling to raise concerns either internally or with their American counterparts. In the letter, he described the officers as having a “‘passenger mentality’ with respect to the U.S. ‘driver.'”"

"“All of Australia’s decisions, including full production approval by our government, have so far been made while the aircraft is still under U.S. development,” Joiner wrote. “The obvious first logic” would be to hold off until the Americans get their act together, he added."

"Instead of just sitting on the sidelines, Joiner stressed that Australian officials should work closely with their American partners. The letter offered up the development and testing of the P-8 maritime patrol plane as a counter example, which involved an Australian team embedded with their American counterparts during the testing phase. The RAAF now expects to get the first of those planes in 2016, a reasonable four years after fully committing to the project.

“This exemplary … strategy stands in stark contrast to what Australia has pursued with the JSF,” Joiner wrote...."

http://warisboring.com/articles/aussie- ... ocks-f-35/

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2016, 23:36
by spazsinbad
Fixed the TREVITHICK headline "... KNOCKS the lack of RAAF T&E Timely Participation"
spazsinbad wrote:Five more submissions to the enquiry have rocked up here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... ubmissions

Some seem to be inspired/informed by APA - one other seeks to know WHY the F-35 was selected all those years ago - it is the seventh anonymous submission (shades of the Canadian 'throw a spanner in the works' strategy). Otherwise to my skim reading the submission asking for Oz to participate in T&E in USA now (we will do our own once aircraft in Oz also) is a good informed questioning one by a former 'Director General for Test and Evaluation (T&E) from 7 December 2010 until 19 January 2015'. Look to submission PDF no. 5 by Dr Keith F. Joiner, CSC Group Captain (Ret’d): http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=42fa2e59-3b51-4816-902c-0f23827d2770&subId=407572 (PDF 78Kb)

A former RAAF Nav in F-111s moans in sub no.4 - at least it is brief. Another wants to start F-22 production but no mention of permission to export to Oz & it has been made clear many times by RAAF we need a multi-role aircraft - but; whatever.

What a good lad is Trevithick - mentioned here earlier. Interested to see proof for this claim by Trevithick:
"...But Australia has cut or scaled back its own work on new data links and improved satellite communications systems. If the E-7 and sites on the ground can’t “talk” with the new planes, the JSF’s biggest advantage is suddenly … moot...."..."

Below is JOINER text: Does someone in the RAAF know about how the F-35 will interface with RAAF assets? SHIRLEY....
"...5. Lesser Concern – Early De-Risk T&E Opportunities.
The Australian JSF T&E strategy was shaped by the promissory MOTS approach to avoid any T&E until Australia conducts its own operational T&E (circa 2019). Further, for an unknown reason, the 14 early aircraft were purchased for aircrew training and not destined (permitted) to do T&E. My T&E reviews of the risks in the JSF introduction clearly showed that interfaces with other Australian aircraft would be key, such as the interface between Australia’s developed Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft and its Air-to-Air Refuelling aircraft. There was, and remains, opportunity to do some early developmental T&E checks and indeed operational checks on these key interfaces well before Australia commences operational T&E in Australia. Suggestions to do these checks early were met with a kind of timidity and caution suggesting that there was no overarching operational and technical risk management within the Australian JSF office, no contingency funding, and a ‘passenger mentality’ with respect to the U.S. ‘driver’...."

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2016, 00:14
by SpudmanWP
Dear Lord what uninformed drivel.

Three words: SATCOM (Blk4), MADL, Link-16

The last two work NOW and SATCOM is part of Blk4. Your Wedgetails can talk to the F-35 via Link-16 now and can use MADL if they walk over to Northrup Grumman and buy a Freedom 550 Terminal. An added "Interoperability" benefit of the Freedom550 is that it does the same for the F-22's IFDL datalink.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2016, 00:18
by spazsinbad
That 'lack of network testing' is just FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt - the RAAF PLAN JERICHO is built on networking - so there is that 'neglect' (if correct but I doubt it). A RAAF tanker is already in US testing with F-35s. JOINER is raging about the RAAF lack of participation in US T&E NOW - so be it. TREVITHICK misrepresents situation methinks - headline shows it?

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2016, 00:32
by popcorn
Joiner is Gilmore's Oz' cousin. :D

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2016, 00:58
by les_paul59
All of these ex military officials who aren't in the loop anymore just trying have their opinion heard. It must be so insulting to the people who actually get paid to make these procurement decisions to have to deal with the utter BS that comes out about this jet everyday :bang: Apparently all the leaders of the major air forces in the world have been sold a false bill of goods by the insidious lockheed martin corporation lol.... or its just a very capable jet, i can't make my mind up yet :?

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2016, 00:58
by SpudmanWP
Further, for an unknown reason, the 14 early aircraft were purchased for aircrew training and not destined (permitted) to do T&E.


I'd love to see the source where he thinks that the US can tell the RAAF what it can do with their own aircraft.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2016, 03:03
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:Aussie Who Led Weapons Tests Knocks F-35
Official urges Australia to take a bigger role in the fighter project or pull out
Joseph Trevithick | WIB

"Australia’s former top weapons tester has warned of serious problems with the country’s $24 billion share of the F-35 stealth fighter program.

The ex-official, Keith Joiner, issued the warnings in a Jan. 4 letter to the Australian Senate’s formal inquiry into the Joint Strike Fighter project. Joiner’s biggest criticisms involve the F-35’s repeated delays, lack of Australian input in the project and the fighter’s powerful computer brain.

The retired official wrote that Canberra must either speak out about the stealth warplane’s problems or pull out of the project. He also favors delaying Australia’s commitment until developer Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon prove the F-35 will deliver on its promises.

“Put simply — get in or get out!” Joiner declared. “Stop being naive that just because something should work it will work.”"

"But for Australia, the software may be one of the JSF’s biggest liabilities, according to Joiner. To ma"

ke the most of these features, the stealth jet’s gear will have to be compatible with the RAAF’s existing aircraft, such as the E-7 Wedgetail radar plane. The F-35s will need powerful and reliable linkages to get all this information in near real time and properly “fuze” everything together.

But Australia has cut or scaled back its own work on new data links and improved satellite communications systems. If the E-7 and sites on the ground can’t “talk” with the new planes, the JSF’s biggest advantage is suddenly … moot...."

"...based on his experience, Joiner said he felt Australia’s F-35 project officers were “timid,” “defensive” and unwilling to raise concerns either internally or with their American counterparts. In the letter, he described the officers as having a “‘passenger mentality’ with respect to the U.S. ‘driver.'”"

"“All of Australia’s decisions, including full production approval by our government, have so far been made while the aircraft is still under U.S. development,” Joiner wrote. “The obvious first logic” would be to hold off until the Americans get their act together, he added."

"Instead of just sitting on the sidelines, Joiner stressed that Australian officials should work closely with their American partners. The letter offered up the development and testing of the P-8 maritime patrol plane as a counter example, which involved an Australian team embedded with their American counterparts during the testing phase. The RAAF now expects to get the first of those planes in 2016, a reasonable four years after fully committing to the project.

“This exemplary … strategy stands in stark contrast to what Australia has pursued with the JSF,” Joiner wrote...."

http://warisboring.com/articles/aussie- ... ocks-f-35/

So...?

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2016, 06:08
by popcorn
It would probably be more relevant to know what Joiner's replacement thinks.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2016, 08:59
by hornetfinn
After reading the letter Keith Joiner has written, I think War Is Boring has made some major distortions what is actually said in the letter (big surprise!). WIB has taken some sentences totally out of context (another big surprise!). To me it seems more that Keith Joiner is not criticizing F-35 program much at all and more questioning how Australia is participating. Even program delays are not criticized really but rather used to create context to his letter. He recommends actually participating more closely in the F-35 program and also developing joint enablers like datalinks and participating in threat library development.

My quotes from Keith Joiner:
Australia to immediately commence negotiations to join the developmental T&E of the JSF regardless
of how long that development is estimated to continue.


Australia to make available whatever JSF aircraft assets it has and a sizable and proportionate
developmental test team3 to the U.S. to assist in completing the development.


Australia to independently review,4 with U.S. technical and operational assistance from the affected
U.S. commands, Australia’s joint enablers for JSF and its supporting aircraft (i.e., AEW&C & MRTT) to
operate throughout the region and at sustained operational tempo,


I wish
the Committee and indeed the JSF project every success in its efforts

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2016, 17:14
by newmanfrigan
Folks, any bashing in the media about the F-35 now is completely irrelevant. We have seen zero of the main concerns come to fruition. The project is large, expensive and behind schedule....as these projects always are. This article is just another douchebag non-military, non-engineer, non-aviation, non-scientist kiddo "journalist" piece of crap. It is a willful distortion of Mr. Joiner's words and what they actually imply in reality.

Of course Australia will gun for a bigger role in the project. That is in their interest. Will they get one?

That's what Joiner is going at here. He is pushing for a stronger Aussie role in the F-35 and to ensure it is sufficiently integrated into the RAAF. Nothing wrong with that! I wish our brothers in Australia well and hope they are successful.

Give them all of the Canadian contracts and make an example out of Canada. That's what I would do (apologies to our Canadian brothers in arms). Btw, isn't Justin Trudeau just about the most punchable politician ever, or is it just me?

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2016, 21:40
by spazsinbad
RAAF Tanker Qualifies F-35A air to air refuelling Edwards AFB video (noted elsewhere today) - how did they communicate?

JSF ITF F-35 2015 Year In Review https://youtu.be/WQE2mnpTrx0?t=285

'Dragon029' posted original video here today: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=28502&p=314304&hilit=unreleased#p314304

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 00:15
by XanderCrews
hornetfinn wrote:After reading the letter Keith Joiner has written, I think War Is Boring has made some major distortions what is actually said in the letter (big surprise!). WIB has taken some sentences totally out of context (another big surprise!). To me it seems more that Keith Joiner is not criticizing F-35 program much at all and more questioning how Australia is participating. Even program delays are not criticized really but rather used to create context to his letter. He recommends actually participating more closely in the F-35 program and also developing joint enablers like datalinks and participating in threat library development.

My quotes from Keith Joiner:
Australia to immediately commence negotiations to join the developmental T&E of the JSF regardless
of how long that development is estimated to continue.


Australia to make available whatever JSF aircraft assets it has and a sizable and proportionate
developmental test team3 to the U.S. to assist in completing the development.


Australia to independently review,4 with U.S. technical and operational assistance from the affected
U.S. commands, Australia’s joint enablers for JSF and its supporting aircraft (i.e., AEW&C & MRTT) to
operate throughout the region and at sustained operational tempo,


I wish
the Committee and indeed the JSF project every success in its efforts



Wow, so a more proper headline would be "Australian tester emphatically endorses greater participation in JSF"

Thanks Maus, I would have missed this if not for you, and a big thanks to hornetfinn

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 00:35
by cosmicdwarf
So...apparently some former RAAF still want to get the F-22 instead of the F-35.

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

Australia will never achieve regional air superiority with the new Lockheed F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter and should instead look to the US F-22 Raptor, a former RAAF officer says.

Retired Wing Commander Chris Mills said the F-35 was never designed to achieve air superiority and was outclassed by advanced new Russian aircraft entering service in regional air forces.

In a submission to a Greens-instigated Senate inquiry examining acquisition of the F-35, he said the F-22, now in service with the US Air Force, was designed to dominate the skies.

Production of the F-22 ended in 2011 and in any case US law specifically bans exports.

Mr Mills said the answer to providing Australia and other western countries with a superior future air combat capability was to bring the F-22 back into 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,” he said.

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.

“The alternative to the F-35 is to restart F-22 Raptor production and for the US Congress to release it for export,” he said.

“When it comes to modern fighters the F-22 Raptor is the platinum standard.” Australia plans to acquire 72 F-35 aircraft and maybe as many as 100. So far just two have been delivered.

The RAAF plans to have its first two F-35 squadrons ready for operations in 2020.

Development of this advanced stealth aircraft has been beset by delays, technical problems and cost increases.

JSF was chosen for the RAAF because of its ability to perform a number of different roles, including bombing missions.

Another former RAAF officer, retired Wing Commander Anthony Wilkinson, a former F-111 navigator, said JSF’s range was too short and its bombload too small for it to be a proper strike aircraft. “I would argue that defence planners have lost the plot,” he said in his submission.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 01:11
by popcorn
cosmicdwarf wrote:So...apparently some former RAAF still want to get the F-22 instead of the F-35.

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

Australia will never achieve regional air superiority with the new Lockheed F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter and should instead look to the US F-22 Raptor, a former RAAF officer says.

Retired Wing Commander Chris Mills said the F-35 was never designed to achieve air superiority and was outclassed by advanced new Russian aircraft entering service in regional air forces.

In a submission to a Greens-instigated Senate inquiry examining acquisition of the F-35, he said the F-22, now in service with the US Air Force, was designed to dominate the skies.

Production of the F-22 ended in 2011 and in any case US law specifically bans exports.

Mr Mills said the answer to providing Australia and other western countries with a superior future air combat capability was to bring the F-22 back into 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,” he said.

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.

“The alternative to the F-35 is to restart F-22 Raptor production and for the US Congress to release it for export,” he said.

“When it comes to modern fighters the F-22 Raptor is the platinum standard.” Australia plans to acquire 72 F-35 aircraft and maybe as many as 100. So far just two have been delivered.

The RAAF plans to have its first two F-35 squadrons ready for operations in 2020.

Development of this advanced stealth aircraft has been beset by delays, technical problems and cost increases.

JSF was chosen for the RAAF because of its ability to perform a number of different roles, including bombing missions.

Another former RAAF officer, retired Wing Commander Anthony Wilkinson, a former F-111 navigator, said JSF’s range was too short and its bombload too small for it to be a proper strike aircraft. “I would argue that defence planners have lost the plot,” he said in his submission.


Totally delusional.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 01:12
by spazsinbad
Back in the thread there were responses to the MILLS submission hence this recent article pointed to on this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=313822&hilit=nonstarter#p313822 [i.e. No Raptors for Oz]

And the Mills and Price submissions pointed out when first seen many moons ago on this thread - however I personally was not going to critique them word for word. Submissions are received and published - which has no bearing on their worth:

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=312925&hilit=mills+academy#p312925 [how it started]

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 03:21
by vanshilar
popcorn wrote:Joiner is Gilmore's Oz' cousin. :D


Not so fast there. From the letter, it looks like Joiner actually supports the JSF, and in fact, the letter recommends that Australia be more involved with its development, not less. The quotes from Hornetfinn above are actually Joiner's recommendations to the Australian Senate Inquiry.

So it looks like it's just typical War Is Boring spinning any document they can get their hands on as being anti-F-35 by pulling quotes out of context, like the F-16 vs F-35 "dogfight". I gave a longer post about it here.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 05:50
by Corsair1963
popcorn wrote:
cosmicdwarf wrote:So...apparently some former RAAF still want to get the F-22 instead of the F-35.

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

Australia will never achieve regional air superiority with the new Lockheed F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter and should instead look to the US F-22 Raptor, a former RAAF officer says.

Retired Wing Commander Chris Mills said the F-35 was never designed to achieve air superiority and was outclassed by advanced new Russian aircraft entering service in regional air forces.

In a submission to a Greens-instigated Senate inquiry examining acquisition of the F-35, he said the F-22, now in service with the US Air Force, was designed to dominate the skies.

Production of the F-22 ended in 2011 and in any case US law specifically bans exports.

Mr Mills said the answer to providing Australia and other western countries with a superior future air combat capability was to bring the F-22 back into 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,” he said.

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.

“The alternative to the F-35 is to restart F-22 Raptor production and for the US Congress to release it for export,” he said.

“When it comes to modern fighters the F-22 Raptor is the platinum standard.” Australia plans to acquire 72 F-35 aircraft and maybe as many as 100. So far just two have been delivered.

The RAAF plans to have its first two F-35 squadrons ready for operations in 2020.

Development of this advanced stealth aircraft has been beset by delays, technical problems and cost increases.

JSF was chosen for the RAAF because of its ability to perform a number of different roles, including bombing missions.

Another former RAAF officer, retired Wing Commander Anthony Wilkinson, a former F-111 navigator, said JSF’s range was too short and its bombload too small for it to be a proper strike aircraft. “I would argue that defence planners have lost the plot,” he said in his submission.


Totally delusional.


That is an understatement... :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 07:41
by archeman
cosmicdwarf wrote:So...apparently some former RAAF still want to get the F-22 instead of the F-35.

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

Australia will never achieve regional air superiority with the new Lockheed F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter and should instead look to the US F-22 Raptor, a former RAAF officer says.

Retired Wing Commander Chris Mills said the F-35 was never designed to achieve air superiority and was outclassed by advanced new Russian aircraft entering service in regional air forces.

In a submission to a Greens-instigated Senate inquiry examining acquisition of the F-35, he said the F-22, now in service with the US Air Force, was designed to dominate the skies.

Production of the F-22 ended in 2011 and in any case US law specifically bans exports.

Mr Mills said the answer to providing Australia and other western countries with a superior future air combat capability was to bring the F-22 back into 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,” he said.

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.

“The alternative to the F-35 is to restart F-22 Raptor production and for the US Congress to release it for export,” he said.

“When it comes to modern fighters the F-22 Raptor is the platinum standard.” Australia plans to acquire 72 F-35 aircraft and maybe as many as 100. So far just two have been delivered.

The RAAF plans to have its first two F-35 squadrons ready for operations in 2020.

Development of this advanced stealth aircraft has been beset by delays, technical problems and cost increases.

JSF was chosen for the RAAF because of its ability to perform a number of different roles, including bombing missions.

Another former RAAF officer, retired Wing Commander Anthony Wilkinson, a former F-111 navigator, said JSF’s range was too short and its bombload too small for it to be a proper strike aircraft. “I would argue that defence planners have lost the plot,” he said in his submission.


dreams.jpg

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 08:11
by hornetfinn
Chris Mills:
https://au.linkedin.com/in/chris-mills-94013234
http://goo.gl/buV4AH

So he is representative of Repsim Pty Ltd which is basically APA sideshow. They made the really horrible "simulation" of Su-35S vs. F-35. He might have been involved with RAAF at some point (info about him seems very shady to me) but at least today he doesn't have much credibility to me. Look at LinkedIn endorsers: Eric Palmer, Carlo Kopp...

Danny Nowlan:

https://au.linkedin.com/in/dannynowlan
http://goo.gl/V0gdxz

He obviously has no background in any area regarding electromagnetic spectrum, stealth, radars and sensors in general even though he tries to make the impression . He seems to have fully brainwashed by APA crap. His submission is so full of errors and misunderstandings (or lies) that is mind boggling.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 09:42
by spazsinbad
'hornetfinn' said:
"...He [Mills] might have been involved with RAAF at some point (info about him seems very shady to me)..."

No need to worry about the 'shadiness' of Chris Mills. Yes he has all the experience (and more) outlined in that APA Bio, however I'm not going to attempt to fill in any blanks because I'm not that interested. As I have explained Chris is a graduate of the RAAF Academy (then at Point Cook) and on No.67 Pilot Course with me (then an RAN FAA Midshipman). Some of the other RAAF Academy Grads (then Flying Officers whilst the new RAAF pilots were 'Cadet Pilot Officers') went on to lead the initial group selecting the F-35A as an Air Vice Marshal - Conroy was one. Two of them died in crashes early in their careers; about the others I have no idea. A very junior RAAF engineer graduate did not make it to our flying course because he was killed in an RAN Vampire crash during take off from the nearby Point Cook airfield Laverton - before the flying training started beginning of 1968. This crash occurred just as we arrived for ground school late in 1967 at Point Cook. It was only beginning of the Macchi MB326H era at Pearce starting 1969 that the No.1 BFTS/AFTS name was changed from No.1 Beginner/Advanced Flying Training School to whatever.... don't care... something or other. :mrgreen:
"CONROY, Raymond John, AM 1992; b. 19 Jun. 1947 Bowen, Qld; educ. Richmond High Sc, NSW, and Melb. Univ. (B.Sc.); flew Sabres, Mirages and Hornets; CO 75 Sqn 1982-83; CO 3 Sqn 1983-84; grad. Joint Serv. Staff Coll.; OC 81 Wg 1988-90; Dir-Gen. Program Management RAAF 1991-94; Dir-Gen. Aerospace Dev. HQ ADF 1995-98; Head, Systems Acquisitions (Aerospace), Def. Materiel Orgn., 1998-99; Head, Aerospace Systems Div., DMO, 1999-2000 (retd.); Dir. R&D Conroy Pty. Ltd. 2003- " http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/Content ... s-A-K.aspx

Chris retired earlier from the RAAF to have some Civvie Jobs and then may have become or was already in RAAF Reserve to carry out a lot of 'Red Air Sim Work'. He wrote for a computer magazine in the early Windows era about Flight Sims and he enabled a wire frame flight model that worked only in DOS on specific graphic cards that was just marvellous. I wish I could still fly it. This is what I wrote about Chris on another forum when he was accused of being a 'zealot'. I see him as I describe and representing his REPSIM Company - rightly or wrongly - again I have no idea...
"Chris was a RAAF Academy Graduate on my No.67 Pilot Course, joining us underlings beginning of 1968 for Basic / Advanced Flying Training. He was noteworthy for being a 'contrarian' - willing to argue anything for the sake of it. This could be fun - however often we required a simple answer and we 'middies and cadets' got used to NOT asking him for any advice/ knowledge (these Academy guys had lots of knowledge from their Academy years we did not). Anyway it never surprised me that Chris will argue and is still arguing - oh well. :-) A good bloke though - if annoying - and of course as smart as & always a big smile. :-) I'm hoping Repsim does well despite the other chaps Michael Price small minded contribution...."

The last time we were all together was Dec 1968 and even then one RAAF cadet pilot was not in the photo but on early leave ('Arnie' Fox). Anyway FlgOff Chris Mills is seated on the far right. Four Midshipman are in the middle and we were awarded 'provisional' wings because according to RN/RAN tradition at least we had to deck land for the first time to have our wings 'confirmed'. This did not occur for me until almost 3 years later - when deck landing for the 1st time in an A4G.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 11:27
by hornetfinn
Ok, thank you very much for giving this info spazsinbad! I really wonder what is the motivation for his anti F-35 stuff and how on earth has he done those F-35 vs. Sukhoi videos. Having personally a lot of experience with real military simulations and simulators, those videos are just horrible representation of air combat simulation! Same with his writings in APA etc.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 11:54
by spazsinbad
I cannot comment about the REPSIM videos or these REPSIM simulations. I have no experience with them whatsoever, perhaps you can say more about what REPSIM does. Chris has been in the RAAF 'on the other side' for simulation purposes as described. However I can only surmise that he promotes what REPSIM can provide - rightly or wrongly - mistakenly or not - I have no clue.

Chris was on TV a few years back with AVM Criss (rtd) when Criss was bemoaning the loss of the F-111 and saying the Super Hornet was a 'super dog'. He did not say that on this TV show but on radio at about that time 2009? When on TV Criss asked Chris Mills to explain with him about 'going downtown' to Jakarta in an F-111 and Chris Mills was obviously embarrassed. People say and do odd things for sure. I have probably had my own examples over the years. :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2016, 10:08
by spazsinbad
REPSIM is now deregistered - probably the reason for bad words from Michael Price of REPSIM in submission 2:
"About REPSIM PTY LTD:

REPSIM PTY LTD's Australian Company Number (ACN) is 13869886 and Australian Business Number (ABN) is 61138698861.
It was registered on 17-06-2014. It's registered address is 2615 ACT.

REPSIM PTY LTD is of Australian Private Company type. Current status of REPSIM PTY LTD is Deregistered"

Source: http://www.allcompanydata.com/au/compan ... 1138698861

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2016, 10:50
by popcorn
:mrgreen:
spazsinbad wrote:REPSIM is now deregistered - probably the reason for bad words from Michael Price of REPSIM in submission 2:
"About REPSIM PTY LTD:

REPSIM PTY LTD's Australian Company Number (ACN) is 13869886 and Australian Business Number (ABN) is 61138698861.
It was registered on 17-06-2014. It's registered address is 2615 ACT.

REPSIM PTY LTD is of Australian Private Company type. Current status of REPSIM PTY LTD is Deregistered"


Source: http://www.allcompanydata.com/au/compan ... 1138698861


Death Spiral :devil:

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2016, 10:53
by spazsinbad
I was going to post a link to the CREAM "Pressed Rat & Warthog" had closed down their shop... but then I would have to explain and I don't wanna. :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2016, 09:23
by spazsinbad
Two more submissions 8 & 10 (what happened to 9?) http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... ubmissions

Only worth looking at for a laugh....

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2016, 14:27
by cosmicdwarf
10 is so unrealistic.

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2016, 15:20
by basher54321
spazsinbad wrote:Two more submissions 8 & 10 (what happened to 9?)
Only worth looking at for a laugh....


Jeez - what next a submission from a Squirrel with a paw print in the shape of an F-35 ( mind you that would be more impressive).

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

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2016, 16:44
by optimist
popcorn wrote::mrgreen:
spazsinbad wrote:REPSIM is now deregistered - probably the reason for bad words from Michael Price of REPSIM in submission 2:
"About REPSIM PTY LTD:

REPSIM PTY LTD's Australian Company Number (ACN) is 13869886 and Australian Business Number (ABN) is 61138698861.
It was registered on 17-06-2014. It's registered address is 2615 ACT.

REPSIM PTY LTD is of Australian Private Company type. Current status of REPSIM PTY LTD is Deregistered"


Source: http://www.allcompanydata.com/au/compan ... 1138698861


Death Spiral :devil:

Should this be counted as another kill for the F-35?

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

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2016, 01:01
by les_paul59
The 10th submission is so outrageous, do people really believe if they repeat the fact that the f 22 tooling still exists enough times that the us will suddenly open the line again. Not to mention its currently illegal to export the f 22.....so hypothetically you would have to bribe half of the us congress, and then pay more than half of the production cost up front to get the line going and lets say conservatively 225 million per jet lol. And people say the f 35 is expensive

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

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2016, 02:30
by cosmicdwarf
les_paul59 wrote:The 10th submission is so outrageous, do people really believe if they repeat the fact that the f 22 tooling still exists enough times that the us will suddenly open the line again. Not to mention its currently illegal to export the f 22.....so hypothetically you would have to bribe half of the us congress, and then pay more than half of the production cost up front to get the line going and lets say conservatively 225 million per jet lol. And people say the f 35 is expensive

Plus either pay companies to manufacture chips they don't make anymore, or do the R&D to get replacements.

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

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2016, 02:58
by 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.

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

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2016, 05:25
by charlielima223
cantaz wrote: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/

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

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2016, 05:40
by 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

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

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

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2016, 06:16
by cantaz
charlielima223 wrote:
cantaz wrote: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.

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

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2016, 19:11
by 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

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2016, 03:35
by 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.

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2016, 08:40
by Corsair1963
smsgtmac wrote: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

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2016, 09:10
by vanshilar
Corsair1963 wrote: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.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2016, 17:59
by 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.... :devil: 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)

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2016, 18:23
by XanderCrews
vanshilar wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote: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

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2016, 11:15
by 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] :mrgreen: 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 :mrgreen: ]
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2016, 11:45
by 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)

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2016, 15:23
by 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. :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2016, 17:26
by 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

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2016, 15:15
by 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

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2016, 16:28
by SpudmanWP
The solution is simple... Buy the FKING plane already.

The only difference from an F-35A Blk 3i and an F-35A 3F is a software patch which can be done at their home base in AU.

Is there an outside chance that it might require a minor hardware change? Not likely before it leaves the factory. Don't forget that there is a 3 year lead time from order to delivery (1yr Long Lead & 2yr production). That means that if they ordered it today it would not leave the factory floor till after 3F SDD is done.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2016, 19:22
by spazsinbad
I like this claim:
"...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...."..."

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2016, 20:38
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:I like this claim:
"...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...."..."


Don't tell APA!! Lmao

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2016, 06:27
by archeman
spazsinbad wrote:
Sub No.12 by Mr Marcus Kollakides"
"1. About the Author: Marcus Kollakides is a primary producer [of bona fide cow manure] :mrgreen: 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)




Wow that Submission #12 showed a serious lack of understanding of actual history.
He went on and on and on about how the F-111 was such a great design because it was started right from the beginning as a pure single role aircraft:

The F111 was a brilliantly designed single purpose aircraft
with variable wing geometry, two powerful engines and all the basic
ingredients for success built into its shape and engine capabilities.
Put simply, this meant that all the sophisticated radars, weapons
and avionics etc. fitted to it, were in fact being fitted to the
fundamentally excellent design of the F111.


Doesn't he get it that there was this thing called the TFX project that the USAF and USN labored under starting in 61? In November 1962, McNamara selected General Dynamics' proposal due to its greater commonality between Air Force and Navy versions.

at best can only hide from some, not all, Russian
radars, and only then when searched across a tiny 19 degrees of
the head on position. For the other 341 degrees of the horizon, the
F35 is easily located, targeted, attacked and destroyed.


Does anyone know where this guy is basing the 19 degree junk from? I get that he kind of pulled it out of a dark hole but probably it was based on an initial fact of some kind???

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2016, 06:47
by spazsinbad
Sounds to me like an old APA furphy (remembering "one cannot look at a photo/drawing & work out the degree of stealth" - so sayeth Gen. Bogdan). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furphy

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2016, 10:41
by hornetfinn
I'm amazed how much pure BS from idiots The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in Australian Senate must go through... :shock:

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2016, 02:15
by popcorn
MoD gives DOT&E the Aussie salute.

http://www.australiandefence.com.au/new ... lian-f-35s

An update on Australian F-35s
12 Feb 2016
The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter program has been heralding more milestones following recent concerns raised by the Pentagon's chief tester in the annual report to US Congress.
The controversial program has achieved 50,000 flight hours and an Italian built F-35A has completed the first Transatlantic ocean crossing, en route to joining its US-built counterparts as part of the training fleet.
ADM received a response from Defence in relation to questions posed on the risk delays to the Block 3F software development presented to Australia's own tranche of aircraft.
"The Australian Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program has been structured to enable the issues raised in the annual Director Operational Test & Evaluation (DOTE) report to be resolved before IOC is declared in 2020," a Defence spokesperson said.

"The schedule for completion of operational Test and Evaluation is being closely managed by the F-35 Joint Program Office in consultation with Partners and industry.
"Australia has staff embedded in the F-35 Test and Evaluation Program, who represent Australia’s interests and work as part of the broader program outcomes. This day to day engagement provides confidence and insight that enables Australia to understand the implications of issues as they arise and put them in the broader context of the Australian F-35 program.
"While the DOT&E reports on the performance of the test and evaluation program by 'exception', it does not mention the significant milestones and positive progress achieved by the Program over recent years.
"In regards to milestones specific to Australia’s program:
Australia’s first two JSF aircraft were delivered to the international Pilot Training Centre (PTC) at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona in December 2014 and are proving to be some of the most reliable and available in the aircraft pool at the international F-35 PTC. Australia’s next eight aircraft will be delivered to the PTC in 2018.
Australia’s first two pilots are instructing international F-35 students at the international Pilot Training Centre.
In late 2015, the Australian KC-30A successfully completed testing for air-to-air refuelling with a United States Air Force (USAF) F-35A, which was a significant milestone in demonstrating interoperability and preparing for the ferry of Australia’s first two aircraft.
To date, Australian industry has won more that $US550 million in production and development contracts through the program. Australia has also been assigned regional F-35 depot maintenance responsibilities for airframe and engine.
"The Australian F-35 capability is achieving positive progress and is on track towards meeting Australia’s Initial Operating Capability (IOC) requirements by the end of 2020. The first two aircraft are scheduled to arrive in Australia in late 2018.
"The program is arguably the most global, highly complex and technically advanced Defence acquisition program ever undertaken."
The spokesperson confirmed the first two Australian aircraft to arrive in country at the end of 2018 are planned to be fitted with Block 3F software, that which has been the source of contention with the DOT&E. The director, Michael Gilmore, has said the JPO’s current plan to finish work on the software — the final software block required for full warfighting capability — by July 31, 2017 was “not realistic”.
Two F-35s will feature at UK airshows this year and while the Defence spokesperson could not confirm it, there are hopes that the aircraft will be represented at Avalon 2017.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2016, 02:46
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'popcorn' - it seems the info is getting out ahead of the Oz Senate Enquiry. Meanwhile some more info - bit by bit:
Counting the JSF cost is tricky business
Feb 2016 ADM Julian Kerr

"...The total approved Australian JSF budge is currently $17.7 billion, a figure adjusted for December 2015 exchange rates from the original figure of $15.4 billion. Based on current projections, the average unit cost of an Australian F-35A is estimated to be US$90 million, AVM Deeble said....

...Data will be sent from the servers to national Central Point of Entry (CPE) servers, in Australia's case at RAAF Williamtown, that will centralise and act as the repository for sovereign data.

From each CPE a core data set will be shared with the Global Sustainment Kit at a Lockheed Martin facility in Fort Worth which houses Autonomic Logistics Operating Unit servers and is intended to provide data to manage and support a global fleet of around 3,100 aircraft.

While AVM Deeble confirmed some robust discussion amongst the nine partners - "could probably regard the US Air Force, US Navy and US Marine Corps as separate entities, making it 11" - these primarily centred on ALIS functionality rather than differences on the transfer of sovereign data.

"When parts an pulled off the aircraft and put back into ALIS they're not owned by us, they're owned by the US goverment as part of the global spares pool. It's nothing like we do business today and operating the system requires changes in both business processes and culture."...

...While F-1lls used to fly two miles from each other, the RAAF's JSF fighting methodology would probably start with a three-ship formation flying tens of miles apart but operating in concert, exchanging and fusing data from each other over a much larger area of airspace.

"But the real power of this aircraft will be once you start utilising a four ship formation and integrating it as envisaged in Plan Jericho with other capabilities like Wedgetail, Poseidon, Triton, Growler, Super Hornet and the Air Warfare Destroyer."

Interoperability across key JSF-equipped allies such as the US and UK was also fundamental to Plan Jericho, and would be advanced conceptually by joint simulation and experimentation."

Source: http://www.australiandefence.com.au/home/adm-editions

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2016, 23:27
by popcorn
Fortunately there is actual planning and real work being done to transition the RAAF into a 5Gen combat force regardless of the ongoing dog-and-pony show in Parliament.


http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... 35-choices

Australian Air Force Must Make Careful F-35 Choices
The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) is preparing to receive its first squadron of 14 Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning IIs in-country in late 2018. They will be preceded by a squadron of 12 Boeing EF-18G Growlers that will arrive next year.

Like other air arms receiving advanced combat aircraft from the U.S., the RAAF must make careful choices about weapons and software commonality, and training, if costs are to be restrained. Air Commodore Mike Kitcher, the RAAF’s director general capability planning, provided some insight into the issues for delegates attending The International Fighter Conference in London last November.

“I don’t think we could repeat our F-18 Classic experience on the F-35; a higher-complexity platform with multiple security layers,” Kitcher said. He was referring to the RAAF’s choice of some unique weapons to arm its F/A-18A/B Hornets, 75 of which were acquired and entered service in the 1980s. They were the MBDA ASRAAM (advanced short range air-to-air missile), the Lockheed Martin JASSM (joint air-to-surface standoff missile), and the extended-range (ER) version of the JDAM (joint direct attack munition). None of these weapons are in the U.S. Navy’s Classic Hornet inventory, and Australian engineers made “some startling discoveries” during the integration process, Kitcher added. And although the wide-open spaces of the Woomera range were available, “flight-testing 200- to 300-km-range weapons is a considerable challenge,” he noted...The intent is for our weapons to remain as closely aligned to the U.S. F-35 as possible,” Kitcher said. ..

For maritime strike, the RAAF wants “a quality missile that can be carried internally,” Kitcher said. The two current options for the F-35 are the Norwegian Joint Strike Missile (JSM) or the Turkish Stand-Off Missile (SOM-J..

Kitcher said the RAAF is aware that it will be impossible to generate all the potential F-35 operating scenarios in live flying training, due to the “challenging security implications.” There will be a heavy reliance on live, virtual and constructive (LVC) training to generate the necessary complexities, he added.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2016, 23:45
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'popcorn' - interesting last few sentences from above also: [often it is said 50/50 actual/sim flying hours per pilot]
"...The service will aim to provide its F-35 pilots with 150 hours’ flying each year, plus 100 hours in simulators.

Kitcher said the RAAF is aware that it will be impossible to generate all the potential F-35 operating scenarios in live flying training, due to the “challenging security implications.” There will be a heavy reliance on live, virtual and constructive (LVC) training to generate the necessary complexities, he added."

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 01:01
by popcorn
Another "defence analyst" opines. Good grief. :doh:


http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-1 ... ng/7167216

Defence analyst warns Joint Strike Fighters may have trouble starting

A defence analyst says a "bizarre" logistics system could ground Joint Strike Fighter jets headed to the Williamtown Air Force base in New South Wales, even if the planes are fit to fly.

Analyst David Archibald has lodged a submission to a Senate inquiry into Australia's Joint Strike Fighters...

Mr Archibald has outlined six major concerns, including fears the jets will not start at northern Australian bases if their fuel gets too hot.

He also hit out at the fighters' logistics system, saying it required an internet connection to the United States. He said if that link was down, the aircraft could not fly, even if there was nothing wrong with it. Mr Archibald said it was "bizarre" Australia would contemplate operating an aircraft under this arrangement
.



http://adamsmithclub.org/2015/10/nov-20 ... nd-beyond/

David Archibald is a Perth-based scientist working in the fields of oil exploration, medical research, climate science and energy. After graduating from Queensland University in geology in 1979, he worked in coal and oil shale exploration in Queensland and then in oil exploration with Esso in Sydney. A long period in stockbroking as an analyst was followed by work for a private investor. He subsequently floated the oil exploration company Oilex in 2003 and then joined a Canadian-listed oil exploration company in 2006. Also at that time, he was CEO of the mineral explorer Westgold Resources. David’s last book was Twilight of Abundance (2014). He will be talking about his new book on Australia’s defence.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 01:10
by mk82
popcorn wrote:Another "defence analyst" opines. Good grief. :doh:


http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-1 ... ng/7167216

Defence analyst warns Joint Strike Fighters may have trouble starting

A defence analyst says a "bizarre" logistics system could ground Joint Strike Fighter jets headed to the Williamtown Air Force base in New South Wales, even if the planes are fit to fly.

Analyst David Archibald has lodged a submission to a Senate inquiry into Australia's Joint Strike Fighters...

Mr Archibald has outlined six major concerns, including fears the jets will not start at northern Australian bases if their fuel gets too hot.

He also hit out at the fighters' logistics system, saying it required an internet connection to the United States. He said if that link was down, the aircraft could not fly, even if there was nothing wrong with it. Mr Archibald said it was "bizarre" Australia would contemplate operating an aircraft under this arrangement
.



http://adamsmithclub.org/2015/10/nov-20 ... nd-beyond/

David Archibald is a Perth-based scientist working in the fields of oil exploration, medical research, climate science and energy. After graduating from Queensland University in geology in 1979, he worked in coal and oil shale exploration in Queensland and then in oil exploration with Esso in Sydney. A long period in stockbroking as an analyst was followed by work for a private investor. He subsequently floated the oil exploration company Oilex in 2003 and then joined a Canadian-listed oil exploration company in 2006. Also at that time, he was CEO of the mineral explorer Westgold Resources. David’s last book was Twilight of Abundance (2014). He will be talking about his new book on Australia’s defence.



Oh for f*cks sake. So much wrong in that article. That "scientist" should know when to shut his f*cking trap on things he doesn't know about. ABC journalism is in the pits nowadays....an energy/climate change scientist doth not make him a defence "analyst". An arm chair "expert" will be more fitting.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 01:19
by popcorn
Global warming will render the F-35 fleet useless. :devil:

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 02:10
by element1loop
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks 'popcorn' - interesting last few sentences from above also: [often it is said 50/50 actual/sim flying hours per pilot]
"...The service will aim to provide its F-35 pilots with 150 hours’ flying each year, plus 100 hours in simulators.

Kitcher said the RAAF is aware that it will be impossible to generate all the potential F-35 operating scenarios in live flying training, due to the “challenging security implications.” There will be a heavy reliance on live, virtual and constructive (LVC) training to generate the necessary complexities, he added."



Here's an eye-popper:

"... The RAAF plans to spend the years 2019-20 operationally testing the F-35 in Australia. During that process, “We’ll find things that we–and the Joint Program Office–don’t understand,” Kitcher predicted. Around 2020, Australia will decide whether to increase its order for the F-35 to as many as 100, as a replacement for the Super Hornets in the late 2020s. ..."

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... 35-choices

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 02:28
by spazsinbad
The bolded text part quote is not eye-popping at all - the speculation about finding stuff that mystifies people - IS. :devil:

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 02:29
by optimist
so we are still talking about retiring the Shornet in the 20's, I thought with the growler buy, we would retire the Shonet when the USN does. If the F/FX is available for export, it would give us an option to have a mixed or solo fleet at the time.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 02:36
by spazsinbad
Probably the WHITE PAPER due any day now - month - year - Buehler anyone? will say what the situation is NOW, given all the speculation earlier about all kinds of whatifs&buts regarding the onselling of the Super Hornets when their time is UP. Who does one believe? The government of the day changes and may change before that time. The RAAF have said lots of things before the Supers were bought, and then during. What have they - the RAAF - said recently? This may give a clue.

I will suggest no matter what is said today - what happens up north in the next four to five years will determine what happens to the Super Hornets (whether the wired for growling are kept along with the growlers) and whether even more than 100 F-35As total are purchased - oh gawd - including some F-35Bs. Five years is a long time in our part of the world.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 02:54
by element1loop
When the current buy is 72, and the indicated possible future buy is 18 more,

i.e. 90

As per:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... e-fighters

Then that bolded quoted text indicates up to 10 more than that 90 number may still be ordered, and also as replacement for Supers in late 2020s. We'll convivially disagree about thinking that's significant detail and confirmation of current plans, coming from RAAF brass, not from "speculation".

What chaffs or enrages you about highlighting that does escape me though. :mrgreen:


EDIT: just read your reasoning directly above Spaz, so fair enough, but may I cheekily suggest yoga sessions in the morning? :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 03:08
by spazsinbad
'element1loop' you will do well to not make erroneous claims - my post over the page said this:
"The bolded text part quote is not eye-popping at all - the speculation about finding stuff that mystifies people - IS."

IF someone bothers to read this forum about Oz stuff they will get lots of info about the 'possible 100' with all kinds of explanations about why people were misquoted or quotes over many years suggesting the possibility of 100 so not news.

Let us take a trip down memory lane for the umpteenth time... building on this quote I'll look for similar in this forum....
The case for the JSF
c.2002 AM Angus Houston

"...Important set of numbers...
...The 2000 Defence White Paper and subsequent reviews propose the acquisition of “up to 100 aircraft”, and the Defence Capability Plan 2004-2014 identifies a notional budget for the project of $11.5bn to $15.5bn....

...The JSF will require the Air Force to rethink the basis of squadron sizing, taking into account the increased endurance of the JSF and the expected increased availability of aircraft.

Overseas operators are looking at squadron sizes ranging from 12 through to 24 aircraft. Our current thinking is that a larger number of smaller squadrons might be preferable, providing greater flexibility for a relatively small force.

Options of 12 or 16 Fully Mission Capable aircraft are currently being examined, which would require either about 14 or 18 aircraft in a squadron, allowing for maintenance requirements.

The recent decisions to acquire five AAR tankers and the additional two AEW&C aircraft (giving a total of six) are an acknowledgment of the need for the Air Force to have the capability to conduct air control operations in two separate areas simultaneously. This is consistent with White Paper 2000 guidance that identified the need for land forces to conduct two concurrent but geographically separated operations.

Each area could need at least one squadron of fighters deployed to cover air control tasking, possibly more if intensive 24/7 operations were in prospect.

It is quite possible that at the same time direct support of land operations may be required.

And concurrent strike operations may also be required – either land or maritime. Four squadrons looks like being the minimum prudent operational force to meet potential concurrency requirements.

With four deployed squadrons of even 14 aircraft, backed up by a squadron-sized rotation capability, the total number is already up to 70 aircraft.

To this must be added aircraft for training – possibly 10 to 18 – plus a pool of aircraft undergoing deeper maintenance or regular upgrades, and additional aircraft to allow for expected attrition over the life of the fleet.

The number quickly gets up to 100. So the number mentioned in the White Paper, and accepted by government to date, is pretty close to the mark.

A much greater number obviously would be much more expensive and possibly difficult to sustain, and a much smaller number could leave us seriously exposed...."

Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews ... ture01.htm

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 03:24
by element1loop
As I indicated, I have no clear idea what you're trying to say in your response, it came across as curiously aggressive and mystifying, made no clear sens, required interpretation. See that? I haven't found a PM option on this site, but suffice to say I'm not making "erroneous claims". And I also have no idea what you're trying to say there either, or what "erroneous claim" you think was made. ... moving on.

The case for the JSF
c.2002 AM Angus Houston

I read that doc when it was first published, I know it well, but that's not Feb 2016, it's 2002. And very familiar with all the capability development docs and plans since.

Don't be so condescending.

I'll reiterate, I have no idea at all what chaffs you about what I quoted. Happy not to discuss anything with you if it helps. :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 03:26
by spazsinbad
I'll just ignore you and if you continue to misrepresent what I post on this forum I will report you to the moderators. & to respond to your claim - the old information explains why 100 will be required. & as posted there were going to be more up to date sequential mentions of the '100' but I won't bother now - most quotes are on this forum & I have them....

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 03:42
by element1loop
spazsinbad wrote:... and if you continue to misrepresent what I post on this forum ...


That right there is actually a false claim.

If you want to try moderation (as opposed to threatening it) maybe the moderator can figure out what you're on about, I give up.

Cheers

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 04:07
by spazsinbad
For my own records, some recent quotes about the '100' from reputable sources have been gathered. Most recent is one year old but there you go. viewtopic.php?f=58&t=19100&p=271687&hilit=Coleman#p271687
All Eyes on F-35
10 Feb 2014 WENDELL MINNICK

"...“The Australian government reaffirmed its commitment to procuring up to 100 aircraft.”..."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/article/2014 ... -Eyes-F-35

Minister for Defence – Transcript
20 May 2014 Interview with Chris Coleman, ABC Riverina

"...MINISTER: Well, look I am pleased to respond to that, because we took that decision in 2002 to go with the JSF.

CHRIS COLEMAN: The extra 58 of them ?
MINISTER: Well, in 2009 we said 100. We’re going to 72 within the second half of the next decade, we will look at where we are at and what decisions the then Government can make..."

Source: http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2014 ... ranscript/

Australia's Next Generation Air Combat Capability
16 Jul 2014 DMO page 60 of 80 pages

"...A subsequent AIR 6000 Phase 2C is planned to acquire the fourth operational squadron to bring the total number of aircraft to around 100. A decision on Phase 2C is not expected before 2019 and is linked to the withdrawal of the F/A-18F Super Hornets later next decade...."

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=254100 (PDF 11.2Mb)

RAAF pushes for tighter integration of assets
22 Feb 2015 Greg Waldron

"...Several officers spoke on the topic during the conference, which preceded the biennial Avalon air show outside of Melbourne. They made much of the Lockheed Martins F-35 fighter's possibilities in the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance areas, in addition to its combat capabilities. Australia has commitments for 72 F-35s, and could acquire up to 100 of the type...."

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ts-409308/

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 05:31
by element1loop
Linked within this same post thread, and which I already referenced above on this page, but failed to make a dent:

"... A 2009 policy paper commissioned by the previous Labor government confirmed Australia planned to equip its air force with about 100 F-35s.

The 72 aircraft are expected to be fully operational by 2023, Abbott said today. Australia is retaining the option of purchasing a further squadron of 18 Joint Strike Fighters, he said.

“Countries like the U.S. and the U.K. are not in the business of being beaten,” Abbott said. “This aircraft is, in the judgment of the U.S. and the other principal Western powers, a very, very effective aircraft. ...”
- April 23 2014

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... e-fighters

i.e.

The April 2014 article makes a clear distinction, within that quote, that the plan was changing, from "about 100", to no more than 90 F-35.

A Prime Minister saying the plan is not more than 90 (he even indicates it may not be that many - read it) out ranks other sources. Until another PM contradicts that, or white paper and DCP contradict it, I'll tend to go with 90 as the valid upper number, with 72 being the possible lower procurement number (depending on testing in 2019-2020).

In other words, the plan had changed from about 100 to a solid figure of 72, and not more that 90 potentially, at that time.


Combined with this:

"... The RAAF plans to spend the years 2019-20 operationally testing the F-35 in Australia. ... Around 2020, Australia will decide whether to increase its order for the F-35 to as many as 100 [i.e. it may not, too, as this is far from a settled decision for as many as 100], as a replacement for the Super Hornets in the late 2020s. ..."

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... 35-choices

That quote, is a further update to a dynamic and floating number in the acquisition planning, that was not cast in stone in 2002, nor in 2014, or in 2015, nor will it be in upcoming official planning documents to come. And this thus constitutes new information (and very good news), despite some curious reactive resistance to acknowledging that which has/had me bemused.

It is the decision in, "about 2020", that will seal the acquisition numbers, but the planned numbers are clearly a floating variable, still.

And that's the meaning of my "eye-popper" comment, because RAAF, under a new Prime Minister, are saying the plan is back up to as many as 100 once more.

Which is an eye-poppingly good thing. :)

Other's mileage may differ.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 05:50
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:Probably the WHITE PAPER due any day now - month - year - Buehler anyone? will say what the situation is NOW, given all the speculation earlier about all kinds of whatifs&buts regarding the onselling of the Super Hornets when their time is UP. Who does one believe? The government of the day changes and may change before that time. The RAAF have said lots of things before the Supers were bought, and then during. What have they - the RAAF - said recently? This may give a clue.

I will suggest no matter what is said today - what happens up north in the next four to five years will determine what happens to the Super Hornets (whether the wired for growling are kept along with the growlers) and whether even more than 100 F-35As total are purchased - oh gawd - including some F-35Bs. Five years is a long time in our part of the world.
.

I'm thinking that as F-35s are fielded and SHs are retired, it becomes less and less compelling to justify Growlers and more and more attractive to realize the benefits of a common fast-jet platfform. But that egg is still to be hatched.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 05:55
by spazsinbad
OK thanks for explaining. My issue was with you saying erroneously about what I supposedly said/reacted and yes I needed to have made that clear I can see now...:
"...What chaffs or enrages you about highlighting that does escape me though.'..." green smileyface

For the record I'm seldom enraged - chaffed? - probably - if a nice meaning is envisaged. What I hope is made clear about 'the possible 100' will be in forthcoming White Paper. However it may remain unclear as usual. Why? Decision in future.

And to answer 'popcorn' the RAAF have made it clear all along that they would like to have had an all F-35A force. And then along came the Shornets and then the Growlers so they have to live with them for the time being. I guess they will lobby for what they require with explanations to suit - such as cheaper to run - but what about a fleet grounding? Answered recently by 'zandercrews' - if they need to fly in wartime - they will fly. And the devil take the hindmost.... :devil:

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 06:09
by element1loop
spazsinbad wrote:OK thanks for explaining. My issue was with you saying erroneously about what I supposedly said/reacted and yes I needed to have made that clear I can see now...:
"...What chaffs or enrages you about highlighting that does escape me though.'..." green smileyface

For the record I'm seldom enraged - chaffed? - probably - if a nice meaning is envisaged. What I hope is made clear about 'the possible 100' will be in forthcoming White Paper. However it may remain unclear as usual. Why? Decision in future.


No problem Spaz, perhaps take my remarks on face value from here, we shouldn't be clashing over simple misunderstandings in this way, I respect your deep knowledge of topics greatly btw, but I do my own thinking and data logging and detail taking, it's a bad habit I just can't shake. :) 8)

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 06:25
by spazsinbad
Usually I just post the articles/facts with links/citations or whatever. What I think - except for my jokes - is not here nor there in the scheme of things. I am out of the loop; but await the public advice in the White Paper - whenever it appears.

IF you want to peruse my collection of 'facks maam - nuttin' but the facks' go to the shortified links at the bottom of each of my posts. These shorties go to OneDrive and GoogleDrive for heaps of material related to the RAN FAA and the F-35. Particularly I'm interested in the 'how to deck land' aspects of the F-35B/Cs but how to land them on a runway is interesting also. Perhaps a Norwegian F-35A pilot will tell us soon - as promised. Otherwise I comprehend that a lot of F-35 information will remain classified, making understanding of how it does what it does not always easy to comprehend. Some posters here such as 'blindpilot' & others have made a good impression on me about understanding - my way though.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 06:48
by element1loop
spazsinbad wrote:... my way though.


I respect that. And thanks for the link advice, I've actually been reading your PDFs for some time now, very informative.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2016, 06:59
by element1loop
popcorn wrote:I'm thinking that as F-35s are fielded and SHs are retired, it becomes less and less compelling to justify Growlers and more and more attractive to realize the benefits of a common fast-jet platfform. But that egg is still to be hatched.


I was originally against the idea of getting Supers at all. LO F-35 with Hornets mixed? Nah! And to sticking to F-35 single-type plans, until events required otherwise. I see some hurdles now to early withdrawal of SH-G (I'd say at least 12 F's will go for sure).

The new build acquisition inquiry date was Dec 2012, ordered in 2013. Not long ago. The impediments I see are these:

(1) RAAF seems strongly committed/invested in both public and official comments toward its deep integration, for example:
"... former Chief of the Air Force Geoff Brown said the acquisition of Super Hornet ‘Growlers’ is the biggest single advance in RAAF capability since the purchase of F-111s in the 1960s. He explained that because of the broad spectrum Electronic Attack features of the aircraft, they will constitute a major step forward in the ability of the ADF to conduct successful combat operations. He expressed the view that the Asian region is becoming potentially more dangerous to operate in mainly because of the growth in numbers and capability of anti-aircraft missile systems. ..."


Source: http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.c ... rolled-out

(2) The cost for the 12 new builds was $3.6 billion AUD (at the time), plus $420 million AUD spent on the 12 SH-F, fitted for but not with G upgrade. So just over $4 billion AUD total, invested in future G capabilities (that's without including the cost of the first 12 SH-F aircraft upgraded to SH-G).

That's a lot of political and budgetary cabbage, to make lots of painful coleslaw out (APA, media blah), for years to come, if COTS SH-G was canned early. You'd get public inquiry and outcry in media and Canberra.

F/A-18G are to be classed as support aircraft, not air combat aircraft, so are not part of the 100 strikefighter force. So if you've paid for them, and they're delivered, people trained, air bases upgraded for them, and you can also get 100 F-35 with them, then why cut them away, at all?

Operating costs? Redundancy? What's wrong with keeping them for decades?

The joint EA targeting support concepts envisioned:

"... This is a capability we have never had before – the jamming ability to shut down hostile radars, to shut down enemy missile systems and allow us if necessary to operate in hostile airspace.

“The ‘Growler’ is such a big change from what we have had before. I always think that with military capability there are three things you really want: you want good cyber capabilities; good kinetic effect capabilities, which we have always had – and also a good electronic warfare capability. Never previously having had the ability to attack the electromagnetic spectrum in the way that this aircraft can means that not only does the air force benefit from its acquisition but so does the entire ADF.

“Capability like this will be in our inventory for 30 plus years. Unless you can guarantee air superiority you cannot do any other land or sea operations, so to have this sort of capability makes the rest of Defence function, to be honest.”

Asked how the ‘Growler’ will work with the stealthy F-35 – which comes with a formidable electronic attack capability of its own – the Air Marshal explained:

“The ‘Growler’ will support the F-35s, but it will depend on the scenario. Sometimes you won’t necessarily fly them together, but other times you will – it all depends on the mission planning. The ‘Growler’ brings a much wider spectrum of electronic attack to the equation, whereas the F-35’s EA capability is more directed against surface-to-air missiles. I don’t think the two types will always operate together because the F-35 has the ability to go into hostile airspace by itself. We are looking at the ‘Growler’ in terms of its ability to support the wider Australian Defence Force and protect all of our assets.” ..."


http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.c ... rolled-out

I could live with 100 F-35, with 12 (and potentially 24, or 12 in reserve) SH-G.

Coordinated asymmetric EA clout up the wazoo.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2016, 08:35
by spazsinbad
Preview of RAAF F-35 report
19 Feb 2016 ON THE ROGER

"Vid by commercial media, February 2016.
Read more at http://ontheroger.proboards.com


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

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2016, 17:14
by spazsinbad
A pre-emptive strike against who knows what... JUMP for more at the URL. Oz Senate Enquiry starts Thu 25 Feb 2016.
US commander defends Joint Strike Fighter F-35A ahead of Senate inquiry
21 Feb 2016 Sally Brooks and James Dunlevie

"The American head of the global Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program supplying new combat aircraft to Australia has been spruiking the jets' capabilities in Darwin ahead of a Senate inquiry into the Federal Government's acquisition of the jets.

Australia is spending around $17 billion on buying 72 US-made aircraft, with the first expected to arrive in Australia in 2018 and enter service in 2020, replacing the Hornet fleet.

Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan is set to appear before a Senate inquiry into the Federal Government's acquisition of the F-35A jets in Canberra on Thursday.

He spent Sunday talking about the jets' capabilities. "One thing you ought to know — and I am pre-empting my speech in front of the Senate — I am not an F-35 salesman," he said. "There is no match in the world [for the F-35s] and there won't be for 10 or 20 years.

"Here's what an F-35 can do for you: long before two aeroplanes get close enough to see each other the F-35 is going to see that other aeroplane and kill it."

Bogdan dismisses concerns F-35As not suited to hot climates. The JSFs are set to be based at RAAF bases at Williamtown, New South Wales and Tindal, around 330 kilometres south of Darwin, with Tindal to be "used for exercises from two to four weeks per year by visiting squadrons", the Department of Defence said.

Darwin's airport, which functions as both a civilian and military airport, will be used as a JSF "Forward Operating Base", to "support occasional and short-term proposed flying operations" of the JSF aircraft.

US Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, in Darwin to give a briefing on the JSF F-35 fighter plane program. General Bogdan's visit comes amid criticism of the jets, including that the aircraft are not suited to hot climates.

In a submission to the Senate inquiry, defence analyst David Archibald said F-35s would have trouble operating out of northern Australia. "The F-35 uses its fuel for cooling its electronics," he wrote. "The aircraft won't start if its fuel is too warm, making deployment in northern Australia problematic."

But General Bogdan said the issue with fuel was no different to legacy fighters. "There are limits on any engine including the F-35 as to how hot the fuel can be before you put it in the plane," he said....

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-21/u ... 5a/7187616

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2016, 17:30
by spazsinbad
IF you can view the video at this URL of the '60 Minutes Oz F-35' report then it starts at 35 minutes 30 seconds. It is easy to move the slider to that mark to skip over the rest of the bullfullshillfit in this sorry excuse for credible TV insight.

60 Minutes 2016 Episode 3: https://www.9now.com.au/60-minutes/2016/episode-3 (15 minutes viewing time)

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2016, 21:03
by pron
spazsinbad wrote:60 Minutes 2016 Episode 3: https://www.9now.com.au/60-minutes/2016/episode-3 (15 minutes viewing time)


I get this when I try: 9Now is only able to show live and on demand content in Australia and does not have international streaming right. If you’re outside of Australia, you won’t be able to watch 9Now until you’re back in the country.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2016, 22:11
by Dragon029
You'll be able to watch the senate inquiry here: http://www.aph.gov.au/news_and_events/watch_parliament
From what I can gather, it'll probably be 11:30AM - 12:30PM AEDT on the 25th - guys overseas can use Google or Wolfram Alpha to figure out when that is local to your time.

[quote="pron"
I get this when I try: 9Now is only able to show live and on demand content in Australia and does not have international streaming right. If you’re outside of Australia, you won’t be able to watch 9Now until you’re back in the country.[/quote]

The website is proving difficult but I'll see if I can reupload a copy to YouTube.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2016, 23:57
by les_paul59
thanks for the link dragon, definitely gonna try to watch that hearing

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2016, 00:11
by spazsinbad
Dragon029 wrote:You'll be able to watch the senate inquiry here: http://www.aph.gov.au/news_and_events/watch_parliament
From what I can gather, it'll probably be 11:30AM - 12:30PM AEDT on the 25th - guys overseas can use Google or Wolfram Alpha to figure out when that is local to your time.

"pron": I get this when I try: 9Now is only able to show live and on demand content in Australia and does not have international streaming right. If you’re outside of Australia, you won’t be able to watch 9Now until you’re back in the country.

'Dragon029: "The website is proving difficult but I'll see if I can reupload a copy to YouTube.

Thanks for the Parliament Video link.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2016, 00:45
by Dragon029
I've been having more issues trying to record this damn show, but I'll keep at it - Spazinbad; the Facebook link only shows me a picture advertisement of the show segment (no video).

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2016, 00:52
by beepa
60 Minutes Australia website has it, you just gotta log in. There are also some "extra minutes" with some more footage and an interesting interview or two.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2016, 01:04
by spazsinbad
Dragon029 wrote:I've been having more issues trying to record this damn show, but I'll keep at it - Spazinbad; the Facebook link only shows me a picture advertisement of the show segment (no video).

Sorry about that I'll amend the post for FaceBook - not being a FaceFooker I couldna see more etc.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2016, 01:04
by Dragon029
beepa wrote:60 Minutes Australia website has it, you just gotta log in. There are also some "extra minutes" with some more footage and an interesting interview or two.


People from outside of Australia can't view it. Where's the "extra minutes" part?

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2016, 01:06
by beepa
They have the "extra minutes" on Facebook now, there are two or three segments...

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2016, 01:56
by Dragon029
I'll upload copies of those later, but in the mean time, here's the main feature - I have YouTube in the middle of trimming the video to the relevant segment, but until that happens you'll just have to skip forward to 35:30:


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

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2016, 02:48
by spazsinbad
Thanks for this - are you going to replace the long version with unnecessary bits with the edited short F-35 15 minute segment? I'll wait for that if you do. Otherwise I can download the whole HOUR and then edit it to put that on my SpazzyUbend Page?

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2016, 02:58
by Dragon029
Yep, YouTube has a built-in video editing program that you can use to trim videos and apply things like stabilisation. I've used that to trim the video to the relevant parts, but I'm waiting for YouTube's servers to process that change. When it happens, it'll still be the same url.

I'd change it on my computer, but the software that I use for format conversion is refusing to convert the flash video .flv file to the formats that I can use with my editing software. If YouTube hasn't fixed it by the time I get home I'll just use some alternative means to trim the video.

Edit:

It's now trimmed.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2016, 03:17
by spazsinbad
OK understand. I can edit .FLV (& crop them) with my Adobe InDesign add-on freebie 'Adobe Media Encoder'. It is limited however but can do some simple tasks. You may have noticed some of the First Wet Weather Hurricane F-35C videos from front on view of arrest have been cropped using this app (saved). Then slowed down in Windows Movie Maker etc.... OK I see it is edited/trimmed now.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2016, 03:39
by spazsinbad
Now I see the above video has this highlighted text - what does it - 'unlisted' - mean?
"This video is unlisted. Be considerate and think twice before sharing."

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2016, 04:05
by Dragon029
YouTube has 3 settings for uploaded videos:

Public = anyone can see it / find it by looking for it.

Unlisted = anyone with the address can see it, but you can't find it be searching for it on YouTube.

Private = nobody can see it unless they have can login to the channel that uploaded it (I think you can also send people a special link or something, but I've never had to try to do that).

I was just waiting for the video to be trimmed before I made it public.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2016, 04:08
by spazsinbad
OK thanks for explanation. And thanks for making the edited version available.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2016, 05:42
by spazsinbad
At last look I think there were 13 submission (plus addons) PDFs available - today another FIVE were added (+ addon) to the now 18 total submissions (not including addons) here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... ubmissions

Not Noteworthily we have one from DonBacon but also from the Williams Foundation (I gather this is serious) so go for it....
Inquiry into the planned acquisition of the F-35 Lighting II (Joint Strike Fighter) [Fifteen Pages all told]
09 Feb 2016 Williams Foundation

"...Alternatives to the F-35
The Super Hornet, F-16 Block 60, F-15, Typhoon Euro Fighter, Rafael and Gripen were all analysed and considered by Australia as options for its future air combat capability but none of them were able to meet all of Australia’s requirements. All were vulnerable to advanced threats and they did not provide the same opportunity to be continually upgraded to meet these evolving threats.

The F-22 was also evaluated by the Air Force for its abilities to meet Australia’s future air combat needs. While undoubtedly the world’s best air dominance fighter, the F-22 could not meet all of Australia’s multi-role requirements necessary to deliver the integrated air combat capability and support to the joint force....

...Acquisition of Eastern Block aircraft were also considered but would come with prohibitive restrictions in terms of interoperability for combined operations.

F-35 Program
Australia first invested in the F-35 Program in 2002 along with the other partner nations namely the US, UK, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Denmark and Norway. Since then, other nations such as Israel, South Korea and Japan have also concluded that the F-35 is the best choice for their air capability needs. Not all of these countries – including the world’s pre-eminent fighter forces - can be wrong.

There is no question that the Program has experienced considerable schedule delays and cost increases since it was first approved. Development cost increases, however, have not been passed on to partner countries and Australia has always maintained considerable levels of contingency to cover increases in acquisition costs.

Since the Program was re-baselined in 2012, it has remained on budget, on schedule and meeting capability parameters. Australia still retains some margin to cater for any further schedule slippage in the Program should it occur.

For a Program of this complexity, test and evaluation (T&E) inevitably will identify issues that need to be resolved. Australia is leveraging off US T&E while its own T&E efforts are focused on integrating the F-35 with other ADF capabilities. The progressive resolution of these issues is clearly demonstrated by the fact that around 200 F-35s will be in operational service by end 2016....

...What makes the F-22 and F-35 special is not just that they have unmatched sensors and stealth, but that they make everyone else in the ecosystem more capable. A good analogy for a small force with limited resources such as the RAAF is the fact that the USAF only received some 180 F-22s out of a planned force of up to 750, and thus had to “come to grips” with integrating the F-22 into its force to make its legacy aircraft better.

The F-35 should not be treated just as a replacement aircraft for the Hornet or Super Hornet as this would undermine its real capability. It does not replace anything, it is unique, it is revolutionary, and it is in a world never before defined by what tactical platforms can do....

...The Super Hornet was erroneously touted as a replacement for the F-111...

...Stealth
Stealth is much more than just the traditional view of using radical shaping and exotic materials to give a low radar cross section. True low observability (LO) is designed in from the ground up in every signature of the platform, including IR, RF and the visual spectrums. LO technology also means minimising the probability of intercept of its electronic emissions while at the same time enhancing networking capabilities and situational awareness to give a pilot decision superiority.

Stealth is not about preventing detection; it’s about ensuring access. True stealth means that the pilot is able to choose where to operate, when to engage or disengage, and when to be seen or not be seen. It means reducing an adversary’s situational awareness to almost zero, thereby providing improved mission success and increased survivability.

Interoperability
To fully realise the potential that the F-35 offers it needs to be fully integrated into the ADF’s force structure and not employed as a stand-alone 5th generation capability.

The F-35 and its 5th generation capabilities will make many of the ADF’s other capabilities more effective....

...Key Conclusions
Studies conducted by The Sir Richard Williams Foundation have concluded that the F-35 is the only viable candidate that will meet the full range of Australia’s air combat needs into the future.

The two important goals of the Australian F-35 Program are to deliver a new air combat capability that will meet Australia’s needs to 2025 and beyond and deliver a strong Defence industry that supports the F-35.

The 5th generation F-35 is a whole new way of doing business for the ADF and will require a number of key enabler capabilities in order to maximise its potential to make not just the RAAF but key elements of the whole ADF better.

If the ADF wants to limit the F-35 to a tactical role, then that will be very easy to do. But if the ADF wants to expand this ecosystem and include in it other mission sets – including ones that nobody has yet thought of - the capacity is there to do it.

The F-35 is not simply a replacement for the F/A18 but an introduction to a different way of thinking about operations, land, sea and air. It is the epitome of RAAF’s Plan Jericho approach; how do we do it better?"

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=409113 (PDF 213Kb)

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2016, 08:27
by spazsinbad
Well the fat lady will sing soon for an end to submissions - now there are another bazillion - up to 35 with no.20 missing (it may turn up later). Anyway go there or be square. TWO pages of submission entries now: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... ubmissions

The current last submission no.35 makes some claims (from Norwegian BigWing) that may just be part of the process (some sims done with different opposition missile loadouts) or done this way for other reasons not known to bigwig? Dunno.

No.35 Lt.Col(ret) Anker Sorensen
http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=409097 (PDF 35Kb)

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2016, 04:29
by spazsinbad
The MIA... No.20 Submission PDF 3.6Mb 120 pages: (info also posted on Canuckian thread of long standing). I must admit to not reading every word however there seems to be no mention to the relevance to this enquiry in 2016 for the icy swamp of information dated early 2012 relevant to Canada and their F-35 issues. OH GOSH perhaps it was because of the ne'er do wells listed below? Dunno, baffled of SpazSinbadLandDunUnda. In a nutshell - don't bother - there be dragons.
Canada, Democracy and the F-35
29 Mar 2012 Alan S. Williams Defence Management Studies Program School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University 2012

"The Claxton Papers...
...The author would like to thank colleagues who have shared information and provided clarity to many of the issues surrounding the F-35. In particular, much appreciation to Bill Sweetman, Peter Goon, Dr. Carlo Kopp, Chris Mills, Eric Palmer, Mark Collins and Steve Fuhr...."

On Page 42 this quote leapt out at me:
"...In one of his Globe and Mail Social Studies columns, Michael Kesterton referenced studies conducted at the University of Michigan, which found “that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.” No better example of this than the F-35 debacle...."


Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=409114

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2016, 06:40
by smsgtmac
RE: Submissions. Proof positive that Democracy is a messy business, eh?
These last two submissions were a riot.
First one:
No.35 Lt.Col(ret) Anker Sorensen
http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=409097 (PDF 35Kb)

The latest Sorensen COULD have flown the simulations he talks about being 'fixed' (for a lack of a better word) would have been in 2004, and it sounds like it was before then. Even using 2004 as the most current year for the LtCol's F-35 adventures, that was still two years before AA-1 flew, and 2 years AT MOST after LM won the contract. Whatever sims he flew were almost certainly generic exercises for figuring out HOW the program was going to approach developing the actual sims for other purposes. Even if they were early iterations of what is in place now, and they would had to have been VERY early iterations, there wasn't any elements ready to do high fidelity stuff he whines about being denied. I do note he has a consultancy biz.

Second one:
spazsinbad wrote: .
Canada, Democracy and the F-35
29 Mar 2012 Alan S. Williams Defence Management Studies Program School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University 2012

"The Claxton Papers...
...The author would like to thank colleagues who have shared information and provided clarity to many of the issues surrounding the F-35. In particular, much appreciation to Bill Sweetman, Peter Goon, Dr. Carlo Kopp, Chris Mills, Eric Palmer, Mark Collins and Steve Fuhr...."

On Page 42 this quote leapt out at me:
"...In one of his Globe and Mail Social Studies columns, Michael Kesterton referenced studies conducted at the University of Michigan, which found “that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.” No better example of this than the F-35 debacle...."


Source: <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=b8bcbf97-0feb-4ca4-b951-ebe884b8e19f&subId=409114</span>


The level of hybris required to cite and acknowledge the contributions to that clown posse AND include that sign-off about 'facts' in his little polemic dressed up as quasi-scholarship is mind-boggling. My favorite part within is where he asserts the only cost comparison worth mentioning is his preferential one that includes all kinds of things that the US adds in that aren't necessarily going to be in a partner bill of sale. Tip for Mr. Williams: the unit cost is as relevant as your pet value because when people want to know what a plane costs, they are thinking of just the plane. I note that those interested in the lower-level costs don't mind talking about the higher-level costs too, but the reverse rarely if ever happens.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2016, 10:08
by hornetfinn
smsgtmac wrote:RE: Submissions. Proof positive that Democracy is a messy business, eh?
These last two submissions were a riot.
First one:
No.35 Lt.Col(ret) Anker Sorensen
http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=409097 (PDF 35Kb)

The latest Sorensen COULD have flown the simulations he talks about being 'fixed' (for a lack of a better word) would have been in 2004, and it sounds like it was before then. Even using 2004 as the most current year for the LtCol's F-35 adventures, that was still two years before AA-1 flew, and 2 years AT MOST after LM won the contract. Whatever sims he flew were almost certainly generic exercises for figuring out HOW the program was going to approach developing the actual sims for other purposes. Even if they were early iterations of what is in place now, and they would had to have been VERY early iterations, there wasn't any elements ready to do high fidelity stuff he whines about being denied. I do note he has a consultancy biz.


Correct. I found these about F-35 simulators during that time and somewhat later:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lockheed-martin-aeronautics-and-the-mathworks-achieve-milestone-with-successful-f-35-jsf-flight-simulator-test-59026397.html

http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/F-35_2004_Year-In-Review.PDF

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/training-central-lockheed-martin-prepares-for-f-35-jsf-219642/

To me it seems like the simulators were very basic then and concentrated on flight control law design and other such stuff. I doubt there was anything resembling a true combat simulator. First Full Mission Simulator was delivered in 2011 and by the end of 2007 there was very little simulators in existence as the capability was just being produced. I say there is no way Anker Sorensen could've flown any real F-35 simulator but rather some very basic version with likely huge number of limitations.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2016, 10:26
by Dragon029
Just a correction on what I said here:
Dragon029 wrote:You'll be able to watch the senate inquiry here: http://www.aph.gov.au/news_and_events/watch_parliament
From what I can gather, it'll probably be 11:30AM - 12:30PM AEDT on the 25th - guys overseas can use Google or Wolfram Alpha to figure out when that is local to your time.


The correct timing is 3:30PM - 5:35PM AEDT (if you open the "Week View" schedule, it's listed as "Senate, Foreign Affairs, Defence & Trade Legislation Committee (Senate Estimates)").

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2016, 11:02
by spazsinbad
:applause: Thanks 'smsgtmac' & 'hornetfinn' for uncovering the oldness of the Norskie SimDood. :shock:

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2016, 14:52
by krorvik
spazsinbad wrote::applause: Thanks 'smsgtmac' & 'hornetfinn' for uncovering the oldness of the Norskie SimDood. :shock:


Think the pdf said he was with the Danes. Not that we haven't got them further up north too...

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2016, 18:07
by spazsinbad
:doh: OOoops - my bad. 8)

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2016, 18:40
by blindpilot
spazsinbad wrote::doh: OOoops - my bad. 8)


FYI, a little trivia. SorenS"E"N versus Sorenson will always be a clue. D"EN"mark has a thing for namea"sen" spellings.

:) :) :D

BP

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2016, 20:00
by lamoey
blindpilot wrote:
spazsinbad wrote::doh: OOoops - my bad. 8)


FYI, a little trivia. SorenS"E"N versus Sorenson will always be a clue. D"EN"mark has a thing for namea"sen" spellings.

:) :) :D

BP


In fact, Norway typically uses the same E as the Danes. Anker, however, is amore common name in Denmark than Norway, so I guessed that he was a Dane as soon as I saw the name.

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2016, 02:37
by spazsinbad
ADF White Paper 2016 is due tomorrow Thursday 25 Feb this week.
Malcolm Turnbull sticks to Tony Abbott's defence spending pledges in long-awaited white paper
24 Feb 2016 Andrew Greene & Stephanie Anderson

"The Turnbull Government will commit to spending 2 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) on defence within a decade in its long-awaited white paper.

After several delays and re-writes, the highly anticipated Defence White Paper will finally be publicly unveiled by the Prime Minister on Thursday in Canberra.

The document outlines the Government's military and strategic vision and billions of dollars in spending to modernise the Navy and update Australia's ageing Collins-class fleet of submarines.

The ABC has confirmed 12 new submarines will form the centrepiece of the white paper.

Despite budgetary pressures, the Turnbull Government will stick to former prime minister Tony Abbott's commitment to spend 2 per cent of GDP on defence by 2023, the ABC has learnt.

It is understood a significant proportion of the spending will be on big-ticket items such as the next fleet of submarines, new RAAF planes and replacing the Army's armoured vehicle fleet....

...Australia's last Defence White Paper was released by Julia Gillard in 2013, and Mr Abbott promised to update the document within 18 months of being elected."

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-23/d ... es/7194480

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2016, 08:12
by hornetfinn
I thought it was very peculiar that a retired Danish Lt. Colonel decided to write Australian Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee about F-35 and his experiences with F-35 simulated flights. What was his motive to write to Australian committee and why did he leave some very important pieces of information out of his writing like years when he took part of those simulated flights (that was at least 12 years ago), what was the development state of simulators then (12 years ago it must've been very simple), what aircraft and missiles were simulated and what missiles he wanted to use. I'm sure he knows those details and meaning of those details. He must know that 12 years of development means huge difference and if he has followed F-35 program he must know that most of simulation capabilities has been added after he could've possibly took part of those simulations.

So I did some intelligence gathering and it seems like Anker Steen Sørensen is endorsed in LinkedIn by no other than Carlo Kopp and Chris Mills (RepSim guy). Anker Steen Sørensen has endorsed at least Peter Goon of all people. All this can't be a coincidence, no way. I just wonder how on earth did APA/Repsim people get someone with Sørensens experience to join their ranks? I really wonder what's going on with them?

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2016, 08:38
by spazsinbad
I agree, you may wonder about the Canadian submission and probably a few others (please don't ask me to read them all - I have skimmed them as they arrived) have little or nothing to do with Australian F-35 situation. This is the 'whatever new anti-JSF new fighter for Australia coalition' demonstrating their silliness. YMMV. More & more they rely on ancient details.

The biggest mystery is why the Labor party voted with the minor dribble parties to hold this enquiry give what they said when they did vote. What was their quid pro quo? Note statements on page seven of this thread: Sen. Conroy [creepy] former Labor DefMin viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=310550&hilit=COMMITTEES#p310550
"...Senator CONROY: While Labor strongly support the right of the Senate to inquire into a whole range of issues, we do not want the fact that Labor are supporting this Senate inquiry to remotely suggest that Labor do not fully support Australia's participation in the F35 project. We are strongly behind it, we have a long record of being strongly behind it and we continue to support Australia's participation in this project...."

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2016, 12:30
by hornetfinn
Some other interesting finds about this Anker Steen Sørensen:

http://nytkampfly.dk/archives/6442/comment-page-1

Anker Steen Sørensen siger:
25. november 2014 kl. 17:03

Jeg er Service provider for Eurofighter – bare så I ved det. Jeg deltog også i konferencen.


Translation:
I'm Service provider for the Eurofighter - just so you know. I also participated in the conference.


So I dug further:
http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/eksperter-simulator-er-ikke-som-en-testflyvning

Google-Translations:
But it is a problem that the Danish pilots have not tested the Joint Strike Fighter, in fact, believe Anker Sørensen, a former squadron leader and head of the operations department for Skrydstrup. He has flown F-16 for 16 years, and now works as a consultant for the competitor to JSF, Eurofighter.


Anker Sørensen after his 40 years in the Army now a consultant for the Eurofighter.


So, now we know what his motivation for the writing really is... Maybe somebody should make this info known to Australians...

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2016, 12:46
by spazsinbad
Good to know. Thanks. It is like knowing who the Canadian Steve Fuhr was back in time, whose name appears along with the usual suspects on that irrelevant Canadian bumpf submission. Search forum for name for info: one example

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24027&p=282721&hilit=Fuhr#p282721

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2016, 23:59
by optimist
Bogdan is before the senate committe today, I can't find the link to watch, does anyone (spaz) have it?

I scrolled down todays events to no avail
http://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/E ... /2016&st=0

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2016, 00:11
by spazsinbad
Over in the middle of page 16 of this thread 'Dragon029' provided this video link:

http://www.aph.gov.au/news_and_events/watch_parliament

These whackers like to be obscure: 25/02/2016 3:30PM - 5:35PM AEDT Senate, Foreign Affairs, Defence & Trade Legislation Committee (Senate Estimates) Live:

http://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/L ... ype=1&vID={07CB5B89-38A6-4780-882C-6B34964A74F7}

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2016, 00:24
by quicksilver
I cant get to the full article but here's a link.

http://www.janes.com/article/58300/prog ... in-the-air


Programme head claims F-35 has no rivals in the air

Julian Kerr, Sydney - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
23 February 2016

No aircraft in the world today could take on the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and survive, the head of the Pentagon's F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) said on 24 February.

In a robust defence of the F-35's capabilities at a media briefing in Canberra, Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan said critics of the programme "have no data to base their opinions on".

"I have the data," he said. "I have the pilots who are flying the airplane. Here is what I will tell you: there is not an airplane in the world today anywhere that, if put up against an F-35 in an air-to-air environment, we would not see them first, shoot them first, and kill them first."

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2016, 00:41
by spazsinbad
DWP is apparently being released 20 minutes from NOW at 1100 local East Coast Time with Daylight Saving Oz today. Here: http://www.defence.gov.au/Whitepaper/Releases.asp OR? http://www.defence.gov.au/Whitepaper/Links.asp

2016 Defence White Paper http://www.defence.gov.au/Whitepaper/Do ... -Paper.pdf (10Mb)

2016 Integrated Investment Program http://www.defence.gov.au/Whitepaper/Do ... rogram.pdf (5Mb)

2016-Defence-Industry-Policy-Statement.pdf (5Mb) http://www.defence.gov.au/Whitepaper/Do ... tement.pdf
"2016 Defence White Paper

The 2016 Defence White Paper released on 25 February 2016 delivers on the Government’s commitment to the safety of the Australian people and to the defence our territory and national interests.

The Defence White Paper sets out a comprehensive, responsible long term plan for Australia’s defence. The Government is investing in Defence to ensure that we have the armed forces we need to protect Australia and to secure our interests in the coming decades.

The plans in this Defence White Paper have been cost-assured and externally validated. Australia’s defence strategy and capability plans have been aligned with funding. These plans are affordable and achievable.

And for the first time, all elements of the Government’s Defence investment, including new weapons, platforms, systems, and the enabling equipment, facilities, workforce, information and communications technology, and science and technology are outlined in an Integrated Investment Program, published with the Defence White Paper.

The Defence Industry Policy Statement released with the Defence White Paper acknowledges the fundamental contribution that Australian industry provides to defence capability. The Defence Industry Policy statement will refocus Defence’s relationship with Australian industry to support the plans in the Defence White Paper.

The Government’s defence strategy is supported by increased defence funding, which will grow to two per cent of Australia’s Gross Domestic Product by 2020-21, three years ahead of the Government’s 2013 election commitment. The Government’s funding plan provides $29.9 billion more to Defence over the period to 2025-26 than previously planned, enabling approximately $195 billion of new investment in our Defence capabilities in this period.

The Defence White Paper is a key part of the Government’s commitment to a safe and secure Australia. The Australian people can have confidence that this Government will ensure that we can defend our nation and protect our interests today and into the future."

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2016, 01:37
by spazsinbad
Nothing about 'F-35Bs on LHDs' for example in DWP 2016 I'm told - disappointing. Gone - but not forgotten. :doh:
"...The Government will further invest in enhancements to the ADF’s amphibious capability, including to the
sensors, countermeasures and weapons on board the Canberra Class ships. This capability will be developed further over time, taking account of our experience in operating the Canberra Class...."

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2016, 02:27
by spazsinbad
2016 INTEGRATED INVESTMENT PROGRAM
Capability Stream: Strike and air combat pages 96-97
"...5.11 The Super Hornet fleet has been extended beyond its initial bridging capability timeframe and is now planned to be replaced by around 2030. Its replacement could include either a fourth operational squadron of Joint Strike Fighters or possibly a yet to be developed unmanned combat aerial vehicle. The decision on the replacement of this air combat capability will be best undertaken post-2020 when technology and emerging threat trends are better understood, and we have the benefit of our initial Joint Strike Fighter operating experience....

'''Airborne electronic attack aircraft page 98
5.17 The 12 E/A-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft represent a new capability that will enter service from 2018, and is likely to remain in service for 20–30 years. These aircraft use a combination of electronic systems and sophisticated weapons to disrupt, disable and/or confuse adversaries’ systems such as radars and command, control, communications, computers and intelligence systems. They typically work with fighter and strike aircraft to produce a potent air combat package, but are also particularly useful in supporting a range of other missions. These aircraft will be kept common with the United States’ fleet through regular upgrades....

....Integrated air and missile defence page 99+
5.23 The ADF’s existing air-defence systems will be upgraded, including command, control, communications, computers and intelligence (C4I) systems and sensors. Investment in C4I will provide the foundation for an enhanced integrated air and missile defence system for the ADF, ensuring key C4I systems are able to fuse and share air and space surveillance information effectively to enhance the accuracy and speed of ADF systems’ response to air and missile threats. The ADF’s enhanced integrated air and missile defence C4I architecture will have the flexibility for further enhancement to handle more complex threats that may emerge in future.

5.24 Defence will also acquire ground-based active electronically scanned array radars from around 2020 and expand Australia’s access to air and space situational awareness information, including through space-based systems (discussed in the Intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, electronic warfare, space and cyber stream).

5.25 In enhancing the ADF’s integrated air and missile defence capability, Defence will also develop a Joint Battle Management System to better coordinate and synchronise ADF operations, including the tracking and engagement of forces within an area of operations. This system will be deployable, in addition to supporting Australian-based capabilities. It will improve situational awareness, such as the ability to generate and disseminate a common operating picture, and enhance coordination of air battle management, joint weapons employment (including maritime and land strike) and ground-based air defence in operational theatres.... [LOTS MORE about this ON THE PAGES....]"
&
"...Table 7: Summary of key investment decisions from FY 2016–17 to FY 2025–26

Program title Program Timeframe *Approximate investment value

F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Acquisition Stage One (72 aircraft) Approved $15.3bn

E/A-18G Growler Airborne Electronic Attack Capability (12 aircraft) Approved $2.1bn

F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Facilities – Tindal and Townsville Approved $1.4bn...

...Air Combat Capability – Fourth Squadron 2025–2031 $6bn–$7bn

Growler Electronic Attack Enhancements 2016–2035 $5bn–$6bn..."

Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/Whitepaper/Do ... rogram.pdf (5Mb)

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2016, 02:43
by element1loop
Dragon029 wrote:
element1loop wrote:re subs. We may know they're there, but will we do anything? No. They'd be able to operate in close, and in grim moments we'd have nothing to realistically respond to if fired on with LAMs.


Do you mean long range cruise missiles? Overall, there's not much we can do against those if they get close; the ADF's advantage is it's long range maritime ISR and strike capabilities, via things like our subs, Super Hornets and AP-3Cs, and soon, our P-8s and F-35s.


They're going to do something about that too Dragon029, plus basing upgrade/expansions.

Missile Defence

4.46 The Government is concerned by the growing threat posed by ballistic and cruise missile capability and their proliferation in the Indo-Pacific and Middle East regions. While the threat of an intercontinental ballistic missile attack on Australia is low, longer-range and submarine-launched ballistic and cruise missiles could threaten Australian territory, and shorter-range ballistic and cruise missiles pose a threat to our deployed forces.

4.47 Australia is committed to working with the United States to counter the ballistic missile threat. Australia and the United States have established a bilateral working group to examine options for potential. Australian contributions to integrated air and missile defence in the region. Australia’s priorities for the working group are to develop a more detailed understanding of options to protect our forces which are deployed in the region from ballistic missile attack.

4.48 The Government will upgrade the ADF’s existing air defence surveillance system, including command, control and communications systems, sensors and targeting systems, which could be used as a foundation for development of deployed, in-theatre missile defence capabilities, should future strategic circumstances require it. The Government will also acquire new ground-based radars from around 2020 and will expand Australia’s access to situational awareness information, including space-based systems.


Source:
http://www.defence.gov.au/WhitePaper/Do ... -Paper.pdf
http://www.defence.gov.au/WhitePaper/

Very good, couldn't really expect more than that, for now.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2016, 06:57
by Dragon029
http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/0 ... om-the-sky

Dissapointing:

Later on Wednesday, General Bogdan's planned private briefing of the Senate committee inquiring into the F-35 was cancelled because of a clash with the launch of the defence white paper.

Greens defence spokesman Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, who instigated this inquiry, said he was disappointed the briefing, at least a month in the planning, had been cancelled at the last minute.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2016, 01:32
by popcorn
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /80920054/

AIR FORCE
Bogdan: Australian F-35 Block Buy Still Possible

CANBERRA, Australia — The head of the F-35 International Joint Program Office told Australian officials that a block buy across low rate initial production lots 12, 13 and 14 is still possible despite the US services not being able to fully participate.
US Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan was in Canberra to testify at a Senate inquiry into Australia’s purchase of 72 F-35A aircraft to replace its F/A-18A/B Hornet fleet. Prior to the Senate hearing and on the eve of the release of Australia’s defense white paper on Wednesday, he briefed Australian reporters on the Joint Strike Fighter program.
The US has told the program office that it cannot participate in a block buy of jets until at least LRIP 13.
“There is a way that you can start a block buy for the partners and the FMS [Foreign Military Sales] customers in [LRIP] Lot 12, and have the US services join in Lot 13,” he said.
“You won’t get quite as much savings but in fact, most of the savings in that scenario falls to the US services, because they didn’t come in early. So for the partners it’s still a good value proposition and we are still pursuing it.”

More.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2016, 03:37
by cantaz
Wait a second, which lot is suppose to be the final LRIP lot? I thought lot 12 was FRP-1?

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2016, 04:30
by Dragon029
IIRC they're not going to be fully differentiating between FRP and LRIP; what was "FRP-1" will be "Lot 12", etc.

On top of this (and again, IIRC), there was still going to be an LRIP 12 and 13 due to the Italian and Japanese FACOs not being as ready as Fort Worth for FRP. How those orders would have been done (separate to FRP-1, or in place of it, if at that point "FRP-1" had already been semantically killed) I'm not sure.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2016, 07:58
by optimist
Dragon029 wrote:http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/02/24/15/16/f-35-challengers-to-be-shot-from-the-sky

Dissapointing:

Later on Wednesday, General Bogdan's planned private briefing of the Senate committee inquiring into the F-35 was cancelled because of a clash with the launch of the defence white paper.

Greens defence spokesman Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, who instigated this inquiry, said he was disappointed the briefing, at least a month in the planning, had been cancelled at the last minute.


how is soloman, did he have something like this? ...so he chickened out, did he. he knew apa clown club and Co. had him on the ropes and their submissions are proved correct by his refusing to attend and answer the hard questions.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2016, 12:59
by hornetfinn
quicksilver wrote:"I have the data," he said. "I have the pilots who are flying the airplane. Here is what I will tell you: there is not an airplane in the world today anywhere that, if put up against an F-35 in an air-to-air environment, we would not see them first, shoot them first, and kill them first."


That was interesting. I wonder if this includes F-22... :P

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2016, 14:50
by quicksilver
hornetfinn wrote:
quicksilver wrote:"I have the data," he said. "I have the pilots who are flying the airplane. Here is what I will tell you: there is not an airplane in the world today anywhere that, if put up against an F-35 in an air-to-air environment, we would not see them first, shoot them first, and kill them first."


That was interesting. I wonder if this includes F-22... :P


One writer, pondering the same question came to the conclusion that, yes it did/does. I'm agnostic on the matter; good that the US will have both of those machines, and international/allied/coalition players to match w F-35. And we're only talking about an IOC jet...

Saw a thing from AFA where AFRL is talking about smaller missiles (and others have as well, eg Cuda). Imagine an F-35 with internal carriage of 8-10 missiles, a bigger motor, some other gadgets. This is going to be a whup-a$$ machine for a long time.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2016, 04:06
by meatshield
Amen to that :D

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2016, 06:23
by spazsinbad
JSF’s Program Chief fronts Senate Inquiry - almost
26 Feb 2016 Katherine Ziesing

"As required by the Senate inquiry into the Joint Strike Fighter, head of the JSF program LTGEN Chris Bodgan made one of his regular trips out to Australia to give a statement to inquiry and general update to the Australian program office about the state of the program....

...“All of the facts and figures in that report are accurate,” LTGEN Bodgan confirmed. “I know they are accurate because every piece of information in that report came from my program office. We are transparent in what we do. So we provide all the information to both the partners and all the government agencies on the US side. So, having said that, there were absolutely no surprises in that report for me, for my partners, or for my leaders in the Department of Defense or Congress. We knew about every single issue in that report.”

That being said, LTGEN Bogdan explained earlier this week at a dinner presentation to the Sir Richard Williams Foundation that the program was audited or reviewed by 30 different agencies or bodies last year, both from the US and from partner nations.

“What that report fails to do, however, is give you the rest of the story,” LTGEN Bogdan continued. “It lays out issues and problems that we have on the program, which are accurate, but instead of putting a comma after that it puts a period at the end of the sentence. Well, what I would like to do is put a comma there and tell you okay, we have that problem but it's either fixed or we're in the process of fixing it, or we're in the process of implementing the fix already, so you get a better sense of where the program is. The report doesn't quite do that, so it leaves you with a perception that maybe the program is far worse off than it really is.”

LTGEN Bogdan went through every single issue raised in the report and past issues that have been raised in regard to the program. The moral of the story is yes, the F-35 is complex, yes, things in the past could have been done better, and yes, the program has hit every milestone since 2012 when the program was rebaselined. He also pointed out that people forget how hard it is to birth a new aircraft. People forget how many times the F-16 crashed, that two F-22s crashed, and the F-111 was seven years late arriving in Australia.

“In fact, what I've told folks is that in my 25 plus years of acquisition experience, running many, many programs, I do not think I've ever seen a program where the misperceptions and inaccuracies are so far from the reality of the program. I think that gap is pretty big on the F-35 program.”

In answering the numerous criticisms raised by a number of commentators on the program, LTGEN Bogdan is calm in his comment that “they don’t have the data; I do”...."

Source: http://www.australiandefence.com.au/new ... iry-almost

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2016, 06:59
by spazsinbad
Hang on to your hats - the GOON is back: Submission No.36 And to give a teaser...
"Peter Goon, BEng(Mech), FTE (USNTPS) T&E Professional Design Engineer; CASA CAR 35 & 36 Authorised Person and, inter alia, a Victim of Defence Abuses (one of many)"

WHAT ARE PEOPLE’S MOTIVATIONAL IMPERATIVES AND AGENDAS RE THE PLANNED ACQUISITION OF THE F-35 LIGHTNING II JSF AND RELATED MATTERS?
16 Feb 2016 Peter Goon

...2. Why are the voices of those who have demonstrated they know and understand these things being ignored and drowned out by those who, by their words and actions, apparently don’t and why is this being done with such disdain, prejudice and malice?..." [This submission is composed of an APA NOTAM + annexes & no other 'abuse' references]

APA NOTAM: 'JSF Alternate Realities: …and from whence they come' 2009 amended 2010 [so they are up to date]

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=409514 (PDF 0.34Mb)

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2016, 08:15
by optimist
It's getting to the point of feeling compassion for the guy, he doesn't seem very well.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2016, 10:47
by mk82
Ahh...Goon....the ever delusional Goon (in more than one way :mrgreen: ). 2010!? Hello, 2016 is calling you back!

Yes, Goony Goon...let's send some outdated and often blatantly false submission to the Ozzie Senate. That should do be a recipe for success. Those in the know eh....LMAO!

Save your compassion for someone else Optimist. F*ck Goon....he is a lost cause.

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

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2016, 10:33
by hornetfinn
I'd really like to attend APA meetings nowadays.... :devil:

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2016, 00:13
by spazsinbad
Four more submissions to make forty total at the Inquiry website - last four not significant - although YMMV.

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2016, 01:43
by popcorn
No doubt they will get the consideration they merit.

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2016, 02:58
by spazsinbad
Heheh. Now there are another three for forty-three submissions total.... SUB No.41 is about the F-35 & it is fun to read!:
"...Stealth, Radars, Electronic Warfare, Hacking and Spies [ :mrgreen: Thank You Mr. James Hicks - for the LOLs :roll: ]
It’s possible, given that the CIA’s budget is over a quarter the size of Russia’s entire military, that every once in a while a CIA agent in eastern Europe sobers up, drags himself from the casino, staggers into his sports car and drives off to pose as a weapons dealer and buy a Russian radar.

It’s equally possible, that when the stolen / legitimately purchased radar arrives at Area 51, that the operatives there park the flying saucers, tell ET to phone home for a while and play “point the Russian Radar at the F35”, which after Flying Saucer Football, is everybody’s favourite game there....

...We shouldn’t picture the F-35 pilot madly tapping away at a keyboard to hack her enemies. The aircraft’s computers will have pre-prepared exploits for vulnerabilities, be able to identify the make, model, and likely even software version of the enemy radar, and apply the appropriate jamming, spoofing and even hacking techniques....

...Assessing a Classified Aircraft – Without the Classified Data
I have performed an exhaustive search and study of everything I can find about this aircraft. I’m fascinated by the whole F35 saga, an extraordinary story of an aircraft that virtually everyone I speak to regards as a complete dud, and yet mysteriously the western world plans to bet the farm and buy 3,000 of them. How could this happen?

In my search, I’ve read the writings of Bill Sweetman of Aviation Week, of Peter Goon of Air Power Australia, every article that mentions it on Breaking Defence, everything linked from the Wikipedia article about the airframe itself, its weapons, its engine and its equipment, the accounts of pilots who have flown it, the accounts of officers whose pilots have flown it (and flown against it), the opinions of many former pilots, maintainers, designers, electronics specialists, air combat geeks and opinionated internet people of all stripes. I watched the US 60 minutes special, every documentary made about it, that Canadian show where they interview Pierre “It’s a turkey!” Sprey yet again. I’ve read the DOT&E reports, and occasionally with a sense of immense guilt, I read what Lockheed have to say. [Ozzie Humour :mrgreen: ]

And having been over all over that in detail, I can’t tell you to buy, or not to buy, this aircraft. Not even close...."
&
"...Originally we were buying “not the same aircraft the US would fly, [QUE? out of left field with that - canard is dead] but still the stealthiest thing we could buy”. Are we still getting second rate downgraded export quality stealth? Or are we getting the astonishingly stealthy F35 that General Mike Hostage admitted last year to be Stealthier than the F22?..."
&
"...I find it somewhat extraordinary that most Australians wouldn’t seriously consider buying a Chinese Ute, [utility vehickle] but are willing to believe that the J-20 will fly rings around the F-22 and F-35. A bit improbable....

...There are just fifteen T-50’s on order so far, with 5 prototypes built (and one burned to a crisp from an engine fire). It’s nothing short of hyperbole to present this aircraft as a threat. Perhaps those fifteen aircraft will close to dogfighting range with and gun down 3,000 F-35’s, but also, perhaps not...."
&
"....A Farcical Narrative
Fresh from designing and building the F-22 Raptor, an air superiority fighter so lethal that not only can no aircraft currently flying match it, but no air craft currently being designed is expected to match it, Lockheed Martin set out to design and build, and foist upon the entire western world, a complete dud of an aircraft....
&
"...Conclusion
I can’t claim to draw a conclusion. I recommend that this Senate Committee:
a) Ignore the sensationalist mis-reporting about this fighter
b) Obtain access to the necessary classified performance parameters as listed above, and
c) Draw its own conclusions" [THANKS HEAPS! :mrgreen: ]

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2016, 10:40
by spazsinbad
DefDept submission numbered 55 so I guess there are more to come with inbetween numbers 44 to 54? Dunno. Attached.
Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Inquiry into the Planned Acquisition of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter
26 Feb 2016 (one week late) Department of Defence Written Submission

"...68. The F-35 Program has stabilised and remained within the approved budget since the program was re-baselined in 2012. The Australian F-35 Program remains within budget and on track to deliver an F-35A capability to meet Australia's 2020 initial operational capability.

69. As at December 2015, Australia’s F-35 Program total approved budget is A$17.8 billion (adjusted for exchange rates as at January 2016). This includes the cost of the 72 F-35A aircraft as well as support systems, including information systems support, training, weapons, and contingency funding. The total approved budget also includes A$1.5 billion for F-35 facilities at RAAF Bases Williamtown and Tindal and other forward operating and support bases....

...71. Australian aircraft unit recurring flyaway cost is reducing significantly. This is largely due to production progress along the learning curve and the increasing economies of scale from rising production. As a result, contracted costs have been reducing by three-four percent annually and this will be further amplified when the program achieves full rate production in 2020. The contracted costs are currently tracking at around nine percent less than US Government estimates. Based on current projections, the expected average unit cost of an Australian F-35 is US$90 million. This is similar to the price of the latest version of the F/A-18 Super Hornet, a less capable fourth-generation aircraft based on an airframe first developed in the 1990s....

...Testing the F-35 capability
82. The significant capability of the F-35 means the complexity of the test and evaluation process cannot be underestimated. The infrastructure, assets and supporting equipment required to be available to test the spectrum of capability is complicated and poses some schedule risk. Only the US Department of Defense is capable of harnessing all of these resources.

83. Developmental test and evaluation is the process by which aircraft capability is tested against program contract specifications. Operational test and evaluation is the process by which the operators test the capability against their operational requirements. The System Development and Demonstration phase is scheduled to be completed in 2017 and is linked to the completion of developmental test and evaluation. This milestone signifies the delivery of a specified level of warfighting capability across the suite of F-35 systems.

84. The F-35 test and evaluation program is currently employing a “fly-fix-fly” approach. While this methodology is appropriate to the complexity of the F-35 software, it has introduced some schedule risk to the program. The US Department of Defense acknowledged this risk in 2014 and curtailed and rationalised the F-35 test and evaluation program to better focus resources on the testing of the final software to be delivered under the System Development and Demonstration phase in 2017. Notably, in 2015, the program achieved all planned test points, some 1,374 test flights and 9,582 test points....

...89. Recent media reports around flight test highlighted an event which occurred during the conduct of the F-35 test and evaluation program and related to the manoeuvring performance of the F-35. This reporting was in regard to one test flight taken out of context from a larger test and evaluation program. Again, an experienced Australian F/A-18 pilot now flying F-35A at Luke Air Force Base drew this observation.

“In my experience flying more than 140 hours in the F-35 so far, it is better in performance and manoeuvrability than a representatively configured F/A-18 while remaining easy to fly.” Squadron Leader Andrew Jackson; F-35A pilot and instructor and F/A-18 Hornet pilot"


90. Australia will leverage the US developmental and operational test and evaluation programs to the maximum extent. Australia has had test and evaluation expertise embedded in both these programs. This insight has enabled Australia to understand the implications of issues as they arise and to put them in the broader context of the test and evaluation program. More importantly, this insight is helping to inform the development of the Australian operational test and evaluation program, which will focus on demonstrating the suitability of the F-35 capability in the Australian environment.

91. The Defence Science and Technology Group (DST Group) has played a key role in managing and providing insight into technical risk. DST Group personnel have been embedded in key risk areas across the program and have been very influential in resolving a range of issues, detailed at Annex D. In particular, DST Group has played a key role in conducting independent modelling and simulation, which has supported Defence’s understanding and choice of the F-35 capability. In 2010, DST Group assessed that there were 140 technical risks of which 30 were assessed as high. Today only two high risks remain and these risks are tracking towards resolution, in particular the Helmet Mounted Display System...."

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=409757 (PDF 0.3Mb) also attached below

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2016, 13:55
by spazsinbad
Never Ending Submissions now total umpty ump with LM providing a 12.7Mb PDF tome No.46 amongst others yet to arrive:

http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=409405

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2016, 15:10
by element1loop
Did a double-take at the AH-64 depicted in ADF force structure, on page 5, cheeky buggers.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 05:01
by spazsinbad
I'm not against the ABC ('PBS style' government funded radio/TV) and yes there are exceptions. This URL has been mentioned twice today by 'brucealrighty ' however I make a third reference because this quote is priceless (get a poofredder [proofreader] ABC). Dingle has read all the ANTI-JSF material for the Senate Inquiry - now read the rest please.
Australia needs to 'show spine' over Joint Strike Fighter says expert
03 Mar 2016 Sarah Dingle

"...If the pilot weighs less than 75 kilograms, and needs to eject, there's a 23 per cent chance the software-heavy helmet will snap their neck and kill them...."

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

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 08:27
by geforcerfx
spazsinbad wrote:
Australia needs to 'show spine' over Joint Strike Fighter says expert
03 Mar 2016 Sarah Dingle

"...If the pilot weighs less than 75 kilograms, and needs to eject, there's a 23 per cent chance the software-heavy helmet will snap their neck and kill them...."

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



ooohh that's why my laptop's so heavy it's because of all the software on it, to think I thought it was my massive heatsinks for my video cards :doh:






:D

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 16:16
by maus92
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

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 16:40
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote: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



Riiiiiight.

Sure they do, :roll: just like how some of the top guns in the USAF call chris mills a little lying douche. Unsubstantiated biased hearsay is fun like that. Just like APA's many "anonymous" qoute attributions. An APA minion wouldn't lie like that would he? these guys practically ooze credibility, and even sanity.

We knEW the Norwegian news would get kickback from folks like you maus92, right on cue.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 16:41
by krorvik
maus92: You simply cannot compare like that. AF-2 at that time and AM-1 and AM-2 as Hanche would be evaluating - are very different machines. And it's pretty much due to software.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 16:48
by cosmicdwarf
krorvik wrote:maus92: You simply cannot compare like that. AF-2 at that time and AM-1 and AM-2 as Hanche would be evaluating - are very different machines. And it's pretty much due to software.

He knows that. He just wants to make it seem like there's a problem when there isn't.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 16:54
by XanderCrews
Super Hornet:

Navy test pilot comments* (as of January 2002):
° "The (F/A-18E/F) aircraft is slower than most fighters fielded since the early 1960s."
° A Hornet pilot who flew numerous side-by-side comparison flights with F/A-18E/F SuperHornets said: "We outran them, we out-flew them and we ran them out of gas. I was embarrassed for them"

Navy F-14 pilots speak vividly about the SuperHornet (in an Associated Press article in late 2001):
"Its the same old Hornet sh*t, repackaged, which was designed to keep the politicians happy." He said that "it can never match the Tomcat's long range, (Mach) 2.4 speed and predator mystique. (...) The capability the Tomcat has for speed is amazing, there is not another plane in the Navy's inventory that can come anywhere close to it. You look at the plane on the ground and it looks intimidating, it looks like something that is made for war. I hope the liberal fudge packing, (...) who thought the Hornet could replace this avaition masterpiece rot in hell."

Maus92 calls the Super Hornet "excellent"

But hey just for a second lets pretend that what Mills says is true. (Lets forget that this is complete hearsay.) Lets say that 1 pilot in the whole USAF or hell even 20 call the JSF the little turd and giggle over their beers and little umbrella drinks. How is that any different than any other aircraft fielded the last 50 years?

Is the JSF program going to suddenly pack up because an aviator called it a "turd"? Call it whatever you want LOL. The F-16 was a lawn dart, the A-7 is a SLUF, etc etc etc.

Aus is going to totally cancel the whole JSF enterprise because an APA douche said someone said something mean about it, and I'll tell you more about it in study hall, after 3rd period. :roll:

So the situation remains the same, the F-35 is coming to Australia and APAs comically silly ideas are going to come to not. Status quo remains quite intact. APA goes back to doing (hilarious) APA things. like preaching super F-111s, F-22s and tanking 747s

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 17:04
by krorvik
cosmicdwarf wrote:
krorvik wrote:maus92: You simply cannot compare like that. AF-2 at that time and AM-1 and AM-2 as Hanche would be evaluating - are very different machines. And it's pretty much due to software.

He knows that. He just wants to make it seem like there's a problem when there isn't.


Oh, I know he knows. I just thud quietly away with the cluebat.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 17:10
by cosmicdwarf
Let's not forget the BUFF for flattering nick names.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 17:13
by XanderCrews
cosmicdwarf wrote:Let's not forget the BUFF for flattering nick names.


53s are shitters. The new variant, king stallion, will be king shitter

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 18:27
by les_paul59
Imagine what ex F-35 pilots will say about the unmanned platform that will eventually replace the f-35 will say in 50 years lol

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 18:34
by XanderCrews
You don't think Airpower Australia would do that do you? Just go on the internet and tells lies?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXLgz3wH2n8

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 18:40
by cosmicdwarf
XanderCrews wrote:You don't think Airpower Australia would do that do you? Just go on the internet and tells lies?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXLgz3wH2n8

These are the same people that think the US will sell them the F-22, right?

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 18:46
by XanderCrews
cosmicdwarf wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:You don't think Airpower Australia would do that do you? Just go on the internet and tells lies?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXLgz3wH2n8

These are the same people that think the US will sell them the F-22, right?


short answer yes, but... Thats giving them too much credit

These are the people that tell you that joint programs automatically produce failures while promoting a Super F-111.

These are the people that tell you LM is a bunch of greedy liars who inflate performance while promoting the F-22

These are the people who when given a free ride in a Super Hornet said it could beat any Flanker, and when the RAAF bought Super Hornets, then wrote a paper saying was "completely outclassed" by Flankers. (only 5 years after the positive review)

These are the people who said a EF Typhoon was no better than an F-16 or F-15. (thus pissing off the Euro krew and shedding even more credibility)


You can't make this up. And there are all these armchair general weirdos who buy into them, but don't see any of these inherent contradictions.

Dear APA: The F-22s are no longer in production. the F-35s are ordered. The F-111s are literally buried. Its over dumb asses. No amount of slagging the F-35 is going to put the F-22 back in production, nor lift the restrictions on export. And the F-111 is even more obviously history, and never ever coming back.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 19:14
by maus92
XanderCrews wrote: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.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 19:49
by cosmicdwarf
maus92 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote: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.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 20:18
by 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.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 20:39
by quicksilver
maus92 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote: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? :shock:

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2016, 21:31
by XanderCrews
Kinda looks to me like the USN is increasing F-35 orders while decreasing super hornet orders notably and then completely by 2020

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2016, 01:51
by mk82
maus92 wrote: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!

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2016, 01:58
by 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.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2016, 02:05
by mk82
maus92 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote: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 :devil: ) electronic warfare officer and get to work! Haha :mrgreen:

How is that for Super Hornet flexibility Maus92 :devil: ?

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

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2016, 02:06
by mk82
spazsinbad wrote:'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!!!

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2016, 02:12
by 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'.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2016, 04:14
by element1loop
mk82 wrote: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

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2016, 17:51
by 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

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2016, 14:03
by 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

:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2016, 14:27
by charlielima223
XanderCrews wrote:
More hilarity to be found:

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

:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:


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

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2016, 00:49
by archeman
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

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2016, 04:31
by mk82
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:

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2016, 10:08
by endre
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...

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2016, 11:23
by hornetfinn
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2016, 11:34
by spazsinbad
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2016, 11:48
by hornetfinn
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...

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2016, 12:04
by spazsinbad
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'.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2016, 15:23
by XanderCrews
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

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2016, 15:38
by sferrin
Last I head Marietta was switched over to support F-35 production.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2016, 16:24
by XanderCrews
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:

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2016, 05:22
by KamenRiderBlade
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?

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2016, 07:32
by spazsinbad
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)

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2016, 08:45
by krorvik
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...

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2016, 09:07
by hornetfinn
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

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2016, 14:32
by krorvik
That might solve a lot of other problems!

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2016, 15:54
by XanderCrews
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?"

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2016, 19:48
by KamenRiderBlade
XanderCrews wrote:
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?"

The only thing that makes APA different is they get TV coverage and Internet coverage.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2016, 03:29
by brucealrighty
Spaz referred to the ASPI submission earlier in this thread. They have reposted much of the content of their submission on their website.http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/f-35-k ... ve-a-plan/
If their fear is the proliferation of stealth fighters from non-western players, and counter stealth radar, I don't get why super hornets are a solution in either capabilities or cost (savings to be put into next gen fighter).
Overall though seems a reasonably even-handed approach (in my amature opinion).

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2016, 03:47
by XanderCrews
brucealrighty wrote:Spaz referred to the ASPI submission earlier in this thread. They have reposted much of the content of their submission on their website.http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/f-35-k ... ve-a-plan/
If their fear is the proliferation of stealth fighters from non-western players, and counter stealth radar, I don't get why super hornets are a solution in either capabilities or cost (savings to be put into next gen fighter).
Overall though seems a reasonably even-handed approach (in my amature opinion).


I don't understand the idea that if we fielded JSF according to plan. (2012 not 2007 as thr link says) why the enemy wouldn't be exactly where they are now in terms of countermeasures.

What is the idea that Th3 F-35 being delayed 5-6 years has made it more vulnerable come from? I don't get that.
The notion is the longer it's delayed the more the enemy is developing countermeasures they were going to develop anyway for a jet that is expected to be In service for 50 years as it is?

Everyone saying the JSF is terrible then in the next breath it's not here fast enough, in the mean time the JSF is getting more vulnerable, while legacy platforms are not?

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2016, 03:32
by spazsinbad
'jessmo111' asked elsewhere: "Hey, Spaz when will your country, finally have the F-35A arrive? I know youve accepted one, but im not sure they are in country."

THEN: http://www.raaa.com.au/convention/2012/ ... y-RAAF.pdf (5.3Mb)

THEN: viewtopic.php?f=59&t=20195&p=256245&hilit=Osley#p256245

Some F-35As will arrive in 2018 for our own OT&E as seen in the graphic for IOC in 2020. Please put all data/questions concerning Oz F-35As in an appropriate thread. For example the first URL in this post.

TWO RAAF F-35As are at LUKE AFB for training duties today.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2016, 03:42
by jessmo111
It would be nice, to have your live impressions at 1st touch down spaz. :D It would make you some what of a message board celebrity.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2016, 03:49
by spazsinbad
Nope I will not be there. I will be there when the first Oz F-35B VLs aboard an Oz LHD - which is never. I will not be there. I have never seen a Hornet - not even from a distance. RAAF aircraft are a dime a dozen - somewhat. Maybe I'll hear/see an F-35A transiting via Richmond AFB or doing some night instrument navigation with their beacons/approaches. That's it.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2016, 06:44
by spazsinbad
Three more new submissions, with no.51 missing to date. Don't bother reading anything new IMHO.

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

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2016, 07:17
by jessmo111
spazsinbad wrote:Nope I will not be there. I will be there when the first Oz F-35B VLs aboard an Oz LHD - which is never. I will not be there. I have never seen a Hornet - not even from a distance. RAAF aircraft are a dime a dozen - somewhat. Maybe I'll hear/see an F-35A transiting via Richmond AFB or doing some night instrument navigation with their beacons/approaches. That's it.


Sir, I think you would make a great blogger, and wouldn't mind you giving it a go, with some light camping out, and a few pictures here, and there. You would be #TheaustralianfaceoftheF-35blogesphere! And create a great counter balance to Hot air power Australia. :D

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2016, 09:05
by optimist
spazsinbad wrote:Three more new submissions, with no.51 missing to date. Don't bother reading anything new IMHO.

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

55 is from ADF, 51 could be NFP and in camera
I see northrop put one in. It's a shame it went in so soon, from tomorrow Sweetman, as he would say will be shilling for them. I'm waiting to see his first praise piece about the f-35.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2016, 15:23
by spazsinbad
On page 21 of this thread there was wondering about ''turd". Here is another reference by 'horde' (who is GOON?). Anyhoo:
'horde' 17 May 2016 comment: "Yep, that's right, I am what you call an Aerospace Engineer. I am also a Flight Test Engineer, having graduated from United States Naval Test Pilot School (though, a tad further ago than I would care to remember) and have been working in Flight Test ever since.

As mates at the old USAF FWS started saying from 2004 on, what they call "the Little Turd" had passed its used-by-date by the end of 2002 after LM/Ft Wuuf finally got around to signing the SDD contract.

All you wanted to know about the F-35 JSF but were too scared to ask is being revealed during the Senate Inquiry underway down-under into the JSF enterprise thingy that bears all the hallmarks of one huge ponzi scheme.

To prepare for the fun, suggest taking a browse through the Inquiry website, starting with the Additional Documents page. A little bit of googling should get you there. Enjoy.... [NAH doan bother - youse are here :devil: ]

Source: COMMENTS: http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-ej ... year-s-end

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2016, 16:55
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:On page 21 of this thread there was wondering about ''turd". Here is another reference by 'horde' (who is GOON?). Anyhoo:
'horde' 17 May 2016 comment: "Yep, that's right, I am what you call an Aerospace Engineer. I am also a Flight Test Engineer, having graduated from United States Naval Test Pilot School (though, a tad further ago than I would care to remember) and have been working in Flight Test ever since.

As mates at the old USAF FWS started saying from 2004 on, what they call "the Little Turd" had passed its used-by-date by the end of 2002 after LM/Ft Wuuf finally got around to signing the SDD contract.

All you wanted to know about the F-35 JSF but were too scared to ask is being revealed during the Senate Inquiry underway down-under into the JSF enterprise thingy that bears all the hallmarks of one huge ponzi scheme.

To prepare for the fun, suggest taking a browse through the Inquiry website, starting with the Additional Documents page. A little bit of googling should get you there. Enjoy.... [NAH doan bother - youse are here :devil: ]

Source: COMMENTS: http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-ej ... year-s-end


Horde=Goon

Fun to see all the revisionist history. He is an aero engineer? What did he design? Oh a p-3 cargo pan? Wow

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2016, 23:15
by beepa
When is this long drawn out saga going to end, it's becoming boring, makes Australia look like idiots and is drawing out basement dwellers like flies to dead fish.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2016, 07:56
by spazsinbad
All the numbers 1 to 55 are in now so perhaps this is the last? THE 'Last' No. 51 by John DONAHOO has this phrase in it:
"...A separate confidential submission provides comment on the possible acquisition of some F-35B aircraft by Australia...." [groan :mrgreen: ]

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=409414 (22Kb)

DOAN ask me - this is the confidential submission:
"Introduction
This submission complements my public submission and canvases the possible acquisition by Australia of the F35-B STOVL variant. The deficiencies of the F-35 as a primary air defence aircraft have been well documented, but the F-35B variant may have a role as a long-range strike aircraft as outlined below.

Landing Helicopter Docks (LHD)
The acquisition of the two 28,000 tonne LHDs, HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide has given Australia the opportunity to provide our Navy with organic air combat aircraft cover at large distances from Australia, and our Air Force with a long-range strike capability by using land based F35-Bs. To achieve these two goals, up to 20 F-35Bs would be needed as well as the following modifications to one or both LHDs:

a. Provide Thermion decking to enable the decks to withstand the high temperatures from the F-35B engines.
b. Provide increased Aviation Turbine Fuel (AVTUR) fuel storage from 800 tonnes (1 ML) to about 2000 tonnes (2.5 ML).
c. Provide increased weapons storage.
d. Provide an unspecified upgrade to Air Traffic Control systems.

In the current strategic and financial circumstances, achieving the above two goals in the short term may be near impossible. However, the long-range strike capability is achievable with the acquisition of F-35Bs and the use of the existing and proposed RAAF Air to Air Refuelling (AAR) capability. The only upgrade required for the LHDs would be the provision of Thermion decking.

Air to Air Refuelling
The fundamental rule to be followed in AAR is just common sense, and that is if an aerial refuel is unsuccessful, then the receptor aircraft needs to have sufficient fuel reserves available to land somewhere. Accordingly, AAR increases the radius of action of combat aircraft by about 40% and for the F-35B, the radius of action then increases from about 450 nautical miles (nm) to about 700 nm compared to the radius of action of about 850 nm for the F-35A with AAR. However, AAR increases the ferry range of the F-35B with a full load of explosive ordnance to about 1400 nm. Therefore with two LHDs judiciously placed and acting only as emergency recovery runways, the range of the land based F-35B with AAR is then theoretically 1400 + 1400 + 700 = 3500 nm. That is the distance from Darwin to southern China, or to southern India.
The radius of action of 3500 nm of the F-35B may be reduced to about 2500 nm or possibly less due to the following:

a. Inability to place the LHDs in optimum locations.
b. Limits on aircrew flight time.
c. Insufficient AAR capability.
d. Other unknown factors.

Conclusions and Recommendations
The F-35B can increase the long-range strike capability from our shores from a distance of 850 nm to possibly 2500 nm when used in conjunction with existing LHDs and existing and planned AAR. Therefore, Australia should consider the acquisition of up to 20 F35-B aircraft and the provision of Thermion decking to our two LHDs. Moreover, should strategic circumstances change in the future, Australia would then be well placed to provide organic air combat aircraft cover for the Navy by upgrading the existing LHDs as described in the foregoing.

John Donahoo FIE(Aust) Joint Strike Fighter Submission 51 - Supplementary

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=409414 (PDF 21Kb)

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2016, 01:01
by spazsinbad
Submission No.56 (now 56/56 on website) by him.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE | ORAL TESTIMONY FOR THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE | SUBJECT: F-35 Lightning II Program Update
25 Feb 2016 ORAL STATEMENT OF: Lieutenant General Christopher C. Bogdan, USAF Program Executive Officer, F-35

"...On the cost front, the price of purchasing F-35s continues to decline steadily Lot after Lot. For example, the price of a Lot 7 aircraft was 4.7 percent less than a lot 6 aircraft, and a Lot 8 aircraft was approximately 3.6 percent less than a Lot 7 aircraft. I fully expect this trend to continue well into the future. Today an F-35A costs around $108 million U.S. Dollars. I anticipate that by 2019 an F-35A with an engine, industry’s fee, in FY19 dollars will cost around $85 million U.S. dollars.

The Lot 10 contract which we are negotiating right now includes 8 F-35As for the Royal Australian Air Force. Today, working with the Royal Australian Air Force, we plan to deliver the first two F-35As to Royal Australian Air Force Base Williamtown in December 2018. Upon first aircraft arrival, Australian Operational Test and Evaluation will commence toward validating the F-35A capability against Australia’s requirements. Williamtown will also host Australia’s first training squadron--Number Two Operational Conversion Unit--and your first operational squadron --Three Squadron. In addition to the F-35A aircraft, Australia will be receiving significant training capability at Williamtown, including six Full Mission Simulators. Given that we estimate the full final capability of the F-35A to be fielded in the fall of 2017, I believe Australia’s timelines and schedule for IOC in 2020 are considered a low risk with schedule margin for any unforeseen issues...."

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=410840 (PDF 67Kb)

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2016, 02:45
by Dragon029
So theoretically we should be able to watch / listen to Parliamentary hearings tomorrow here (between 9AM and 5PM AEDT):
http://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/Watch_Parliament

Schedule / program: http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... ions=false

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2016, 02:55
by spazsinbad
22/03/2016 9:00AM - 5:00PM AEDT Senate, Foreign Affairs, Defence & Trade References Committee (Acquisition of the Joint Strike Fighter)

Blow by Blow Line up in the attached PDF.
THE SENATE FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE REFERENCES COMMITTEE
Joint Strike Fighter PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday 22 March 2016 Committee Room 2S1 Parliament House, Canberra
Time Witness
9.00 am Air Power Australia (Submission 9) Mr Peter Goon, Head of T&E; Mr Chris Mills, Member

9.30 am Teleconference: Mr Alan Williams (Submission 20)

10.00 am The Sir Richard Williams Foundation (Submission 17) AIRMSHL Errol J. McCormack AO (Retd), Chair
AIRMSHL Geoff Brown AO (Retd), Chair

10.30 am Break

10.45 am Australian Strategic Policy Institute (Submission 47) Dr Andrew Davies, Director of Research/Senior Analyst - Defence Capability

11.15 am Dr Keith Joiner (Submission 5)

11.45 am Marand (Submission 23) Mr Rohan Stocker, Chief Executive Officer Quickstep Holdings Limited (Submission 26) Mr Tony Quick, Chairman Mr Carl de Koning, Executive General Manager, Business Development & External Relations
Heat Treatment Australia (Submission 32) Ms Karen Stanton, Director – Strategy & Corporate

12.30 pm Lunch

1.30 pm Northrop Grumman Australia (Submission 41) Mr Ian Irving, Chief Executive BAE Systems Australia (Submission 49) Mr Andrew Gresham, F35 Campaign Manager Defence Materials Technology Centre (DMTC) (Submission 24)

2.30 pm Lockheed Martin (Submission 46) Mr Raydon Gates, Chief Executive Mr Jeff Babione, Executive Vice President and General Manager of F-35 Lightening [UNFREAKIN' BELIEVABLE! - THIS MISspellin' is up there with HELMUT] II Program Mr Gary North, Vice President, Customer Requirements, Aeronautics

3.30 pm Break

3.45 pm Department of Defence (Submission 55) AIRMSHL Leo Davies, Chief of Air Force; AVM Leigh Gordon, Program Manager Joint Strike Fighter; AVM Chris Deeble (Retd), Program Manager Joint Strike Fighter; Dr Todd Mansell, Chief Defence Scientist; Mr Steven Grzeskowiak, Deputy Secretary Estate & Infrastructure; Mr Kim Gillis, Deputy Secretary Capability Acquisition & Sustainment

5.00 pm Close"

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2016, 15:33
by XanderCrews
So are we actually going to get to watch the APA guys blather on and on about the F-22?

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2016, 16:01
by charlielima223
XanderCrews wrote:So are we actually going to get to watch the APA guys blather on and on about the F-22?


Didn't a RAAF Air Marshal dismiss their "analysis" as amateur?

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2016, 16:56
by KamenRiderBlade
charlielima223 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:So are we actually going to get to watch the APA guys blather on and on about the F-22?


Didn't a RAAF Air Marshal dismiss their "analysis" as amateur?

When they used a modified video game simulation as their "analysis", I call it garbage.

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2016, 17:06
by XanderCrews
charlielima223 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:So are we actually going to get to watch the APA guys blather on and on about the F-22?


Didn't a RAAF Air Marshal dismiss their "analysis" as amateur?


That's very tactful actually. I would have used far less flattering words. Fraudelect, hack, retarded, skewed, lying, deceptive, etc.

Can't wait to see them pitch the new F-22 variants!

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2016, 07:51
by Dragon029
Spaz, did you record any of the hearings?

I missed APA's and most of Alan Williams', but I did record all of the hearings after that (although I was using software called FRAPS and by accident had a big red framerate overlap visible in my recording of the Sir Richard Williams Foundation hearing - I'll at least make that part of the screen desaturated, if not blank, so it's a bit less annoying).

The others I've recorded fine however; I need to reprocess the videos so they're smaller, but I should be able to begin uploading them tonight.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2016, 07:55
by spazsinbad
Hansard will record all the words (& probably misspell 'helmut' and 'Lightening') which will be made available soon. Otherwise I listened to all the words whilst playing Solitaire endlessly. Deeble can talk the bottom out of an iron lung and did well in the process. Overall it was good value for 'how things are at moment' - which are known knowns from earlier.

And I like the way Senator Conroy did not bother to attend whilst asking one question remotely otherwise - nothing... :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2016, 14:08
by maus92
Joint Strike Fighters program 'ambitious project unlikely to be repeated'
March 22, 2016 - 9:46PM | David Wroe | Sydney Morning Herald

"The Joint Strike Fighter program was bedevilled by a "conspiracy of optimism" in its early phase and such an ambitious project is unlikely ever to be repeated, a leading defence analyst has said.

[Reminds me of a famous Rickoverism: "“Optimism and stupidity are nearly synonymous.”"]

But Andrew Davies, senior analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said that despite delays and cost overruns, the JSF or F-35 Lightning II plane remained the best option on the world arms market for Australia's future air combat.
Dr Davies told a Senate hearing into the JSF that Australia should be prepared to buy more existing Super Hornet fighter jets if problems and delays with the JSF continue.

While rejecting the more dire criticisms of the aircraft - including claims it won't measure up to other fighters already flying - Dr Davies said the program had been poorly managed early on.

The institute, in its written submission to the hearing, said there had been a "conspiracy of optimism" about how quickly and cheaply the JSF could be made, and even possibly about what it will be able to do.

Before it was overhauled in 2010, the JSF program had been run on a "pretty optimistic and pretty poor basis", Dr Davies said.

Asked by Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson whether this was still the case, Dr Davies said: "I think there is still a little bit of overselling of schedules and, in particular, software may continue to be a problem, but I don't think it's anywhere near the level of misplaced optimism as was the case before the 2010 major reshuffle of the program.""

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... z43dWRAEwL
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2016, 14:21
by spazsinbad
'maus92' wot no quotes from APA? Too embarrassed huh. So Mr. ASPI protests about F-35 ancient history but not so much about 'since the rebaseline history' of the program. Oh dear. What will happen next? More underlining? The HANSARD transcript will be a doozy. You do know from your publishing background that 'underlining' makes for difficult reading comprehension - especially on screen reading? Do more of it - puhleez.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2016, 20:27
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:Joint Strike Fighters program 'ambitious project unlikely to be repeated'
March 22, 2016 - 9:46PM | David Wroe | Sydney Morning Herald

"The Joint Strike Fighter program was bedevilled by a "conspiracy of optimism" in its early phase and such an ambitious project is unlikely ever to be repeated, a leading defence analyst has said.

[Reminds me of a famous Rickoverism: "“Optimism and stupidity are nearly synonymous.”"]

But Andrew Davies, senior analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said that despite delays and cost overruns, the JSF or F-35 Lightning II plane remained the best option on the world arms market for Australia's future air combat.
Dr Davies told a Senate hearing into the JSF that Australia should be prepared to buy more existing Super Hornet fighter jets if problems and delays with the JSF continue.

While rejecting the more dire criticisms of the aircraft - including claims it won't measure up to other fighters already flying - Dr Davies said the program had been poorly managed early on.

The institute, in its written submission to the hearing, said there had been a "conspiracy of optimism" about how quickly and cheaply the JSF could be made, and even possibly about what it will be able to do.

Before it was overhauled in 2010, the JSF program had been run on a "pretty optimistic and pretty poor basis", Dr Davies said.

Asked by Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson whether this was still the case, Dr Davies said: "I think there is still a little bit of overselling of schedules and, in particular, software may continue to be a problem, but I don't think it's anywhere near the level of misplaced optimism as was the case before the 2010 major reshuffle of the program.""

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... z43dWRAEwL
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook


That's it?

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2016, 21:44
by bigjku
Honestly I don't disagree that the program was overly optimistic. Nor that it missed goals. What I worry about is people are taking the wrong lessons as to why that is so. What most of the idiots like to scream about is that forcing the services to work together causes the issue. When I see what things have delayed this I see very few that have a lot to do with having the three variants and a lot that would have happened even if you just built the A model. Hell, I see the same capability delays and program delays in other non-stealth programs. The Eurofigther is still inching towards full capability and a proper modern radar after all. Then they scream about concurrency which also doesn't appear to have really cost much in the end either.

To me the lessons that need to be learned are as follows.

1. Modern avionics are difficult, particularly when one is starting mostly fresh. We need to try in as much as possible to do largely incremental and platform neutral work wherever possible. Obviously flight control laws will be specific to the platform but in as much as we can electronic defense and attack and sensor integration should be as common as possible. Then develop it incrementally in a manner similar to what has occurred with AEGIS for the navy. The F-35 was probably the necessary dirty first step for this. The B-21 should leverage off of this as should future aircraft.

2. Don't allow the situation to build to the point where we have to replace everything in a short period. Development skills atrophy, too many things become dated and too much risk falls on one program. A proper beat of development in my view sees the us moving from F-35 to B-21 to next heavy fighter to F-35 replacement with one starting about every 10 years. When you effectively stop for a long period it is problematic. If we can spread risk across a constant run of programs we can push avionics advancements on the B-21 and engine advances on the F-22 replacement and something else on the F-35 replacement. If we have a reasonably common architecture we can then back fit much of that to existing fleets and use it going forward.

Some program had to be first. If the B-21 leverages a lot of F-35 stuff and is successful and on budget then we have learned a lesson and paid the cost to move forward in this new era of network and data driven warfare. If we start from scratch then clearly we haven't or we botched the F-35 badly. Time will tell. But I don't think much of the difficulty has to do with the things commonly cited.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2016, 23:53
by KamenRiderBlade
Before the F-35 JSF program, the big program was the F-18 Super Hornet.

But what really new technologies did the F-18 Super Hornet bring that wasn't available beforehand?

Somebody help me on that one cause I'm drawing a blank.

Before the F-18 Super Hornet, the big program was the F-22.

What's the time gap between F-22 starting and F-22 going FOC

We know what the F-22 brought, plenty of new technologies integrated into a tight package.

Then compare it to the F-18 Super Hornet starting and F-18 going FOC

Then let's see when did the JSF planning start.

That's got to give us some insight as to time frames.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2016, 00:48
by count_to_10
bigjku wrote:Honestly I don't disagree that the program was overly optimistic. Nor that it missed goals. What I worry about is people are taking the wrong lessons as to why that is so. What most of the idiots like to scream about is that forcing the services to work together causes the issue. When I see what things have delayed this I see very few that have a lot to do with having the three variants and a lot that would have happened even if you just built the A model. Hell, I see the same capability delays and program delays in other non-stealth programs. The Eurofigther is still inching towards full capability and a proper modern radar after all. Then they scream about concurrency which also doesn't appear to have really cost much in the end either.

To me the lessons that need to be learned are as follows.

1. Modern avionics are difficult, particularly when one is starting mostly fresh. We need to try in as much as possible to do largely incremental and platform neutral work wherever possible. Obviously flight control laws will be specific to the platform but in as much as we can electronic defense and attack and sensor integration should be as common as possible. Then develop it incrementally in a manner similar to what has occurred with AEGIS for the navy. The F-35 was probably the necessary dirty first step for this. The B-21 should leverage off of this as should future aircraft.

2. Don't allow the situation to build to the point where we have to replace everything in a short period. Development skills atrophy, too many things become dated and too much risk falls on one program. A proper beat of development in my view sees the us moving from F-35 to B-21 to next heavy fighter to F-35 replacement with one starting about every 10 years. When you effectively stop for a long period it is problematic. If we can spread risk across a constant run of programs we can push avionics advancements on the B-21 and engine advances on the F-22 replacement and something else on the F-35 replacement. If we have a reasonably common architecture we can then back fit much of that to existing fleets and use it going forward.

Some program had to be first. If the B-21 leverages a lot of F-35 stuff and is successful and on budget then we have learned a lesson and paid the cost to move forward in this new era of network and data driven warfare. If we start from scratch then clearly we haven't or we botched the F-35 badly. Time will tell. But I don't think much of the difficulty has to do with the things commonly cited.

I've wondered before if it wouldn't be better to have a branch of the military devoted just to developing and producing all the equipment for the combat branches. There have been a lot of missed opportunities to save money with joint programs, and arguably a whole lot of cases where the separate projects ended up worse because the services weren't sharing experience and information.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2016, 00:57
by Dragon029
The first of several videos; the Department of Defence (Submission 55) hearing:


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

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2016, 01:19
by maus92
spazsinbad wrote:'maus92' wot no quotes from APA? Too embarrassed huh. So Mr. ASPI protests about F-35 ancient history but not so much about 'since the rebaseline history' of the program. Oh dear. What will happen next? More underlining? The HANSARD transcript will be a doozy. You do know from your publishing background that 'underlining' makes for difficult reading comprehension - especially on screen reading? Do more of it - puhleez.


Perhaps it's different south of the equator, but underlining (or otherwise highlighting) passages generally improves reading comprehension. The leading (line spacing) on this forum allows for underlining that is comfortably readable.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2016, 02:38
by spazsinbad
Underlining on screen is particular ungood: http://editingandwritingservices.com/underlining-bolding-italicizing/
"...Mike Maus with AIRLANT told 10 On Your Side that the USS Eisenhower resumed flight operations Sunday. Maus also provided an update Monday on the conditions of the eight injured sailors... (the Sailors were working on the flight deck when an arresting gear parted during a routine landing of an E-2C Hawkeye aircraft.)" [Try BOLD not UnderLine]
http://wavy.com/2016/03/18/navy-helos-l ... k-general/

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2016, 03:27
by Dragon029
Lockheed's hearing:


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

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2016, 03:38
by XanderCrews
bigjku wrote:Honestly I don't disagree that the program was overly optimistic. Nor that it missed goals. What I worry about is people are taking the wrong lessons as to why that is so. What most of the idiots like to scream about is that forcing the services to work together causes the issue. When I see what things have delayed this I see very few that have a lot to do with having the three variants and a lot that would have happened even if you just built the A model. Hell, I see the same capability delays and program delays in other non-stealth programs. The Eurofigther is still inching towards full capability and a proper modern radar after all. Then they scream about concurrency which also doesn't appear to have really cost much in the end either.


I think the JSF was a program that was overly optimistic and ran into overages and delays and cost issues and technical problems, which makes it like just about every defense/defence program ever. unfortunate yes, but hardly unique. Maus thinking this was ground breaking news, is right up there with man walks on the moon Is there any other ground breaking stories we have to share? like USSR dissolves? Once again talk of Super Hornets, which was already more costly for Aus than the F-35, but anyway call me if they actually do more than talk.

I don't think anyone denies that the original costs and timelines were overly enthusiastic and turned out to be wrong, so why are we going over this yet again?

Its similar to many programs, even the Gripen NG is wildly underwhelming despite the optimistic projections.


Optimism and stupidity are nearly synonymous.



Image

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2016, 04:35
by KamenRiderBlade
They really went for those two variants of DigiCamo?

I can barely tell it apart.

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2016, 15:24
by Dragon029
Northrop Grumman, BAE and Defence Materials Technology Centre:

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

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2016, 19:22
by cantaz
Am I the only one who find the LM submission underwhelming? They seemed largely unprepared to deal with any questions concerning DOT&E report or concurrency, and those would've been near the top of my prep list. I think even I could've done much better defending the program against those question using purely public sources.

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2016, 00:27
by Dragon029
Australian industry (Marand, Quickstep Holdings Ltd, Heat Treatment Australia):


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

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2016, 00:28
by spazsinbad
I'll wait for the LM/Senate transcript meanwhile here is something for Dnny BACN to chew on (relevant to Oz F-35As also):
Airborne gateway’ provides air-land integration for Jericho Dawn firepower demonstration
21 Mar 2016 australianaviation.com.au

" firepower demonstration conducted at Puckapunyal on Friday as part of the RAAF’s Exercise Jericho Dawn series has successfully validated the use of Northrop Grumman’s ‘airborne gateway’ technology, carried on a Gulfstream II demonstrator aircraft, to allow data to be shared between various ADF platforms including F/A-18F Super Hornets, Tiger ARH helicopters and the Wedgetail AEW&C platform.

The Northrop Grumman-developed airborne gateway technology is based on that used in the US Air Force’s Battlefield Airborne Command Node (BACN) program and allows information to be shared across different otherwise incompatible datalink systems, like the Link 16 datalink used by the Wedegetail and F/A-18F and the Tiger ARH’s Eurogrid.

The firepower demonstration at the Puckapunyal Military Area in central Victoria saw Super Hornets, Tigers, artillery and armour ‘engage’ an adversary force comprising both air defence and armoured assets, a RAAF booklet produced for attendees of the firepower demonstration explains. The adversary threat was identified and tracked by ARH Tigers and AUSLAV armoured vehicles, while a Wedgetail and Giraffe air defence radar provided a correlated air picture. A joint fires and effects coordination cell and JTACs (joint terminal attack controllers) passed targeting information to the Super Hornets, Tigers and artillery, the adversary was engaged by artillery, armour, the Tigers and Super Hornets, and the Tigers provided battle damage assessments.

“The specific objective is to assess the ability for a gateway to effectively translate and relay information between the ARH and other ADF platforms,” the RAAF booklet reads.

“In order to meet these objectives, the demonstration will utilise an airborne gateway provided by the same Northrop Grumman team that provides the USAF BACN solution. The gateway features a custom payload which translates the necessary data formats to ensure interoperability between their respective formats: JTACs (AFATDS), ARHs (Eurogrid) and F/A-18s (Link 16).”..." [MORE AT THE JUMP]

Source: http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/0 ... nstration/

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2016, 13:21
by Dragon029
Here are the last 3 hearings that I recorded:

Sir Richard Williams Foundation (featuring ex-CAF Air Marshal Brown):


The Australian Strategic Policy Institute:


Dr Keith Joiner (who literally compares Dr Michael Gilmore to god):

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2016, 19:44
by lamoey
Is that APA diagram, in mostly green and some red, available in the public domain?

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2016, 22:57
by spazsinbad
9.2 Air Power Australia.pdf http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash ... bId=407876 (PDF 3.4Mb)
ZOCT TABLE PDF PAGE Attached + example GIF

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2016, 23:23
by SpudmanWP
Dear Lord, not that crappy "look what I can make up without supporting data" chart again. :doh:

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

:bang:

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2016, 23:25
by basher54321
"Extreme Plus" hey - I'll take 3 :lmao:

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2016, 23:25
by bigjku
How many points are awarded for actually having these things? Seems like the PAK-FA gets a lot of credit for things it doesn't have and has come nowhere near demonstrating.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2016, 05:28
by optimist
well I'm convinced, look at all the red stuff. The Shornet and f-35 are rubbish. even the su-35 is better than the f-22..WE'RE DOOMED, DOOMED I SAY.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2016, 06:33
by jessmo111
:bang:
SpudmanWP wrote:Dear Lord, not that crappy "look what I can make up without supporting data" chart again. :doh:

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

:bang:


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!

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2016, 06:45
by optimist
I must admit I liked their old one, the one where the f-35 couldn't open the bays when supersonic

Image

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2016, 07:02
by charlielima223
Well according to Air Power Australia...


my reaction...
Image

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

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2016, 18:39
by les_paul59
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

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2016, 18:53
by XanderCrews
optimist wrote:I must admit I liked their old one, the one where the f-35 couldn't open the bays when supersonic

Image


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

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2016, 19:59
by les_paul59
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

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2016, 14:30
by gideonic
optimist wrote:Image

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 :P 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 :P

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?

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2016, 14:38
by spazsinbad
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?"

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2016, 23:33
by spazsinbad
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 budgetunderstanding that this has gone through a couple of exchange rate updates—is $17.1 billion, of which $2.6 million is contingency...."

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2016, 00:29
by Dragon029
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2016, 01:16
by spazsinbad
:devil: 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]

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2016, 17:13
by XanderCrews
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?"


Image

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

Image

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...

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2016, 14:46
by rnvalencia
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.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2016, 15:17
by spazsinbad
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

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2016, 01:41
by spazsinbad
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)

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2016, 13:03
by cosmicdwarf
People have this weird obsession where the only way to defend your country is with a pure air to air fighter. This ignores the past 30 years though.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2016, 13:21
by hornetfinn
cosmicdwarf wrote:People have this weird obsession where the only way to defend your country is with a pure air to air fighter. This ignores the past 30 years though.


I'd say it pretty much ignores the whole history of aerial warfare. I don't think many wars have been won with doing only air-to-air combat. Vietnam war is probably the closest large one from North Vietnamese point of view and even they did some very limited air-to-ground work. More importantly they had massive amount of AD systems and almost unlimited missile inventory from USSR protecting quite small piece of land. Good luck trying to do the same in Australia... :roll:

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2016, 13:40
by popcorn
"Fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history..."

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2016, 14:22
by gideonic

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2016, 14:45
by cosmicdwarf
hornetfinn wrote:
cosmicdwarf wrote:People have this weird obsession where the only way to defend your country is with a pure air to air fighter. This ignores the past 30 years though.


I'd say it pretty much ignores the whole history of aerial warfare. I don't think many wars have been won with doing only air-to-air combat. Vietnam war is probably the closest large one from North Vietnamese point of view and even they did some very limited air-to-ground work. More importantly they had massive amount of AD systems and almost unlimited missile inventory from USSR protecting quite small piece of land. Good luck trying to do the same in Australia... :roll:

I was more thinking that multirole aircraft have taken over as the main fighter in many air forces, but this is a valid point as well.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2016, 16:22
by sprstdlyscottsmn
popcorn wrote:"Fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history..."

Love that movie.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2016, 04:27
by nathan77
Apologies if this has already been posted. I did do a search, and didn't see it:

Australian Pilot insists fighter jets aren't lemons
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/312 ... nt-lemons/

Squadron Leader Andrew Jackson has no intention of sugar-coating the feedback he gives his superiors about the plane that will be Australia's next-generation jet fighter.

"It's my pink body on the line at the end of the day," he said of the F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter he's been test-flying in the US.

Australia plans to spend $17 billion purchasing 72 of the fighters, expected to be fully operational by 2023.

They'll replace the RAAF's ageing fleet of Hornets and Super Hornets.

Sqn Ldr Jackson is one of three RAAF fighter pilots, based at the Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, who have clocked up 230 flying hours on the JSF.

Its production has been plagued by delays, budget blowouts and technical problems as well as criticism of its stated capability.

But Sqn Ldr Jackson is confident Australia has chosen the right aircraft to achieve regional superiority.

The feedback he and his colleagues are providing to Defence is objective and, when necessary, blunt.

"There's no advantage for me in being posted to a dog," he told reporters at a briefing in Canberra on Wednesday.

Sqn Ldr Jackson hasn't seen any aircraft come into service without critics.

"I don't have any concerns that the aircraft is going to be a lemon or dog (meat), I think it's going to be a very good aeroplane."

He acknowledged the planes had their "warts" but the technical challenges were being worked through.

"I think a lot has been made of the plane's inability to fight in (dogfight) arenas, I don't share that view point."

Asked how the planes compared to the Hornets - now running airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria - Squadron Leader Jackson said the JSF could broadly do the same job.

However the JSF was designed for a contested environment.

There wasn't much difference between a fourth generation and fifth generation aircraft's ability to work with command to drop weapons on targets.

"If you start to add a contested element then it's a very different kettle of fish."

In coming weeks Sqn Ldr Jackson will be involved in testing out the plane's weapons drop capability.

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2016, 04:41
by spazsinbad
US Navy plans to bring USS Tripoli to patrol Australia after completion in 2018
29 Mar 2016 BEN SMEE

"THE US Navy plans to use its next big warship – the $3.4 billion USS Tripoli – to patrol Australia and support marines based in Darwin. The Tripoli, an amphibious assault ship specifically *designed to support Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, which will fly from Tindal and Darwin, is under construction and due to be completed in 2018.

Speaking to Military.com, commanding general of US Marine Corps combat development Robert Walsh said there was a lack of suitable ships to transport Marines *stationed in Darwin and *elsewhere. Lt Gen Walsh said the long-term plan was to task the Tripoli to lead an “amphibious group” that would support two 90-day patrols around Australia per rotation.

“So it’s trying to get (Marines) off Australia to be able to train in other areas because it’s tied a lot to that wet season that they have out there,” he said.

“You put a (Marine air-ground task force) ashore, and ... Marines need to be on ships. We go ashore when we need to be ashore, but we shouldn’t ­design ourselves to be ashore.”

With deployments set to ­increase to 2500 in the near ­future, capacity onshore is already a potential problem.

The recent Australian defence white paper outlined $20 billion to be spent on infrastructure in the NT over the next two decades. But the NT News understands the US and Australia have still not reached an agreement over who should pay for the permanent facilities needed to support the Marine rotations.

Using the USS Tripoli could mean Marines spend chunks of their deployment offshore, rather than stationed at Robertson Barracks, and could potentially extend their rotation to other parts of the Pacific during the Top End’s Wet.

It is unlikely the Tripoli will be sent this way until 2020, by which time the Marine build-up should have increased to rotations of 2500 troops...."

Source: http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/northern- ... 67a584516f

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

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2016, 12:54
by spazsinbad
Oh bad luck - the Federal Election 02 Jul 2016 intervened - too bad - boo hoo & everything.... double dissolution indeed.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2016, 14:09
by Dragon029
Would that be a temporary lapse, or permanent? I could see it being the latter with the double dissolution, but you'd think there'd be some process for continuing inquiries with new governments.

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

Unread postPosted: 15 May 2016, 14:16
by spazsinbad
:roll: :devil: Permanent - no one really cares [except a few independents who needed to be mollified at the time for political advantage for them and the Labor Party connivance for their gain - they may not be in the new parliament]. :doh: :twisted:

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

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2016, 10:30
by spazsinbad
Note how this snippet is here and not on the LHD thread because I'm sick of the B/S about it - so here goes. PDF attached.
'I hate the word game changer, but it just is' page three
19 May 2016 Leigh Watson RAAF News

"...So we'll have Australians flying F-35Bs with the USMC in the near term"...." LTGEN Jon Davis USMC

Source: http://www.airforce.gov.au/News/Air-Force-Newspaper

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

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2016, 06:13
by spazsinbad
Not so 'permanent' lapse after all - maybe. Will depend on the political make up of the next Parliament - twas thus ever.
"At the dissolution of the Senate and the House of Representatives on 9 May 2016 for a general election on 2 July 2016, the parliamentary committees of the 44th Parliament ceased to exist. Therefore inquiries that were not completed have lapsed and submissions cannot be received. However, information about the inquiries is still available on this website. Information on this committee in the 45th Parliament will be presented here as soon as it is available." http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... nt_fighter


The Labor main opposition party (formerly in power some four or so years ago) wanted some advantage gained from the GREENS and Independents to support this Inquiry (what that is I do not know - see earlier posts about Labor 'fully supporting the purchase of the F-35' even as the Inquiry was supported by them - wot?). Anyway one can see the GREENS do not like the F-35 or even the Australia - US alliance from this little dummy spit from the GREENS leader today [offensive GREEN remarks not excerpted below - go read this short precis at the URL]:
"...Opposition Leader Bill Shorten reiterated Labor's support for the American alliance...." http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics ... iance.html

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

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2016, 18:15
by zerion
Australia's third F-35A pilot takes to the skies
May 24, 2016

A third RAAF pilot is now qualified on the F-35A after Flight Lieutenant Edwin Borrman recently completed his qualifying flight at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona.
Defence said on Tuesday FLTLT Borrman was now qualified to instruct other pilots in flying the aircraft, joining SQNLDRs Andrew Jackson and David Bell as Australia’s first qualified F-35 pilots.

“The last jet I flew in Australia was the Hawk 127 as an instructor and I must say it feels good to be back at the front edge of aircraft performance,” Borrman said in a statement.

“A little more power and capability definitely puts a grin on my face.”

“The training went surprisingly quickly, although I did rely upon my previous experience in the F/A-18A and instructional experience in the Hawk 127 to help me through.

“Tactically the jet is amazing, there is so much situational awareness on display. The hardest part is determining what my priority is at any given time and where do I look to get that information.

“This course has given me great insight as to how our future F-35 pilots will transition directly from the Hawk to the F-35A

http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/0 ... the-skies/

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

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2016, 00:01
by spazsinbad
On Track [2 page PDF of article attached]
June 2016 Nigel Pittaway, AIR International

"Nigel Pittaway reports on the current status of the Australian F-35 programme...

...The Final Word
To conclude the briefing, Lt General Bogdan took some time to address what he called the misconceptions and inaccuracies regarding the F-35’s performance.

He said: “The critics of the programme and those who propose to do other things besides what we’re doing right now have no data to base their opinions on. I have the data; I have the pilots flying the airplane and you can go and ask them. Here’s what I will tell you: there is not an airplane in the world today – anywhere – that, if put up against an F-35 in an air-to-air environment, we would not see them first, shoot them first and kill them first. Period. Dot.”
Source: AIR International Magazine June 2016

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2016, 19:06
by spazsinbad
RAAF Air Commodore Michael Kitcher: International Fighter (London, UK)
Defence IQ Published on Feb 16, 2016

"Air Commodore Michael Kitcher, Director General Capability Planning (DGCP), Royal Australian Air Force, engaged with the talks at the most recent International Fighter conference in London, UK."



Major General Jerry Harris, ACC, USAF: International Fighter (London, UK)
Defence IQ Published on Feb 16, 2016

"Major General Jerry Harris, Vice Commander, Air Combat Command, U.S. Air Force, engaged with the talks at the most recent International Fighter conference in London, UK."


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

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2016, 17:11
by spazsinbad
Nothing heard yet about the interrupted Senate Enquiry into purchase of F-35As for Oz. Sometime in new year it may surface again but who knows with politicians and their shenanigans. As mentioned in 'SWP' post here: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=27952&p=353900&hilit=Block#p353900
Norway Wants 12 More F-35s, Plans Block Buy In 2019
06 Oct 2016 Lara Seligman

"...All of the partners that are buying F-35s in lot 12 are on board with the block buy, Bogdan says. Aside from the U.S. and Norway, the other partner countries are Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

“I know I have support from many of my partners to want to start in [LRIP] 12,” Bogdan says, though adding “not all of them are buying airplanes in lot 12, so they don’t have to make a choice yet.”

However, the other partner nations have been silent on any concrete plans for the block buy, and none have signaled their intent to participate in the first year.

Air Vice Marshall Leigh Gordon, Australia’s Joint Strike Fighter program chief, says his country is “very interested” in the block buy, but officials have some time before they need to make a final decision.

“Australia has 45 aircraft across the years that are being considered for the block buy, so we’re very interested,” Gordon said Oct. 6 during an event in Washington. “We don’t have to sign up to it quite yet but we’re working through the process, and to me it seems to be the smart thing to do.”..."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/norway- ... k-buy-2019

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2016, 05:05
by vanshilar
Australian Senate Committee recommends Plan B (i.e. buy more Super Hornets) to hedge against possible future delays of the F-35:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... lan-b.html

The good thing about that link (kudos to Alexandra Beech) is that it gives you a link to the report itself, so you can read through the report (raw info) by which the reporter wrote the article.

I should note that page 41-45 of the report (page 49-53 of the pdf) discusses what they thought of APA's submission, in particular its (in)famous Zero-One Comparative Technique table (which just seems like a Pugh matrix in my field of study).

It's a goldmine of the summary of submissions, reported credulously. For example, on page 46 (page 54 of the pdf):

"Mr David Archibald advised the committee that the Gripen would be even more effective than the F-22, asserting that it is the next most capable fighter aircraft and considerably cheaper."

There are many others, I'm still reading through the report myself.

Edit: Okay, I probably phrased it too strongly. The committee *does* recommend a hedging strategy to address a potential capability gap in case of further delays to F-35 acquisition. However, it *notes* but does not explicitly recommend ASPI's advice to get another tranche of Super Hornets as the hedging strategy, though it notes ASPI's logic for this (the "fixed costs" for the Super Hornet fleet are already paid for since Australia already has them, so getting more will be cost-effective). The committee's recommendations section also specifically calls out APA and says it found their arguments unpersuasive.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2016, 07:04
by SpudmanWP
Plan B would only kick in if the F-35 is late. The timeframe for Plan B is 2019 and the F-35 will not have any problem meeting that timeline. They need to have planes in LRIP 10 to have delivery in 2018. Too bad the LRIP 9/10 negotiations are taking so long. I don't think LM puts the numbers into the "fast facts" file till the negotiations are done.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2016, 09:10
by hornetfinn
Thank you vanshilar for pointing out that. It seems like public handling of matters also creates a lot of clutter and unneeded work as people who really have no clue chime in. It sounds like me making recommendations on what medical equipment a brain surgeon needs... :shock:

I love these comparisons:

All F-35 aircraft operating across the world will have to update their mission data files and their ALIS profiles before and after every sortie, to ensure that on-board systems are programmed with the latest available operational data and that ALIS is kept permanently informed of each aircraft's technical status and maintenance requirements. ALIS can, and has,
prevented aircraft taking off because of an incomplete data file. Currently, downloading the data file from a 1.5 hour flight of the F-35 takes 1.5 hours. It is hoped to get that down to 15 minutes. By comparison, the Gripen E can be re-armed and refuelled after an air-to-air mission in 10 minutes.


I'm sure F-35 can also be re-armed and refuelled pretty quickly and in real need they can just refuel and re-arm quickly and send the F-35 to air again. Besides, it only takes 15 minutes now to download the data: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockh ... C720140915

AFAIK, the long download time is because the cockpit video takes some time to download. I really doubt that's really needed to be downloaded if situation was so time critical.

Just LOL:
While it may not have the stealth capabilities of 5th generation aircraft such as the F-35, the Gripen has many other attributes such as higher speed (up to Mach 2 I understand, as opposed to 1.6 for the F-35A), better manoeuvrability due to its canard-delta wing configuration, the ability to carry a greater weapons payload for sustained fighting, and perhaps most
importantly, a better range and combat radius, able to be extended even further through aerial refuelling with our fleet of KC-30A MRTT aircraft. As a complete package, it out-performs the F-35A in almost every arena, and would give our forces one of the best platforms with which to fight and win against the newest generations of Sukhoi, Mikoyan and various Chinese-built fighters which have been talked about already.3


OMG, I can't believe they are still trying to sell their crap:
APA asserted that the alternatives, whilst better than the F-35, were not viable:
…claims that upgraded variants of the Boeing F-15 and F/A-18, LM F-16, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale or SAAB Gripen will be viable do not stand up to scrutiny. While all outperform the F-35 aerodynamically and aero/propulsively, and some have limited (~Mach 1.2) super-cruise, they lack the stealth capabilities of the PAK-FA, J-20 and J-3143

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2016, 11:43
by optimist
Just for clarification, it was a senate private members bill that set up the committee. There was a bunch on tree huggers on it from the greens and independents. I'm surprised they didn't want to dismantle the air force and sell off its existing planes.

the real defence committee is a joint committee of both houses
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... _and_Trade

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2016, 12:11
by spazsinbad
The OFFICIAL home page of the Enquiry says it 'HAS LAPSED'. [no longer valid; expired.]
Inquiry Status Inquiry lapsed

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

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2016, 17:00
by XanderCrews
The entire "plan B" is nothing more than appeasing those who are "nervous" and giving them warm fuzzy feelings instead.

Legit Loled at the Gripen comparisons. Clearly they are going off the sales brochures

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2016, 17:00
by XanderCrews
The entire "plan B" is nothing more than appeasing those who are "nervous" and giving them warm fuzzy feelings instead.

Legit Loled at the Gripen comparisons. Clearly they are going off the sales brochures

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2016, 18:58
by spazsinbad
In Oz slang these recommendations are 'warm beer'. Nobody is drinking or buying it. Report is weak as piss drivel indeed.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2016, 12:04
by Conan
XanderCrews wrote:The entire "plan B" is nothing more than appeasing those who are "nervous" and giving them warm fuzzy feelings instead.

Legit Loled at the Gripen comparisons. Clearly they are going off the sales brochures


The 'Plan B' isn't about F-35 failing. It's about our legacy Hornets failing and F-35 not being ready to take over from them...

From what I hear, we will be hearing very soon about Government's plan to cover that eventuality...

How this will work for F-35A purchases for Australia I'm not sure because 'Plan B' isn't going to be cheap, but the need to maintain four operational strike fighter squadrons is seen as more important than the capability difference between Super Hornet and JSF...

A situation may exist where JSF ends up 'quarterbacking' a Super Hornet / Growler force in RAAF service, purely because of the delays in the program and that is totally on L-M for failing to execute when we needed them to.

We can't wait for ever and there are rumblings already that the proposed '4th' squadron of JSF under AIR-6000 will never happen and we will look in other directions when the time comes. With 40+ New / newish Super Hornets and 12+ Growlers on the books, we won't be in a rush...

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2016, 14:25
by Dragon029
If Plan B is to buy Super Hornets (and not adjust F/A-18A usage or do a partial SLEP, etc), they would likely buy a tranche of either 12 or 24-28 Super Hornets; the former adding another flight to 1 SQN, the latter meaning an early decision on AIR6000 Phase 2C and making the fourth fighter squadron be one of Super Hornets.

With all that said however, I don't think "Plan B" will happen; it's recommended that it be decided upon by 2019, at which point the government will be trying to make a prediction on how Lockheed will perform in 2023. It'll be CASG or Defence making or heavily informing the decision however, and Defence has recently been relatively "optimistic" towards the JSF program, meaning that, so long as Lockheed doesn't have a major screw-up that delays orders by a few tens of jets, Defence / CASG's decision would almost certainly support continuing with "Plan A".

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2016, 16:20
by XanderCrews
Conan wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:The entire "plan B" is nothing more than appeasing those who are "nervous" and giving them warm fuzzy feelings instead.

Legit Loled at the Gripen comparisons. Clearly they are going off the sales brochures


The 'Plan B' isn't about F-35 failing. It's about our legacy Hornets failing and F-35 not being ready to take over from them...

From what I hear, we will be hearing very soon about Government's plan to cover that eventuality...

How this will work for F-35A purchases for Australia I'm not sure because 'Plan B' isn't going to be cheap, but the need to maintain four operational strike fighter squadrons is seen as more important than the capability difference between Super Hornet and JSF...

A situation may exist where JSF ends up 'quarterbacking' a Super Hornet / Growler force in RAAF service, purely because of the delays in the program and that is totally on L-M for failing to execute when we needed them to.

We can't wait for ever and there are rumblings already that the proposed '4th' squadron of JSF under AIR-6000 will never happen and we will look in other directions when the time comes. With 40+ New / newish Super Hornets and 12+ Growlers on the books, we won't be in a rush...


Of course SHs are only getting more expensive, and may not even be in production by 2019. And when the times comes? When would that be? Late 2020s? What are the other options at that point?

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2016, 17:32
by spazsinbad
At least our RAAF will be kind to the baby seals. And BTW Montague Island in on the south SOUTH coast of NSW.... <sigh>

http://www.skynews.com.au/culture/offbe ... eedom.html

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2016, 18:06
by blindpilot
The folks from Oz certainly know better than I do. But it seems to me that Australia has always been willing to look at low cost leases for short term glitches in procurement. I'm reminded of the F-4's while waiting for the 111's. If the US Navy doesn't have 18C/D's, or early traunch 18E/F's with some life for that, they could probably look at even used Typhoons or what ever.

The Super Hornets were F-111 followon's, not main fighter squadrons. They would want to keep long term impacts in mind.

One caution. The Aussies liked the Phantoms so much they almost cancelled the 111's, but lease bridge plan B's are probably viable.

definitely just MHO,
BP

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2016, 04:47
by Corsair1963
Honestly, F-35 production is ramping up nicely and this talk of the RAAF getting more Super Hornets. Is more politics than reality.....

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2016, 05:54
by SpudmanWP
Not only has production been ramping up, but estimated prices (per SAR reports) has been constantly going down since FY2013.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2016, 05:59
by optimist
It won't be long till, when you buy the set of pots. You get a choice of free steak knives or a F-35.
I agree, we aren't getting any more shornets. It's just a few cluless senators feeling important.

we are prepared to go IOC with 3i software. There is no hold-up, we are going 2019/20 and IOC in 2021 .. after the USAF and it looks like we will get 3F, what we really want.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2016, 06:59
by Corsair1963
optimist wrote:It won't be long till, when you buy the set of pots. You get a choice of free steak knives or a F-35.
I agree, we aren't getting any more shornets. It's just a few cluless senators feeling important.

we are prepared to go IOC with 3i software. There is no hold-up, we are going 2019/20 and IOC in 2021 .. after the USAF and it looks like we will get 3F, what we really want.



Just need to take the pressure off Boeing. Hopefully, they will win the T-X Contest and then we can put the Super Hornet to bed.....

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2016, 12:39
by Conan
Dragon029 wrote:If Plan B is to buy Super Hornets (and not adjust F/A-18A usage or do a partial SLEP, etc), they would likely buy a tranche of either 12 or 24-28 Super Hornets; the former adding another flight to 1 SQN, the latter meaning an early decision on AIR6000 Phase 2C and making the fourth fighter squadron be one of Super Hornets.

With all that said however, I don't think "Plan B" will happen; it's recommended that it be decided upon by 2019, at which point the government will be trying to make a prediction on how Lockheed will perform in 2023. It'll be CASG or Defence making or heavily informing the decision however, and Defence has recently been relatively "optimistic" towards the JSF program, meaning that, so long as Lockheed doesn't have a major screw-up that delays orders by a few tens of jets, Defence / CASG's decision would almost certainly support continuing with "Plan A".


Both Defence and CASG have been over-ruled with respect to air combat force group elements before...

From the rumours I have heard, 75 Sqn will trade in their Hornets for Super Hornets, a 'mini' OCU will stand up at RAAF Amberley and the oldest Hornets with the least FLEI remaining will be retired, with the rest equipping 3, 77 and 2 OCU until replacement by F-35.

But hey, they are only rumours of course... Time will tell. :D

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2016, 13:55
by quicksilver
Exactly what delays are they talking about? The program is ~18 months from SDD closeout.

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

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2016, 14:48
by Dragon029
quicksilver wrote:Exactly what delays are they talking about? The program is ~18 months from SDD closeout.

The concern is with potential production delays (eg if something like the insulation problem occurs and infects a hundred+ jets in production; the likelihood of it happening is low though).

Conan wrote:From the rumours I have heard, 75 Sqn will trade in their Hornets for Super Hornets, a 'mini' OCU will stand up at RAAF Amberley and the oldest Hornets with the least FLEI remaining will be retired, with the rest equipping 3, 77 and 2 OCU until replacement by F-35.

A mini-OCU sounds reasonable (6 SQN currently is the mini-OCU for Super Hornets, with jets deploying via 1 SQN, but with 6 SQN converting to Growlers soon it'd make sense for a 3rd unit to do conversion before people get to 1 SQN or 6 SQN), but I'm not sure about 75 SQN getting Super Hornets; it'd mean shifting a lot of infrastructure for little reason; either a bunch of Super Hornet related facilities out to Tindal, or all of 75 SQN's HQ / admin / transferrable GSE, etc to Amberley (not to mention, if 75 SQN leaves Tindal, the base would be likely to more or less shut down / put into reserve).

As it is, the current plan for AIR6000 Phase 2C is that if a fourth F-35 squadron is formed, it'll be based in Amberley (they're trying to make it even more of a 'super base'). As such, I'd expect that 75 SQN stays as they are / waiting for F-35s, while a new squadron is formed / revived at Amberley.

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2016, 14:56
by Conan
Dragon029 wrote:A mini-OCU sounds reasonable (6 SQN currently is the mini-OCU for Super Hornets, with jets deploying via 1 SQN, but with 6 SQN converting to Growlers soon it'd make sense for a 3rd unit to do conversion before people get to 1 SQN or 6 SQN), but I'm not sure about 75 SQN getting Super Hornets; it'd mean shifting a lot of infrastructure for little reason; either a bunch of Super Hornet related facilities out to Tindal, or all of 75 SQN's HQ / admin / transferrable GSE, etc to Amberley (not to mention, if 75 SQN leaves Tindal, the base would be likely to more or less shut down / put into reserve).

As it is, the current plan for AIR6000 Phase 2C is that if a fourth F-35 squadron is formed, it'll be based in Amberley (they're trying to make it even more of a 'super base'). As such, I'd expect that 75 SQN stays as they are / waiting for F-35s, while a new squadron is formed / revived at Amberley.


75 Sqn is to stay at Tindal, but with Super Hornets is the info I have received...

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

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2016, 15:01
by spazsinbad
I do not have a subscription to AvWEAK - this excerpt from pPRUNE could be false & just a WINDup - as they do so BADly:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation ... ost9550866
Report Raises Chance Of More Australian F/A-18 Super Hornets
21 Oct 2016 Bradley Perrett

"Expect Australia’s finger to be on the trigger in case of further delays in the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning program. A parliamentary committee has called on the defense department to prepare a backup plan, increasing the possibility of the country ordering more Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets.

The committee did not go as far as recommending that Canberra place another Super Hornet contract. But its proposal closely follows the reasoning of a submission from a think tank, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), urging the government to be ready to do so no later than 2019.

Separately, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has mentioned the possibility of a further Super Hornet order, apparently without much conviction, while also suggesting the F-35B, the vertical-landing version of the Lightning, as potential equipment. Unmanned strike aircraft are notably absent from its list of alternatives...."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft ... er-hornets

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2016, 02:41
by spazsinbad
A Kindly E-mail Correspondent has sent (I guess) most of the relevant text to above article.... Note that IF RAAF concerned about F-35s on our northern bases then IF they have some Bs up there THEN those Bs can temporarily reside on our LHDs - to be moved and offloaded at another northern base OR just returned to same northern base in the game of hide and seek as mentioned in the long thread about Bs on Oz LHDs many moons ago now.... Why not Fleet DEF also? A great forward at height ISR asset to punch those ship missiles long ranges and/or other good Networking stuff laddie.

:devil: BUT youse have heard it all before and no correspondence will be entered into. :mrgreen: I'll go check for this MYTHICAL ASPI address c. July this year.
Report Raises Chance Of More Australian F/A-18 Super Hornets
21 Oct 2016 Bradley Perrett | Aviation Week & Space Technology

"Expect Australia’s finger to be on the trigger in case of further delays in the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning program. A parliamentary committee has called on the defense department to prepare a backup plan, increasing the possibility of the country ordering more Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets.

The committee did not go as far as recommending that Canberra place another Super Hornet contract. But its proposal closely follows the reasoning of a submission from a think tank, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), urging the government to be ready to do so no later than 2019.

Separately, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has mentioned the possibility of a further Super Hornet order, apparently without much conviction, while also suggesting the F-35B, the vertical-landing version of the Lightning, as potential equipment. Unmanned strike aircraft are notably absent from its list of alternatives.

The RAAF identifies F-35As, F-35Bs and Super Hornets as options, though it is very unlikely to want the latter
Australia is acquiring 72 F-35As to replace 71 Boeing F/A-18A/B Hornets, survivors of an original fleet of 75 that were delivered starting in 1985. Next, Canberra is due to decide in 2022 or 2023 how to replace 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets that entered service in 2010 as strike aircraft and are penciled in for retirement around 2030. The order should cover 28 aircraft.

The defense department told the panel, the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Committee, that Australia’s F-35A acquisition program had leeway to ensure that initial operational capability would be reached as planned in 2020.

The committee is not convinced. It “recommends that the Department of Defense develop a hedging strategy to address the risk of a capability gap resulting from further delays to the acquisition of the F-35A. The strategy should be completed by 2018 and capable of implementation by 2019 at the latest.”

Buying more Super Hornets would be the only economical hedge. As ASPI told the committee, Australia has paid for all, or almost all, of the fixed costs associated with operating the type. Stretching out the Hornet force beyond 2023, when the last Lightning is due to arrive, looks like an improbably expensive alternative, since the 1980s fighters are expected to last into the early 2020s, thanks primarily to careful structural analysis.

The Liberal-National government’s adoption of the committee’s bipartisan recommendation would be politically prudent but not compulsory. It would mean that the department would be poised for a Super Hornet order if the F-35 program slipped again.

The RAAF is unlikely to be enthusiastic. It once hoped for a homogenous combat fleet of 100 F-35As. But an earlier administration, unwilling to countenance the chance of a capability gap, forced it into the risk-reduction move of introducing Super Hornets as early replacements for F-111 strike bombers.

The service seems to still harbor hopes of an all-Lightning fighter and strike force. In a little-noticed address to an ASPI meeting in July, the head of the RAAF, Air Marshal Leo Davies, listed the candidates for Australia’s next combat-aircraft program as Super Hornets, F-35As and F-35Bs.

More Super Hornets were presumably suggested as a way of sharing airframe usage with the current fleet, extending the life of the type. But the RAAF has never shown eagerness for keeping the Super Hornet in service for longer than it must, and is unlikely to favor the option. In contrast, buying more F-35As would create the homogenous fleet the service has long desired.

Davies did not explain the merits of the third, quite surprising option, the F-35B. But an obvious possibility is that Australia has begun to wonder about the survivability of its northern airbases in the face of attack by Chinese cruise and ballistic missiles.

Unmanned strike aircraft, until now officially listed as candidates for Super Hornet replacements, were omitted.

According to ASPI’s account of the address, Davies’s “reasoning was one of timing—since we have to make a decision by 2022 or 2023, it is unlikely that unmanned systems would be good enough for air combat in time.” The think tank suggests that the decision could instead be deferred, since the Super Hornets could last until 2040.

But the RAAF may have another reason for sticking to the schedule. If, by 2030, all the fighter and strike squadrons are equipped with new or fairly new manned aircraft, then any combat drones ordered around that time would become supplementary, expanding the fast-jet force.

An impending order for armed, medium-altitude, unmanned aircraft, likely to be General Atomics MQ-9 Reapers, will presumably result in the RAAF having a squadron that will eventually need reequipping with jets.

Well past 2030, the service will also have 12 EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft, due to be initially operational in 2018. Their commonality with Super Hornets is not an argument for keeping the latter for longer, RAAF officers have suggested, since Australia could easily rely on the U.S. Navy’s support system for Growler sustainment."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft ... er-hornets

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2016, 07:49
by optimist
I'm out of the loop, but I really can't see any more SH, we will have at least 3 fighter squadrons with the same plane, min 72. otherwise the CONOPS falls apart. I can't see them having 5 squadrons, plus growlers. we will keep 4 squadrons, plus growlers.

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2017, 01:53
by spazsinbad
OzGubmint F-35info Cranks UP! man.... below is a quote from an article in a startmeup quarterly Oz F-35A info PDF.
The F‐35A’s highly complex information system achieves first Australian Cybersecurity Accreditation
December 2016 | LIGHTNING NEWS ‐ Australian F‐35A Program News

"The Australian F‐35A Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program achieved another big milestone last month with the F‐35A’s Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) achieving its first Cybersecurity Accreditation from the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and the Defence Chief Information Officer Group (CIOG)....

...“A Cybersecurity Accreditation confirms that ALIS has sufficient protection measures in place to counter external and internal cybersecurity threats.” said AVM Gordon [Head of JSF Division, Air Vice‐Marshal].

“For the Australian F‐35A Program, this accreditation authorises the F‐35 support system, known as ALIS, to be operated in Australia and be connected to existing Defence networks.”...

...To manage and sustain the highly complex F‐35 information environment, the Australian F‐35A Program has built a dedicated information systems centre, the Off‐Board Information Systems Centre (OBISC) at RAAF Base Williamtown. This facility is unique to Australia and offers an edge over other F‐35 Partner nations.

“The OBISC provides Australia with an environment in which we can simulate the F‐35 information system to test its true capability, much like an aircraft simulator.” said AVM Gordon.

“The value of the OBISC continues to increase as we identify more and more novel ways to use it. “The benefit that the OBISC offers Australia has been equally recognised by international F‐35 Partners, many of whom have expressed an interest in using or developing a similar capability.”...

...The OBISC is expected to become operational from early 2017.”

Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/casg/Multimed ... 9-7859.pdf (1.3Mb)

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2017, 14:19
by mixelflick
But but... APA says the F-35 is a lemon. Can't turn, can't climb, can't run.

Of course as more and more leaks out concerning just how incredible its performance is during exercises, they're going to have more and more egg on their faces. Doubly so, since APA has stated in no uncertain terms just how superior the Flanker series is. Especially considering how the Sukhoi SU-35/PAK FA trumps every aircraft in their inventry - including their own SH's...

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2017, 20:54
by spazsinbad
APA will have a chance perhaps to chekova two F-35As 'subject to availability'? HUH - they are either there or not Shirley.
Australian F-35s at Avalon
25 Jan 2017 Katherine Ziesing | Canberra

"ADM [Australian Defence Magazine] understands that both AU-1 and AU-2, the first Australian F-35A JSFs, are planning on making their Avalon debut this year. [How do aircraft 'plan'?]

This of course is subject to availability, but it will be the first time locals will be able to see the jets up close on the static line. Both jets are currently working at Luke Air Force Base as part of the international training pool. The ADF currently has four pilots (all instructors) and four maintainers (three RAAF and one CASG) at Luke undergoing training...."

JPG: http://www.airshow.com.au/airshow2017/i ... ow2017.jpg

Source: http://www.australiandefence.com.au/new ... -at-avalon

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

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2017, 03:40
by spazsinbad
:devil: I wonder if BillyBobBoySweetiePie gets a chance to get a 'once over' these centre fuselages at NG? Oh the HORROR! :devil:
Centre fuselages for next RAAF F-35s in production
31 Jan 2017 Gerard Frawley

"No fewer than six centre fuselage sections for the RAAF’s next batch of F-35A Joint Strike Fighters are currently in production at Northrop Grumman’s F-35 Integrated Assembly Line (IAL) at Palmdale, California.

The fuselage sections are for six of the RAAF’s next eight F-35As, which are scheduled for delivery in 2018, after the first two Australian jets (AU-1 and AU-2) were handed over in 2014.

“We’ve currently delivered two aircraft to the Australian air force, we have six aircraft that are [currently] in our assembly process, [and] we’ll actually deliver seven this year,” Corey Carruth, the F-35 IAL’s director of manufacturing, told Australian media during a tour of the Palmdale facility earlier this month.

“One of the next units we’ll deliver off our assembly line is AU-3, the third Australian unit, we’ll deliver it to Lockheed Martin in March.” Following the delivery of the centre fuselage of AU-3 in late March, AU-4 and 5 will follow shortly after in April, Carruth said. The next eight Australian jets are being built as part of the F-35’s low rate initial production (LRIP) batch 10....

...Northrop Grumman delivered the first RAAF F-35 centre fuselage for AU-1 in October 2013. AU-1 and AU-2 have been based at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona since late 2014 as part of the International Pilot Training Center there. Of the next eight jets, two will ferry to Australia in 2018 for Australian operational test and evaluation, while the other six will be based at Luke for pilot training before being ferrying to Australia in 2020."

Source: http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/0 ... roduction/

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2017, 06:06
by Dragon029
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/intern ... ow/1649776

"Controversial F-35 to visit Australia at Avalon Air Show"

No word if it'll be a static or flying display, or even technically if this is a real jet or just the to-be-confirmed mock-up they've previously listed on the Avalon list of displays, but it does sound like the former.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2017, 06:14
by SpudmanWP
I can't imagine them flying them all the way across the Pacific and NOT doing some kind of flying display.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2017, 07:01
by Dragon029
Agreed - there is a chance that there won't be time to fulfil the red tape requirements for a flying display, but Australia is supposedly slightly more relaxed when it comes to air show regulations:

Image

Image

(F-111 Dump & Burn long exposure:)
Image

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2017, 07:27
by beepa
After watching the Super Bug practice the last couple of days it looks to be their best performance yet :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2017, 07:35
by spazsinbad
OH DEAR: "...See it [JSF] as part of the Airshow’s extensive ground display of military aircraft...."

http://www.airshow.com.au/airshow2017/PUBLIC/index.asp
________________________

"The provisional flying display program will be available here from mid-February 2017."

http://www.airshow.com.au/airshow2017/P ... rogram.asp

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2017, 08:15
by Dragon029
spazsinbad wrote:OH DEAR: "...See it [JSF] as part of the Airshow’s extensive ground display of military aircraft...."

For a while (months) they've stated that an F-35A mock-up is expected (but to be confirmed) as a ground display; this appears to be separate. We will have to wait for that provisional flying display program to know for sure though.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2017, 08:55
by beepa
From what I've seen they probably will be static unless you are there on Friday when they arrive, surely a missed approach is on the cards. After that they go to Amberley with the Growlers apparently, time for the missus and I to book some holidays.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2017, 15:33
by spazsinbad
Joint Strike Fighter to make Australian Debut at the Australian International Airshow
07 Feb 2017 AFHQ

"...“The Joint Strike Fighter will be joined at the Airshow by Australia’s first EA-18G Growler,” Minister Payne said.

“Together, the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter and the EA-18G Growler represent a potent and technologically advanced air combat and strike capability that is essential to our ability to defend Australia and our national interests.

“Australia is the only country outside the United States operating the EA-18G Growler and its arrival represents a significant leap forward in our capability, introducing a dedicated electronic attack capability for the first time.”

Minister Pyne said this would be one of the most exciting airshows the ADF had organised, representing a significant occasion for defence industry.

“The EA-18G Growler and F-35A Lightning II represent the latest in cutting edge aviation technology, and include some of the very best of Australian industry,” he said....

...The first two F-35A aircraft, AU-001 and AU-002 will arrive at the airshow on Friday 3 March, returning to the United States via RAAF Base Amberley allowing Australian pilots to continue their training. The visit is a significant contribution by the United States Air Force Training Command, and Lockheed Martin to facilitate the deployment from Luke Air Force Base during their training period...."


Source: http://www.airforce.gov.au/News/Joint-S ... TeQsj28kq0

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2017, 15:45
by spazsinbad
F-35 to make Australian debut at Avalon
07 Feb 2017 Greg Waldron

"...A source familiar with the F-35A’s debut says the aircraft’s appearance at the show was contingent upon securing air-to-air refuelling support for the ferry flight from the USA...."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... on-433888/

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

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2017, 03:02
by spazsinbad
Theys not on flying displays as of 14 Feb 2017: https://www.airshow.com.au/airshow2017/ ... rogram.asp

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

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2017, 10:05
by spazsinbad
The JSF: time for a reality check (part 1) [a lot of the usual stuff + misspellings about F-35 but hey - Oz]
17 Feb 2017 Brendan Nicholson

"...Getting the pair of highly advanced, ‘fifth generation’ jets to the Avalon Air Show will itself be a comprehensive demonstration of aviation logistics. They’ll be flown to Australia by Aussie pilots and frequently topped up along the way by a RAAF KC-30 air-to-air refuelling tanker.

Another officer with an intense interest in ensuring that the JSF works is Army chief Lieutenant General Angus Campbell. He rejects suggestions the F-35 will not be able to provide troops on the ground with effective air support. ‘The JSF is an extremely advanced fighter which has extraordinary and possibly unparalleled capacities in information networking which we’ve not seen in the ADF before,’ says Lieutenant General Campbell.

‘Every soldier on every battlefield through modern history will want, or pray for, control of the air above him. The F-35 gives our soldiers the greatest confidence that they will have air control above them. I’m delighted we’re getting it. Only those who don’t have air control above them know the true horror of that environment and I would not want that for Australian soldiers.’


Source: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/jsf-t ... ck-part-1/

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2017, 07:09
by spazsinbad
LM F-35 GM Weekly Update
23 Feb 2017 Jeff Babione

"...F-35A at the Avalon Airshow in Australia. AU-1 and AU-2 are scheduled to take off from Luke AFB today [23 Feb 2017? whenever]. The jets are scheduled for static display during the show. I’ll be there along with other industry leaders to bring you all the latest from the show...."

Source: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... _23_17.pdf (0.6Mb)

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2017, 09:36
by beepa
The two Australian F35's arrived today at RAAF Amberley, no fanfare, no live video, no countdown just a very quiet arrival. After two weeks of catching the Super Hornet practice I thought this week would be a little dead so I missed the arrival.
Departure on Friday will see a bit of a crowd I guess.

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2017, 22:15
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'beepa' an unusual but good F-35A view & meanwhile PROJECT JERICHO & DSTO get a lookin before AVALON.
AVALON: RAAF chief stresses power of networked capabilities
27 Feb 2017 Greg Waldron

"The chief of the Royal Australian Air Force has laid down a strategy for the next ten years that emphasises networked assets and joint capabilities.

Air Marshall Leo Davies says that progress has been made under the auspices of Project Jericho, an initiative launched by his predecessor to more tightly network the nation’s air force, and also strengthen connectivity with the country’s army and navy. Still, more needs to be done....

...Davies hopes to foster an RAAF culture where younger personnel feel comfortable coming forward with new ideas that can increase efficiency.

Davies comments came as RAAF prepares to adopt several new capabilities, including the EA-18G Growler Electronic Warfare aircraft, and the Lockheed Martin F-35A fighters, both of which will make their Australian debut’s at this year’s shows. Australia is also beefing up its intelligence, surveillance, and reconaissance (ISR) capabilities, with the addition of new manned and unmanned platforms....

...Alex Selinsky, head of Australia’s Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), also addressed the gathering, with a presentation about how his agency has helped with RAAF capabilities....

...Selensky says that DSTO played a leading role in developing the lightning protection used on the F-35."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... pa-434576/

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2017, 03:14
by neptune
beepa wrote:The two Australian F35's arrived today at RAAF Amberley, no fanfare, no live video, no countdown just a very quiet arrival. After two weeks of catching the Super Hornet practice I thought this week would be a little dead so I missed the arrival.
Departure on Friday will see a bit of a crowd I guess.



....duh!....Holy Cow, two "A"s leave Luke on the 23rd and arrive RAAF Amberley on the 26ish???....what only threeish days!, what time machine did they use, that the Corp took a week or more to only travel to Okinawa?.... :shock:


...shh! the rabid press hasn't found out... yet, the JSF has the ability to travel all the way to "down-under"...Ha!, Ha!... :)

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2017, 03:22
by spazsinbad
Time traveling
01 Sep 2004 Douglas Bowman

"...Each time you fly from North America to Australia, and without anyone asking how you feel about it, a day is taken away from you when you cross the international date line. I left Los Angeles on January 3 and arrived in Sydney fourteen hours later on January 5. For me there was no January 4. None at all. Where it went exactly I couldn’t tell you. All I know is that for one twenty-four-hour period in the history of earth, it appears I had no being....

..to be fair, they do give you back the day on the return journey when you cross the date line in the opposite direction and thereby manage somehow to arrive in Los Angeles before you left Sydney, which in its way, of course, is an even neater trick." From In a Sunburned Country, Bill Bryson


Source: http://stopdesign.com/archive/2004/09/0 ... eling.html

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2017, 05:26
by spazsinbad
First F-35 arrives at RAAF Amberley, full report



ABC Channel 2 graphic says Fort Worth (not based but at LUKE AFB) to Anderson AFB, Guam thence RAAF Amberley.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2017, 19:28
by spazsinbad
Fuggin' 'Ell - this is serious... All the way with N G J!
Australia cuts deal with US Navy for Next Generation Jammer
28 Feb 2017 Nigel Pittaway

"AVALON, Australia — Australian Defence Minister Marise Payne announced Tuesday that Australia has entered into an agreement with the U.S. Navy to develop the Next Generation Jammer for the Boeing EA-18G Growler, an airborne electronic attack aircraft. Payne announced the AUD $250 million (U.S. $192 million) investment during the opening day of the 2017 Australian International Airshow at Avalon, south of Melbourne.

“This is a $250 million investment by the Turnbull government that will [serve as] future proof [of[ the Growler’s capability,” she said. “As this is a rapidly evolving area, we will work in partnership with the United States Navy to develop the next-generation jamming capability, which will ensure that these aircraft remain at the technological forefront throughout their service life.”

The Next Generation Jammer will form a key component of Project Air 5439 Phase 6, a future phase of Australia’s Growler acquisition program, which will upgrade the EA-18G to what is known as the Advanced Growler configuration. The program will ensure commonality with U.S. Navy aircraft is maintained into the future and will develop a replacement for the Growler’s current ALQ-99 jamming pods....

...The Growler will provide the Australian Defence Force with a tactical jamming capability, which is only matched by the U.S. Navy. All 12 [Growler] aircraft will have been delivered to Australia by the middle of 2017, and initial operational capability is due to be achieved in mid-2018. Final operational capability is set to follow in mid-2022."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/articles/aus ... ion-jammer

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

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2017, 20:14
by spazsinbad
18 page PDF relevant to F-35A/JSF attached below.
The Auditor-General | ANAO Report No.40 2016–17 2015–16 Major Projects Report, Department of Defence
28 Feb 2017 Australian National Audit Office

"...Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), as the project is unable to deliver the Maritime Strike Capability originally scoped at project approval, by FOC...."
&
"...Major Risks and Issues
The JSF is a large and complex program and many challenges remain. While as a MoU Partner Australia does have a role, overcoming technical challenges is primarily a US responsibility.

The major risks facing the NACC Project are:

• Possibility of US and JSF Partner Governments altering commitments to the broader JSF Program that impacts Australian acquisition and life-cycle costs.
• Integration of the JSF into the Australian Defence Force (ADF) systems.
• Establishing the required facilities and Information, Communications and Technology (ICT) infrastructure to support stand up of the JSF capability.
• Lack of timely data and releasability of JSF program information that impacts the timely, efficient and effective integration of the F-35 aircraft system into the ADF.
• The maturity of the JSF System and ability to meet IOC and FOC.
• Transition of the JSF into service at the same time RAAF ramps up Australian Super Hornet and Growler capabilities.
• Establishing and ramping up the JSF sustainment system.
• Establishing the Reprogramming element of the program.
• Ensuring required industry outcomes during JSF production and transition into service.
• Significant workforce challenges in effectively manning the Defence acquisition and sustainment organisations impacts program management activities to establish the JSF capability.
• Establishing the training system.

The project has one major issue that it is managing, whereby it is currently unable to deliver the Maritime Strike capability originally scoped at project approval by FOC. This issue has emerged due to changes in the approved Block 4.1 and Block 4.2 scope as agreed by the JSF Executive Steering Board. The last report identified two major issues facing the project, however they are no longer considered issues. The establishment of the training system is now considered a major risk instead of a major issue, based on remedial actions taken over the last year. The previous issue of noise associated with the introduction of the JSF at RAAF Base Williamtown is no longer assessed as a major issue or major risk, as the Minister for the Environment has approved the operation of the F-35A, and Defence intends to comply with the conditions for operation that the Minister for the Environment included with the approval on 17 July 2015.

Other Current Sub-Projects
AIR JSF SDD – Participation in the JSF System Development and Demonstration (SDD) Program: The contribution to the SDD Program is in two parts, a cash component of SDD funding of US$144m, and a nonfinancial component of US$6m with the Defence Science and Technology Group (DSTG) conducting a Pacific Rim Command, Control, Communication, Computing, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance study. All AIR JSF SDD financial milestones have been completed. The US SDD Phase is due to be closed in 2017 following the completion of Development and Test of the Block 3 software.

Note
Major risks and issues are excluded from the scope of the review...."

Source: https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/g/files/n ... 17_40a.pdf (14.4Mb)

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2017, 01:01
by brucealrighty
A nice summary by ASPI https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/jsf-t ... ck-part-2/

Nothing particularly new for regular readers of 16.net, although I was surprised by the delays to the maritime strike. I thought that project was going well.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/f-35s-jo ... est-in-us/

"The recent test showed the technological maturity of the missile including its software, Kongsberg underlines. “This is a major accomplishment for the JSM program, and in addition several critical capabilities beyond the scope of the test were verified. The test demonstrates that we are on track with the qualification of JSM, which brings critical capability to F-35 and the warfighter,” says Harald Ånnestad, the president of Kongsberg Defense Systems."

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2017, 01:45
by spazsinbad
The JSM article dated 13 Nov 2015

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2017, 02:02
by brucealrighty
spazsinbad wrote:The JSM article dated 13 Nov 2015


Yep. My point being that it was doing well in 2015. It is now 2017. What happened!?!

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2017, 02:09
by brucealrighty
More on the JSM in another thread also indicating things going well towards the end of 2016.

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=23247&start=180

From Pron:

"29. October 2016 was a new test with JSF from a Edwards Air Force-based F-16. This time with engine, but no warhead. The missile flight was more than 200 km.

The Joint Strike Missile (JSM) has successfully completed a flight test in the United States. The missile was launched from an Edwards Air Force-based F-16 over the Utah Test and Training Range west of Salt Lake City.

“The test verified all intended goals completing another milestone towards full integration on the F-35. The JSM program is on track to provide the war fighter a long range precision strike anti-ship and land attack capability”, says Eirik Lie, Acting President Kongsberg Defence Systems.

http://news.cision.com/kongsberg-gruppe ... t,c2153901

A longer article in Norwegian.

http://www.tu.no/artikler/joint-strike- ... kin/366678"

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

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2017, 02:31
by spazsinbad
The ANAO report says this: "...This issue has emerged due to changes in the approved Block 4.1 and Block 4.2 scope as agreed by the JSF Executive Steering Board....". Whatever that means - with nothing in particular mentioned.

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2017, 09:08
by spazsinbad
The JSF to fly at Avalon Saturday and Sunday!
02 Mar 2017 Australian International Airshow

"See the mighty Joint Strike Fighter take to the sky this weekend on both Saturday and Sunday of AIRSHOW 2017.

This will be a once-in-a lifetime opportunity to see this amazing state-of-the-art jet fighter in the air on its Australian debut. The Royal Australian Air Force has made special arrangements for the aircraft to fly on both the Saturday and Sunday of the event.

Also, the Joint Strike Fighter will be on static display for patrons to see on the ground on the Friday afternoon, Saturday and Sunday public sessions of the Airshow."

Source: https://www.facebook.com/AustralianInte ... NE&fref=nf

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2017, 14:50
by mk82
Sweet!!!

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2017, 15:21
by Dragon029
Anyone want to loan me a thousand bucks to zip down and attend? :mrgreen: :bang:

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2017, 15:53
by popcorn
Crowdfunding opportunity? :D

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

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2017, 18:12
by spazsinbad
On page 29 of this thread is OBISC: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=360869&hilit=OBISC#p360869 specifically for the F-35 so why replicate that in this new Oz feature? Probably want to keep F-35 info secure is my guess. BOING! Be Damned. :mrgreen:
Boeing Builds Ground Installation Of Mission Systems For Australia
01 Mar 2017 Bradley Perrett

"GEELONG, Australia—Boeing has built a ground installation of Australian military mission systems for economical evaluation of current and modified performance of interacting aircraft, ships and the national integrated air plot.

Quite distinct from simulation software, the setup consists of the same equipment and software installed in E-7 Wedgetails, P-8 Poseidons and EA-18 Growlers, warships and the Jindalee ground command and control system, all Boeing products.

The company is talking to other manufacturers about adding mission systems from their products to the installation, the Joint Battle Management Development Environment (JBMDE), says Shane Arnott, director of the international wing of Boeing’s Phantom Works technology unit.

The objective of the JBMDE is to observe how systems work together—in current configurations, in normal conditions, when modified, when subjected to enemy interference, when equipped with new weapons, when under kinetic attack, and so on. The focus on interaction reflects the strenuous drive in the Australian Defense Force (ADF) for widespread networking and exploiting of information, an effort called Plan Jericho.

Some tests require simulated features—for example, the firing of a weapon or the degradation of a communications link. But Boeing says because the JBMDE’s elements are the same as what is in operation, it should far more accurately represent in-service performance than wholly simulated or modeled assessments. As a ground installation it can be used to run tests much more cheaply than can be done with aircraft and ships.

Revealing the existence of the program at the Australian International Airshow, the company will not say exactly what will be done with the system. But likely examples would be determining the capability that a Poseidon would gain if track data from a nearby Wedgetail were improved, how badly jamming of a certain data link would affect battle management, and whether deletion of an old subsystem would make much difference to the performance of a force in combat.

Work began a year ago on the installation, which is now fully operational at Boeing’s Brisbane, Australia, operation, the company says. Although ground installations of mission systems are not unusual, as far as Boeing knows this is the most comprehensive setup built so far. The Plan Jericho drive inspired the effort, Boeing says.

Some of the equipment in the installation was newly built, some made years ago in development programs, and some is civil but loaded with the actual mission software.
Boeing was in an unusual position to create something like the Jbmde because the company has or soon will provide so many of the ADF’s systems that produce and can exploit large amounts of high-quality information.

But Boeing is not alone in providing advanced, highly connected systems to Australia. While Arnott does not name the companies that Boeing is talking to about expanding the Jbmde, the Royal Australian Air Force will surely want to add the mission systems of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lighting [Lighting? Yep they make a great brand of all purpose lighting effects on both air and ground/sea targets] and Northrop Grumman MQ-4 Triton. Another priority is likely to be the Lockheed Martin Aegis system installed in a class of three destroyers that will enter service in the next few years.

Source: http://aviationweek.com/avalon-airshow/ ... -australia

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2017, 00:07
by spazsinbad
Online E-book some 80 pages about 5th Gen RAAF Plan Jericho I guess made for Avalon Air Show - can't get it to print :-(

Air Force of the Future - Air Force by Design
http://jericho3d.com.au/magazine/mobile/index.html

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2017, 01:29
by Dragon029
It took a while for the print prompt to do anything for me, but it eventually worked - here's a PDF copy (unfortunately both the PDF copy and the original online version have a somewhat poor quality, but at least its still readable).

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2017, 01:36
by popcorn
Thanks dragon, much better...

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2017, 01:48
by spazsinbad
Thanks for the PDF 'Dragon029'. With much mucking about & frustration eventually I got a print copy but at some 80Mbs. So I have been wiling away my time by first deleting 80 blank pages (out of 160) but got fed up with it. :-) Thanks for the copy it is good quality especially for the file size. BZ. What combination of OS/browser/printer did you use please for my information for future reference when roadblocks encountered? Thanks. Again - thanks for info below - tah.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2017, 02:17
by Dragon029
I was using Firefox, on a Windows 10 computer, and (once the print options window appeared) using the "Windows Print to PDF" option. I then used Adobe Acrobat Pro DC to crop out the white borders (that display a redundant page number, as well as the url of the page, etc) and save it as a "Reduced Size PDF" (the quality didn't noticeably change) to take it from about ~16MB to ~7MB.

I also tried a program I have called PDFCreator (roughly the same process, except you select it instead of Windows Print to PDF), but even sampling at 600dpi (which ended up creating a 300MB file) the quality was still mediocre.

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2017, 06:32
by beepa
F35's arriving at Avalon for first time....

https://youtu.be/ZyekDWKk3Bs

https://youtu.be/MaILdxiitcs

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2017, 07:52
by spazsinbad
RAAF Likely To Field Interim Datalink Translation System
02 Mar 2017 Bradley Perrett

"GEELONG, Australia—The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) looks likely to go ahead this year with fielding an interim system for datalink translation and relay that should be a big step toward a goal of high information integration across Australia’s armed services.

Supplier Northrop Grumman is expecting a decision within weeks on the project, with deployment of the system possible this year. This effort follows a landmark exercise in 2016 when Northrop Grumman demonstrated the system, called Airborne Gateway. It allowed Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) and Australian Army personnel and systems to share such data as positions and to communicate by secure text and voice, despite using incompatible data links.

The system is functionally similar to Northrop Grumman’s Battlefield Airborne Communications Node, which is used by the U.S. Air Force, mounted in Bombardier E-11 and Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk aircraft....

...The defense force intends to use the interim system only within Australia in what will be, in effect, an operational demonstration over about two years. That should be followed by a decision on whether and how to deploy a full-scale system. In Exercise Jericho Dawn, Airborne Gateway acted as a node for Link 16, commonly used in RAAF aircraft, Eurogrid in Airbus Tiger attack helicopters and the army’s ground-based Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System.

For the interim system, the air force wants to add the army’s BMS and Variable Message Format, the navy’s Hawklink, and the civilian 3G and 4G cellphone formats. The latter are particularly useful for disaster relief, Blackwell says.

The heart of the system is a module—a black box—called the RNC 2000. Mounting in an aircraft improves its range, but Northrop Grumman Australia Program Manager Dave Doyle points out that the system can be put in a ground vehicle or even placed on a hill. Long endurance for the carrying aircraft is an advantage."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/avalon-airshow/ ... ion-system

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2017, 08:25
by spazsinbad
Avalon Airshow Trade Days heating up. 03 Mar 2017 Leigh Atkinson PHOTOs

http://aviationspottersonline.com/avalo ... eating-up/
_____________________________

Just the PM welcoming the F-35As at Avalon - to be clear this video is ONLY of the Prime Minister praising Oz Industry....

The first two F-35 Joint Strike Fighters have arrived in Australia at the Avalon Airshow.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/video/watch/th ... vi-AAnJEDr

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2017, 11:29
by spazsinbad
VIDEO TV Reporter Spruiks JSF: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics ... -pyne.html
Strike fighters will mean jobs: Pyne [DefMin]
03 Mar 2017 SKYnews

"Senior government figures from the prime minister down are out spruiking the investment in Australia's first Joint Strike Fighter jets ahead of a visit to the Avalon Airshow in Melbourne. Defence Industry Minister Christopher Pyne, using a commissioned report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, was talking up the jobs and economic boost of the program on Friday.

The government has allocated $17 billion for the purchase of 72 aircraft. The PWC report found the spin-off benefits to the local economy will be about $1.2 billion and support an additional 6300 jobs by 2038. Mr Pyne said problems with the aircraft had been exaggerated and addressed. 'From Australia's point of view, the program is very much on track and we will reach the operational capability we require by 2020,' he said. 'We are very happy with the program.'

Responding to Donald Trump's criticism of the price tag, Mr Pyne said everyone wanted value for money for the taxpayer. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull Turnbull and Defence Minister Marise Payne are expected to be among dignitaries inspecting the planes at Avalon on Friday morning.

There are 32 Australian businesses that have won a collective $800 million in contracts for high-technology design, software and manufacturing.

The two jets have been based in Arizona in the US, where four Australian pilots are learning to fly them. A fifth pilot is due to depart for the US in coming months for training. After the airshow, the jets will return to the US. The RAAF plans to have the first two squadrons operational by 2020."

Source: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics ... -pyne.html

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2017, 21:57
by spazsinbad
Oz DefDep story is shameful. Only decent bit of info is this: "...After a journey of about 15,000km Australia’s first two F-35As displayed their power and manoeuvrability in the sky above Avalon Airport before landing in front of an enthused crowd...." http://www.airforce.gov.au/News/Enter-t ... qduLk3z8U+

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2017, 01:35
by spazsinbad
The Arrival in Australia of the First Australian F-35s
03 Mar 2017 SLDinfo

"...The two aircraft (A35-001 and -002) had flown from Luke AFB via Hawaii, Guam and RAAF Base Amberley and had achieved a milestone for the longest overseas delpoyment to date.

They were accompanied during the ferry by a RAAF C-17 Globemaster III carrying associated stores and equipment and a RAAF KC-30A tanker, which supplied over 197,000 lbs of fuel during the 21 air-to-air fuelling cycles...."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/the-arrival-in-a ... ian-f-35s/

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2017, 01:50
by bojack_horseman
A long old treck.

15,300 kms with 10 refuels.

I assume they aren't bothering to push the fuel gauge to near empty on this trip down under?

According to wiki at least the range is comfortably more than that 1,500kms average.

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2017, 03:19
by spazsinbad
I do not know why you have assumed this equation. In any rate there were 21 refueling cycles so one would assume that the two aircraft refueled 21 times and stopped for overnighters at HAWAII & GUAM. However until someone makes all of this clear there is only speculation - of which there is plenty in the other 'refueling in air discussions elsewhere'. USAF have insisted so far about special conditions which the USMC for example have disputed recently. I'm reinstalling Windows 10 so I have to stop here now. Having searched on 'PLEUS' we can see the USAF way of crossing dose oceanic voids....
"...“So when we plan these things we take the worst winds, we take the worst configuration of the airplane, and we say: at the worst time, what would happen?” said Pleus, a former F-16 pilot who now heads the Air Force’s F-35 integration office. “It is very conservative, and the reason why we’re so conservative is because it’s a life or death decision.”

Traditionally the Air Force refuels “almost continuously” when crossing a large body of water, as often as every 30 or 40 min., Pleus said. An F-35B, which carries 5,000 lb. less fuel than the Air Force F-35A, likely needs to hit the tanker even more often than that, he noted.

Pleus pushed back on Davis’ criticism, stressing that extending time between refuelings during an ocean crossing would mean more risk to pilots...." viewtopic.php?f=61&t=27157&p=362822&hilit=Pleus#p362822

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

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2017, 13:18
by Dragon029

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 05:07
by spazsinbad
2 page PDF of entire article attached below.
How training pact with CAE fuelled RAAF tanker revival
7-13 March 2017 GREG WALDRON

“...FlightGlobal was able to guide the boom around the canopy of an incoming Lockheed F-35, and easily extend the probe into the jet’s refuelling receptacle. Once a receiver starts refuelling the ARO [air refuelling officer] can ease off the controls and simply monitor the fuel transfer. If too much stick input is applied during the refuelling, there is a shaker alert. The instructor explains that a steady course at 275kt (508km/h) and 25,000ft is the “sweet spot” for refuelling operations. Speeds slightly higher are used for fighters, and slightly lower for larger jets....”

Source: 7-13 March 2017 Flight International

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 07:31
by airforces_freak
Is it true that Australia is purchasing the SOM-J from Roketsan of Turkey for its F-35's?

RAAF procurement officials visited the Roketsan stand this week at the Avalon Air Show in Geelong and discussed the SOM in detail.

Image
Image

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 07:50
by beepa
This here has got the chickens in the coop all stirred up, last thing RAAF needed. Supers and Growlers departed to a fine Amberley afternoon.

Updated to F-35A departure from Avalon
Due to weather in Amberley the F-35A will now depart Avalon Air Show on Monday, 6 March rather than Sunday, 5 March as previously scheduled.
It is well documented that the F-35A aircraft requires modifications for lightning protection and these modifications have not yet been completed on the two visiting Australian aircraft. As safety is Air Force’s priority, the aircraft will not fly in conditions where lightning is present.  Prior to return to Australia, the Australian F-35A will be modified with lightning protection.
While the visiting F-35A aircraft belong to Australia, they are currently placed within a training pool in the United States and the specific movements of the aircraft are authorised by the United States. Authorisation has been given for the aircraft to ferry to RAAF Base Amberley, from RAAF Base Amberley to Avalon, and then return from Avalon to RAAF Base Amberley before returning to the United States. Following a late notice request by the Royal Australian Air Force, the USAF supported and approved an Avalon to Avalon event yesterday. Approval to fly at Avalon on Sunday was not requested by the Royal Australian Air Force and, therefore, with the weather events in Amberley, we are unfortunately unable to seek that authorisation.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 09:00
by spazsinbad
airforces_freak wrote:Is it true that Australia is purchasing the SOM-J from Roketsan of Turkey for its F-35's?

RAAF procurement officials visited the Roketsan stand this week at the Avalon Air Show in Geelong and discussed the SOM in detail.

This is what Australia HAS BEEN interested in amongst other things whilst SOM-J is probably another one now - we'll see:
"...Defence acknowledges the JSM has the potential to provide a good solution for maritime and some land strike roles, enhancing strike range and weapon and aircraft survivability, but with JASSM already on order and other weapons such as JDAM-ER and SDB potentially available, it stops short of an unqualified endorsement at this stage: "Although the JSM has the potential to meet Defence's standoff maritime strike capability for our future F-35 fleet, it remains one of a number of options for our future maritime strike requirements," ADM was told." SEP 2009
viewtopic.php?f=54&t=15336&p=193672&hilit=Joint+Strike+Missile+Australia+DSTO#p193672

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 11:52
by spazsinbad

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 12:56
by airforces_freak
spazsinbad wrote:
airforces_freak wrote:Is it true that Australia is purchasing the SOM-J from Roketsan of Turkey for its F-35's?

RAAF procurement officials visited the Roketsan stand this week at the Avalon Air Show in Geelong and discussed the SOM in detail.

This is what Australia HAS BEEN interested in amongst other things whilst SOM-J is probably another one now - we'll see:
"...Defence acknowledges the JSM has the potential to provide a good solution for maritime and some land strike roles, enhancing strike range and weapon and aircraft survivability, but with JASSM already on order and other weapons such as JDAM-ER and SDB potentially available, it stops short of an unqualified endorsement at this stage: "Although the JSM has the potential to meet Defence's standoff maritime strike capability for our future F-35 fleet, it remains one of a number of options for our future maritime strike requirements," ADM was told." SEP 2009
viewtopic.php?f=54&t=15336&p=193672&hilit=Joint+Strike+Missile+Australia+DSTO#p193672


Is there any chance of the SOM-J satisfying RAAF requirements in your opinion?

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 13:38
by spazsinbad
I think you must agree my opinion is irrelevant. If you see RAAF people talking to SOM-J people then that is evidence of interest. What goes on behind closed RAAF doors I have no idea. One should be interested in everything - in my opinion.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 14:43
by mixelflick
spazsinbad wrote:


Reminds me of the early Raptor demo's. They're playing it conservative/holding back. Let's hope they take the gloves off soon, so we can see the 50 degree angle of attack/nose pointing authority..

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 16:00
by Dragon029
During one of the turns they describe it (in another video of the same demo) as being a 6.5G turn (at least that's what the planned manoeuvre would be).

As for the SOM-J; I only see the RAAF going with it if the JSM is seriously delayed, or unless there's a considerable difference in cost or performance (which doesn't seem to be the case; cost is publicly unknown, but the JSM seems to be the better missile in terms of range and sensors).

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 17:35
by maus92
mixelflick wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:


Reminds me of the early Raptor demo's. They're playing it conservative/holding back. Let's hope they take the gloves off soon, so we can see the 50 degree angle of attack/nose pointing authority..


'The F-35 demos that I've seen were pretty tame. There are limits in place. At OCMD, the Super Hornet demo blew the doors off the F-35 demo. 3F should open it up a bit.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 17:39
by maus92
Not much publicity about the time it took for the RAAF F-35As to make their Pacific transit, unlike the leisurely F-35B deployment to Japan.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 17:40
by spazsinbad
This is just sad. Clearly when there is an F-35A/B/C Demo Pilot Group with aircraft cleared for such low altitude demonstrations there will be an airshow F-35 variant routine. Until then ordinary F-35 pilots will give ordinary F-35 demonstrations. Why is this not clear? The western armed forces world are not deadshits like some other armed forces - or some civilian warbird airshow crash pilots.

And I see 'maus92' does not bother to read other posts. At the top of this page the same 'no lightning protection' quote from 'beepa' is in full view. I guess that was not in the headline for the 'headline only' readers here. And as I typed my second paragraph 'maus92' removed the 'lightning protection ABC' quote.

While the F-35B deployment to Japan is described by 'maus92' as leisurely he gives no specifics. If one looks at the thread relevant to this deployment one may see the ten aircraft staggered the crossing in small groups so it was never clear how long any group took to complete their journey. Not that it matters much because weather is a necessary determinant of when aircraft undertake such a long ocean crossing. Throw in other housekeeping factors and journey time irrelevant considering there were no maintenance delays for example. Quote from SLDinfo post on previous page this thread:
"...The two aircraft (A35-001 and -002) had flown from Luke AFB via Hawaii, Guam and RAAF Base Amberley and had achieved a milestone for the longest [15,000Km] overseas deployment to date.

They were accompanied during the ferry by a RAAF C-17 Globemaster III carrying associated stores and equipment and a RAAF KC-30A tanker, which supplied over 197,000 lbs of fuel during the 21 air-to-air fuelling cycles...."

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 19:10
by juretrn
That display was pretty boring. I get it, they're playing it safe, but still. At least the -B variant hovered for a while when I saw it at Farnborough in July.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 19:43
by spazsinbad
:devil: Yep - I'll be gobsmacked when I see the RAAF Hovering in any kind of display. :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 20:09
by yeswepromise
With the F-35 coming into the spotlight in the never before seen "social media age", a mishap at a public show would be the absolute worst thing for the entire program. I cant even fathom the negative attention the program would get. Look how many stories get coverage despite being half true at the most.

The fact is, they are going to have to play it extra safe for quite a while. The F-35 isn't an aerobatic plane. It isnt a super bug that has been running an airshow routine for years and years and years. The public will never see what the F-35's true strengths are. It just doesn't work that way. Same thing as watching a B-1 or B-2 demo at a show... they aren't gonna do anything fancy.

I think the Dutch put on the most aggressive show to date, for what its worth.


Anyway, lot more public displays in 2017. Should be a fun year. Glad the AUs made it to their homeland.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 21:12
by maus92
spazsinbad wrote:
And I see 'maus92' does not bother to read other posts. At the top of this page the same 'no lightning protection' quote from 'beepa' is in full view. I guess that was not in the headline for the 'headline only' readers here. And as I typed my second paragraph 'maus92' removed the 'lightning protection ABC' quote.



I did. I was just trying to avoid nitpicking by the usual suspect. But if I didn't post from time to time, there would be nothing for you to complain about. 8)

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 21:54
by spazsinbad
OH that is sad indeed. You have forgotten your history here - on this forum - not on Pprune - where ya bin?. No 'LO"? :?

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2017, 01:27
by jetblast16

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2017, 10:13
by spazsinbad
Article below excerpted originally posted by 'duplex' here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=52843&p=363938&hilit=adverse#p363938
Lightning Grounds F-35 in Australia As Promised Fix Not Implemented
06 Mar 2017 Giovanni de Briganti

"PARIS --- The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) on Saturday grounded two Lockheed F-35A Lightning II fighters attending the Avalon air show because of thunderstorms, preventing them from flying on the shows’ last day and delaying their return flight to the United States for 24 hours....

...[Clearly GIOVANNI needs some English Comprehension Training - but I'm not hoping] The grounding is as significant as it is unexpected because it shows the F-35 remains vulnerable to lightning two years after the program executive told Congress the issue was fixed [obviously NOT on every aircraft so affected until they go through an upgrade cycle]....

...The JPO has not responded to a request for comment e-mailed on Sunday.... [Clearly GIOVANNI the JPO understand]

...Adverse to adverse weather [I'd hire the fwit as a clickbait headline writer]
The F-35’s continued inability to fly near thunderstorms, like its inability to take off in fog that was revealed during its six-day ferry flight to Israel in December, shows it is still severely limited in adverse-weather operations, 16 years into its development and 11 years since its first flight.... [WILD Weather Generates WILD GUESSES! Do I qualify? :mrgreen: ]

...For F-35, ownership is not control [EXCEPT WHEN ONE AGREES TO ANOTHER ARRANGEMENT]
This incident also graphically illustrates that while F-35 customers may own their aircraft, operational control remains with the United States. This paradoxical situation is explained in the RAAF statement:

“While the visiting F-35A aircraft belong to Australia, they are currently placed within a training pool in the United States and the specific movements of the aircraft are authorised by the United States.

Authorisation has been given for the aircraft to ferry to RAAF Base Amberley, from RAAF Base Amberley to Avalon, and then return from Avalon to RAAF Base Amberley before returning to the United States. Following a late notice request by the Royal Australian Air Force, the USAF supported and approved an Avalon to Avalon event yesterday.

Approval to fly at Avalon on Sunday was not requested by the Royal Australian Air Force and, therefore, with the weather events in Amberley, we are unfortunately unable to seek that authorisation."


Status of Australian F-35 program
The two F-35As (serial n° AU-1 and AU-2) exhibited at the Avalon show rolled off Lockheed Martin’s production line in Ft Worth, Texas, in July 2014, and five months later, on Dec. 18, landed at Luke air force base, in Arizona, to join the multinational F-35 training pool based there.....

Source: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... ented.html

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2017, 11:59
by mk82
Geez, Giovanni is such a f*ckwit. With his half truths and oft blatant lies. Dear Giovanni also forgets that fighter pilots, including Italian fighter pilots, avoid flying in bloody thick fog if the flight/mission is not a critical one.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2017, 12:56
by munny
Something I heard at Avalon. The 2 F-35's flew from Luke AFB to Hawaii and took 7 top-ups on the way. That's just 350nmi per refuel. Is it normal on long flights to refuel when you get to two thirds of a tank remaining?

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2017, 14:47
by steve2267
spazsinbad wrote:
"...The two aircraft (A35-001 and -002) had flown from Luke AFB via Hawaii, Guam and RAAF Base Amberley and had achieved a milestone for the longest [15,000Km] overseas deployment to date.

They were accompanied during the ferry by a RAAF C-17 Globemaster III carrying associated stores and equipment and a RAAF KC-30A tanker, which supplied over 197,000 lbs of fuel during the 21 air-to-air fuelling cycles...."


If they flew great circle routes between their intermediate destinations:

2017_RAAF_F-35A_KLUF-YAMB.jpg


Assuming KC-30A refuels fighters within the same speed as a KC-135, that puts them somewhere between Mach 0.8 and Mach 0.85.

At Mach 0.8 cruise, they would have taken approx 18.1 hours to reach RAAF Amberley. 21 refuelings over 18.1 hours works out to hitting the tanker every 51 minutes. 197,000 lbs of fuel between two aircraft and doled out in 21 chunks is 4690 lbs of fuel per IFR op. This would work out to a fuel burn of 5440 lbs/hr or 90.7 lbs/sec, which is right in line with all the other numbers I've strangled or seen. Without knowing the drag of the F-35A, I can't compute a SFC. However, if TEG's estimate of an SFC of 0.7 lb/lbf-hr is accurate for an F135 in mil power, then the drag of an F-35A @ Mach 0.8 would be about 7770 lbs. (I have absolutely no feel for this number, right / wrong / ballpark / peers).

At Mach 0.85 cruise, they would have shaved an hour off and taken approx 17 hours to reach RAAF Amberley, which, with 21 refuelings works out to IFR every 49 minutes. This would be a fuel burn of 5780 lbs/r or 96.3 lbs/sec.

These are round numbers, ignoring the exact flight route, climb/descent etc. But over such a long trip, they should be in the ballpark.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2017, 15:46
by steve2267
munny wrote:Something I heard at Avalon. The 2 F-35's flew from Luke AFB to Hawaii and took 7 top-ups on the way. That's just 350nmi per refuel. Is it normal on long flights to refuel when you get to two thirds of a tank remaining?


Might I enquire as to the context of what you heard? I.e., at a press brief? two pilots talking? two attendees conversing?

Seven refuelings is not out of the question, but looking at the rough times I posted above, I would have expected six refuelings between Luke and Hawaii, nine refuelings from Hawaii to Guam (the longest leg), and six refuelings between Guam and Amberley. On the other hand, I don't know what the winds were that day. Traveling east to west, you are generally always facing a headwind. I could easily see a 50kt headwind at altitude all the way from the west coast of the US to Hawaii. 100kts would not be unheard of. Most pilots on this forum, e.g. BP, have far more experience than I about winds up around 25-35,000 ft and over the Pacific. Gen Pleus, was it (?), stated they generally tank every 40-45 minutes on long overwater flights. Call it 42.5 minutes then. If they cover 359nm every 42.5 minutes, then their ground speed is 506 kts. Which is Mach 0.885 (with no wind!) If they were tanking every 50 minutes (+/-) by my swags above, then their ground speed was 430 kts. Figure in a head wind of 50 kts, that would give them a TAS of 480 kts or around Mach 0.84, which seems more reasonable.

I was just playing around with some additional numbers (guesstimates of times) and the wild cards are actual route flown (distance + time taken), and actual inflight winds.

To answer your question: IMO, seven inflight refuelings from Luke to Hawaii works out to refueling around every 45 minutes (+/-) or so, and every 350ish nm which works out to a TAS in the vicinity of Mach 0.8, so it is reasonable.

Musing over the route some more... it is also, IMO, entirely plausible they IFR'd seven times from Luke to Hawaii, nine times from Hawaii to Guam, but only five times from Guam to Amberley, relying on the fact that they had many more divert options as they approached Papua New Guinea and so utilized more of the internal fuel of the jet at that point.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2017, 17:47
by spazsinbad
AFAIC AsFarAsI'mConcerned this is currently the golden standard for USAF and other variant (under USMC protest) ARF Air ReFuelling: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=363758&hilit=Pleus#p363758 on page 32 this thread

This looks like the funnest website to while away ARF hours: http://www.aircalculator.com/
"...“So when we plan these things we take the worst winds, we take the worst configuration of the airplane, and we say: at the worst time, what would happen?” said Pleus, a former F-16 pilot who now heads the Air Force’s F-35 integration office. “It is very conservative, and the reason why we’re so conservative is because it’s a life or death decision.”

Traditionally the Air Force refuels “almost continuously” when crossing a large body of water, as often as every 30 or 40 min., Pleus said. An F-35B, which carries 5,000 lb. less fuel than the Air Force F-35A, likely needs to hit the tanker even more often than that, he noted.

Pleus pushed back on Davis’ criticism, stressing that extending time between refuelings during an ocean crossing would mean more risk to pilots...." viewtopic.php?f=61&t=27157&p=362822&hilit=Pleus#p362822

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2017, 04:06
by spazsinbad
Avalon 2017: F-35A woos Australia
03 Mar 2017 Gordon Arthur

"...The Royal Australian Air Force's (RAAF) F-35As flew from Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, stopping over in Hawaii, Guam and Brisbane [RAAF Amberley] before reaching Avalon. They completed 21 refuelling brackets from an accompanying A330 MRTT, while a C-17A also flew in support.

All in all, it was a major logistical effort to get the F-35As to Australia – the type's longest haul so far – for what was essentially a public relations exercise. [THINK of the training for all concerned - longest type haul are not for naught]

After the air show, the F-35As will fly back to the US with RAAF pilots at the controls to continue their training regime. Four Australian pilots are undergoing training, while a fifth will head there in a few months' time. Twenty-five maintainers are undergoing ground training too.

These aircraft are being used by No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit, which is currently part of the US Air Force's 61st Fighter Squadron at Luke Air Force Base. The RAAF will stand up No 3 Squadron in Australia next year to begin operating the F-35. By 2020 the RAAF expects to have enough instructors and maintainers to run its own training courses in-country. By December of that year, the RAAF plans to declare an initial operational capability...."

Source: https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defe ... ing-debut/

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2017, 13:51
by munny
steve2267 wrote:
munny wrote:Something I heard at Avalon. The 2 F-35's flew from Luke AFB to Hawaii and took 7 top-ups on the way. That's just 350nmi per refuel. Is it normal on long flights to refuel when you get to two thirds of a tank remaining?


Might I enquire as to the context of what you heard? I.e., at a press brief? two pilots talking? two attendees conversing?

Seven refuelings is not out of the question, but looking at the rough times I posted above, I would have expected six refuelings between Luke and Hawaii, nine refuelings from Hawaii to Guam (the longest leg), and six refuelings between Guam and Amberley. On the other hand, I don't know what the winds were that day. Traveling east to west, you are generally always facing a headwind. I could easily see a 50kt headwind at altitude all the way from the west coast of the US to Hawaii. 100kts would not be unheard of. Most pilots on this forum, e.g. BP, have far more experience than I about winds up around 25-35,000 ft and over the Pacific. Gen Pleus, was it (?), stated they generally tank every 40-45 minutes on long overwater flights. Call it 42.5 minutes then. If they cover 359nm every 42.5 minutes, then their ground speed is 506 kts. Which is Mach 0.885 (with no wind!) If they were tanking every 50 minutes (+/-) by my swags above, then their ground speed was 430 kts. Figure in a head wind of 50 kts, that would give them a TAS of 480 kts or around Mach 0.84, which seems more reasonable.

I was just playing around with some additional numbers (guesstimates of times) and the wild cards are actual route flown (distance + time taken), and actual inflight winds.

To answer your question: IMO, seven inflight refuelings from Luke to Hawaii works out to refueling around every 45 minutes (+/-) or so, and every 350ish nm which works out to a TAS in the vicinity of Mach 0.8, so it is reasonable.

Musing over the route some more... it is also, IMO, entirely plausible they IFR'd seven times from Luke to Hawaii, nine times from Hawaii to Guam, but only five times from Guam to Amberley, relying on the fact that they had many more divert options as they approached Papua New Guinea and so utilized more of the internal fuel of the jet at that point.


Listen to the commentary on this vid.

https://youtu.be/u7kF9BgDze4

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2017, 14:51
by steve2267
At the 1:05 mark in the video, the announcer says "It's about a seven-and-a-half hour leg" and he mentions Hawaii. But part of the sentence was cut off. Assuming his 7.5 hour leg remark was about the Luke AFB - Hawaii leg, that would suggest headwinds that added about 2 hours to their flight time if they cruised at Mach 0.8. Mach 0.8 is about 459kts TAS with no wind up around 30,000. A 7.5 hour flight to Hawaii from Luke AFB, assuming close to a great circle route, would mean a ground speed of 334 knots which suggests either a 125kt headwind (not unreasonable at all -- here are current forecast winds aloft over Hawaii) and/or a lower cruise speed. Of course, the Mach 0.8 is just a swag at their cruise speed.

If they tanked every forty-five minutes per comments by Gen Pleus, that would get them 5:15 into the flight, and leave them to fly into Hawaii for 2:15 on internal fuel, which seems plausible.

If they are taking 4690lbs per tanking every 45 minutes, that gives a fuel burn of 6250 lbs / hour or 104 lbs/sec. If TEG's SFC estimate of a 0.7 lb / lbf-hr is close, then the motor is putting out around 8900 lbs of thrust, which is about 32% of rated maximum MIL thrust. Total fuel burn to Hawaii would have been around 47000 lbs yielding 18.6 lbs / nm or 0.05 nm/lb of fuel. But those "mpg" figures will be skewed a bit lower because of the stiff headwind along the entire route.
(It's either that or they got there in 5 1/2 hours and had to circle for two hours waiting for the fog to burn off because the F-35 can't fly in fog, dontchaknow. :twisted: )

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2017, 15:08
by spazsinbad
What part of "...as often as every 30 or 40 min..." becomes 45 minutes? I do not understand the requirement to figure out all of this. You have indicated the imponderables, the guesses, the 'I don't knows' and on it goes but still... I don't get it.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2017, 15:13
by steve2267
spazsinbad wrote:What part of "...as often as every 30 or 40 min..." becomes 45 minutes? I do not understand the requirement to figure out all of this. You have indicated the imponderables, the guesses, the 'I don't knows' and on it goes but still... I don't get it.


A feeble memory?

Sorry. I remembered 45 minutes. :bang:

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2017, 15:19
by steve2267
Now I cannot make the numbers work. If they had tanked every 45 minutes, taking on 4690 lbs, that gave a fuel burn of 6250 lbs/hr and left the jets to fly 2.25 hours which would leave them with around 4500 lbs of gas in their tanks upon landing.

If they tanked every 40 minutes taking on 4690 lbs, that gives a fuel burn of 7035 lbs/hr and they still have to fly 2.81 hrs, so they land with minus 268 lbs of gas. So my numbers don't work and my assumptions are wrong somewhere. Oh well.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2017, 15:29
by spazsinbad
There are so many variables in flight then the interruption of refuelling (perhaps NOT EVEN at regular but obviously) many times will put any calculations of anything at peril. The USAF have figured this out because they know what to expect - they have the details which you do not have. There are a few ocean crossings under their respective belts now to hone what is known about this evolution of ARF.

Consider the minutiae of the aircraft not quite tanking at the precise time required for example. Perhaps these details are irrelevant. I would say so because the final state - full or near full fuel is the requirement. Calculations of steady state do not mean much when safety is the requirement. The aircraft perhaps will tank more than planned because of the in flight variables. They will burn down to a fuel state then tank. It could be as simple as that.

I see you have responded with another post - whilst my typing of my own reply took longer than expected.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2017, 15:42
by steve2267
Spurts had given me a figure of 5119 pph for max endurance for a 52000lb heavy F-35. He also gave a max endurance SFC of 2706 pph at bone dry weight. For max range he gave me a figure of .0957 nm/lb @ 0.855M/34kft at 52,000lb which equates to 5172 pph (@ 495 KTAS @34K) and .17212 nm/lb @ 0.854M/46kft for max range or 2847 pph (@ 490 KTAS @ 46K) also bone dry. Since you don't want to land bone dry, I figure you want at a minimum 45 minutes flying time at max endurance, so you will not be at bone dry weight. For sake of convservatism, I am going to use a fuel burn with a 45 minute reserve left in the tanks of 3000 pph. That gives an average fuel burn of (5172 + 3000)/2 = 4090 pph for max cruise.

If the two F-35s tanked 21 times, each taking on 98,500 lbs of fuel, and they tanked every 40 minutes filling the tanks, then that means they used [ 98500 lbs - 21*(4090pph * 0.67 hrs) ] / 3 = 13,650 lbs of fuel to climb to cruise altitude. That seems awfully high.

If I go back to the 590nm combat range figure given in the 2017 Fast Facts brochure, and make the following assumptions:
  • climb (estimate 50nm to climb to 30,000+ ft cruise altitude)
  • cruise to target @ max cruise range speed (0.9M cruise / dash would consume more fuel)
  • one minute combat on afterburner (SFC 1.95 * 43000 lbs / 60 min/hr * 1min = 1400 lbs)
  • cruise back to base
  • descent (estimate 300lb @ idle and 70nm)
  • land with 45 minute reserve @ max endurance (0.75 * 3000 = 2250 lbs)

This means I have to "cruise" for 590 nm - average climb/descent [ (50+70)/2 ] ~ 530nm. If max range cruise is 0.855M or 495 KTAS (per Spurts), then 530nm entails cruising for 1.07 hours at an average fuel flow of 4090 pph.

Total fuel - total cruise fuel - combat fuel - descent fuel - reserve fuel = ~fuel used to climb to cruise altitude.
18250 - 2*1.07*4090 (cruise to target & return) - 1400 (1 min @ MAX) - 300 (descent swag) - 2250 (45 min @ max endurance) = 5547 lbs fuel to climb to altitude.

Back to the transPacific down under flight...

(98500 lbs fuel - 3 (takeoffs/climbs) * 5547 lbs fuel per climb) / 21 = 3898 lbs per tanking divided by an average cruise fuel consumption of 4090 pph gives 0.953 hrs or 57 minutes. These numbers strongly suggest they tanked every 57 minutes. If you run the numbers with an average fuel flow of 5000 pph, then you get 3898 lbs / 5000 pph = 0.7796 hrs = 47 minutes.

So either the good General Pleus may have been speaking in generalities when he said they tank every 30-40 minutes, or Spurts fuel consumption numbers are low. Or the 197,000 lb total fuel transferred figure and/or the number of refuelings is in error.

How do you like them apples (numbers)? :twisted: :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2017, 16:08
by spazsinbad
Now we have this approximation 'over': how much is 'over'? Over Under Sideways Down - the military aren't giving anything away here. Is not it obvious that only approximations will be given so that real figures CANNOT be deduced? I give up.

We do not know so many things for these flights - altitude, airspeed, wind and air temperatures amongst other unknowns.
"...RAAF KC-30A tanker, which supplied over 197,000 lbs of fuel during the 21 air-to-air fuelling cycles..."

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2017, 17:25
by steve2267
spazsinbad wrote:Now we have this approximation 'over': how much is 'over'? Over Under Sideways Down - the military aren't giving anything away here. Is not it obvious that only approximations will be given so that real figures CANNOT be deduced? I give up.

We do not know so many things for these flights - altitude, airspeed, wind and air temperatures amongst other unknowns.
"...RAAF KC-30A tanker, which supplied over 197,000 lbs of fuel during the 21 air-to-air fuelling cycles..."


Yes, approximations on performance is all we have. Though we do have some hard numbers that may serve as bounds. 197,000 lbs of fuel is a hard number (unless they are deliberately obfuscating it). 21 air-to-air fueling cycles is a hard number. That gives a pretty good average on how much fuel was transferred per fueling cycle, with the exception of the first fueling which would have included fuel burned to get to altitude. A rather large unknown that.

Is it OK if I sit here quietly and play with my numbers? Or should I have my numbers resort to insulting each other and argue about "lockon" etc. At least I haven't tried to bring Gripen fuel burn into this conversation! :mrgreen: :twisted:

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2017, 18:07
by steve2267
spazsinbad wrote:There are so many variables in flight then the interruption of refuelling (perhaps NOT EVEN at regular but obviously) many times will put any calculations of anything at peril. The USAF have figured this out because they know what to expect - they have the details which you do not have. There are a few ocean crossings under their respective belts now to hone what is known about this evolution of ARF.

Consider the minutiae of the aircraft not quite tanking at the precise time required for example. Perhaps these details are irrelevant. I would say so because the final state - full or near full fuel is the requirement. Calculations of steady state do not mean much when safety is the requirement. The aircraft perhaps will tank more than planned because of the in flight variables. They will burn down to a fuel state then tank. It could be as simple as that.

I see you have responded with another post - whilst my typing of my own reply took longer than expected.


Spaz, I agree with everything you have said. However, if given the total fuel transferred, and the total number of hookups, then if the assumption that the tanks are always topped off is reasonable, you can either figure fuel burned per hour if you know how often they tank ("every 30 to 40 minutes" per Gen Pleus) and you can account for fuel burned during climb to cruise altitude, or given fuel burned to climb to cruise altitude and fuel burn numbers, you can estimate how often they tanked. Total flight time, range, route etc are no longer variables here. (As far as I can divine.)

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2017, 21:39
by spazsinbad
Yes but what does it all mean - as much as you have divined anyway. There are unknowns. I'm in a different time zone so while asleep I thought of some reasons why these two F-35As may not have flown how you think. For example I gather the tanker has plenty of gas for only the two F-35As and itself. To minimise flight time (NOT to maximise range or otherwise confirm range fuel figures, which must be well documented by now) the two F-35As did a burner climb to cruise altitude and then began their tanking cycles at intervals as vaguely described. Meanwhile did they and the tanker accelerate to a fast, other than optimal, cruise speed (I guess limited by tanker ability) and then slow down to tank. This would be done to minimise the flight/pilot fatigue time - but within the USAF limits as described earlier - safe fuel diversion for all concerned. This is but one example of what may have happened and we have no idea of the real circumstances of flight.

Pilots - if they have plenty of gas at the end - will do a faster (within whatever limits there are such as speed/fuel) than planned descent to get on the ground ASAP so they can do whatever they do on two legs - bugga the flight plan times. :shock:

Then there are assumptions about the probably great circle route. Weather/wind at high altitude may favour a dog leg into a jet stream or out of a headwind Jetstream. OR cloud at altitude may dictate a less than optimal altitude (along with the jet stream considerations). Do we know anything about this or do we always assume these aircraft will fly a certain way because it suits your assumptions? I'll imagine that with computers onboard it is easy to figure out this stuff.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2017, 22:53
by steve2267
spazsinbad wrote:Yes but what does it all mean - as much as you have divined anyway. There are unknowns. I'm in a different time zone so while asleep I thought of some reasons why these two F-35As may not have flown how you think.


Welcome back to the land of the awake! :mrgreen:

spazsinbad wrote: For example I gather the tanker has plenty of gas for only the two F-35As and itself. To minimise flight time (NOT to maximise range or otherwise confirm range fuel figures, which must be well documented by now) the two F-35As did a burner climb to cruise altitude and then began their tanking cycles at intervals as vaguely described. Meanwhile did they and the tanker accelerate to a fast, other than optimal, cruise speed (I guess limited by tanker ability) and then slow down to tank. This would be done to minimise the flight/pilot fatigue time - but within the USAF limits as described earlier - safe fuel diversion for all concerned. This is but one example of what may have happened and we have no idea of the real circumstances of flight.

Pilots - if they have plenty of gas at the end - will do a faster (within whatever limits there are such as speed/fuel) than planned descent to get on the ground ASAP so they can do whatever they do on two legs - bugga the flight plan times. :shock:


I received some updated numbers from Spurts. He stated that 2000lb to climb to cruise altitude is reasonable, and that 300lb for descent is also reasonable. He also stated that the recommended reserve is 2500lb uncovered in a "leaked" document that you (Spaz) had posted a while back. (So my 2250 lb was not too far off.)

My use of 4090 pph for cruise is incorrect however. That figure would make sense as an average fuel consumption for an un-refueled solo x-country trip as it is the average of fully loaded (5172 pph) and almost empty (3000 pph) fuel consumption rates. But since these birds are constantly sipping gas, they are always on the full / heavy side. So 5100 pph for cruise fuel burn (which Spurts gave me as well) makes sense.

But what you say regarding assuming they flew at optimal cruise speed makes sense. We don't know at what speed they flew.

spazsinbad wrote:Then there are assumptions about the probably great circle route. Weather/wind at high altitude may favour a dog leg into a jet stream or out of a headwind Jetstream. OR cloud at altitude may dictate a less than optimal altitude (along with the jet stream considerations). Do we know anything about this or do we always assume these aircraft will fly a certain way because it suits your assumptions? I'll imagine that with computers onboard it is easy to figure out this stuff.


However, I do not make any assumptions in these most recent calculations regarding weather or route. Winds would affect cruise speed, so a stiffer headwind means you may push up your cruise speed and burn more gas. But... wait for the numbers. :twisted:

The fact is they had to burn 98500 lbs of gas each, and they had 21 midair refuelings.

Using Spurts' figure of 2000 lb to climb to cruise, 98500 lbs - 2000 lbs / climb * 3 climbs = 92500 lbs across 21 refuelings means they averaged 4400 lbs per refueling. At an average fuel transfer rate of 1500 lb/min, it will take 2.93 minutes to transfer 4400 lbs. But they're still burning gas while they're on the boom...so if they get on the boom at 40 minutes, get off the boom at 42.93 minutes and have taken 4400 lbs, then the fuel burn is 4400 lbs / (42.93/60) = 6150 lbs/hr. According to Spurts, when he calculated the 610nm mission profile, the fuel burn for the 0.9M dash in / dash out varied between 6000 lb/hr and 5300 lb/hr. So 6150 lbs / hr suggests the F-35 is going around 0.9M or faster. But the max operating speed of the A-330 (KC-30A) is 0.86M. In this case I held the good General's figure of tanking every 40 minutes as good, and solved for fuel consumption rate (assuming 2000lb fuel for climb to cruise altitude.)

If I hold Spurts 5100 lb/hr figure for cruise as good, and calculate refueling intervals...

4400 lbs per refueling / 5100 lbs / hr = 0.86 hrs or 51.8 minutes (including time on the stick.) It takes 2.93 min to transfer 4400 lb @ 1500lb/min, so they would need to get on the stick every 51.8 - 2.93 = 48.87 min... call it roughly every 49, maybe 50 minutes they tank. Note that Spurts figured max cruise range cruise speed for the F-35 is @ 0.855M, so we're basically already flying as fast as the KC-30A can go. If they tanked every 45 minutes, the F-35 fuel consumption would have to be 5870 lbs/hr with 2000 lb for climbout.

If we hold the General's 40 minute figure good, and Spurts' 5100 lb/hr fuel burn good, then refueling every 40 minutes means 3400lb of gas are needed. 3400 lbs of gas gakes about 2.27 minutes to transfer, so total fuel transferred per topuup would be 42.27/60*5100 = 3593 lbs. 98500 lbs fuel - 21 refuelings * 3593 lbs = 23048 lbs for three climbouts, meaning each climb consumed 7680lbs, which is WAY more than Spurts had calculated, though it does appear to be a lot less than what a SHornet burns to get to 35K ft (if I read the SHornet's performance chart correctly).

Looking at an F-16 climb to 35,000 ft in MIL vs MAX A/B, the Block 50 charts seemed to show a roughly 25% increased fuel burn in A/B to get to that cruise altitude. Applying a 25% A/B "penalty" to the 2000 lb fuel burn that Spurts had given me, means the F-35s would have burned 2500lb to get to cruise altitude. This makes very little difference in the above numbers.

So my conclusion remains roughly the same: either Spurts' fuel burn numbers are low by about 1000 lb/hr, OR his fuel burn for climb numbers are way off, or they tanked not as frequently as the General mentioned. Personally, I don't think it is a big deal if the General says they hit the tankers every "30-40 minutes" but in actuality, the F-35A's were getting gas every 49 minutes.

Lastly, if they were getting as every 49 minutes (and Spurts 5100 lb/hr and 2000 lb/climb are close), then the flight from Luke AFB to Hawaii which was stated by the public address announcer @ Avalon to have taken "seven and a half hours" with seven refuelings means that 7 * 49/60 = 5 hrs 45 min and they had to fly about 1 hr 45 min on the last leg (after their last refueling) on internal fuel. So the pilots could have dropped the hammer on that last leg to get to the head quickly. If they were tanking every 40 minutes, then that last leg would have been 2 hrs 50 min on internal fuel only, which at 5100 lb/hr would have left them with 3800 lb in the ganks. If the fuel burn was 6100 lb/hr, they would have landed with 987 lb which is a lot less than their "leaked" recommended reserves of 2500 lb.

So, for me anyway, with Spurts fuel consumption figures, it looks like they tank every 49 minutes. (No biggie for me.)

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2017, 22:58
by spazsinbad
:roll: Numbers with assumptions - they mean so much - and I'm glad that you are glad. Are we there yet? :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2017, 23:01
by steve2267
spazsinbad wrote::roll: Numbers with assumptions - they mean so much - and I'm glad that you are glad. Are we there yet? :doh:


I'm there! :bang: :crazypilot: :cheers:

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2017, 00:20
by sprstdlyscottsmn
He forgot the caveat that those numbers are from an outdated model. It is entirely possible my current model will yield higher fuel burn results, but as spaz alluded to these are all models based on public data, assumptions, and engineering.

I change my models to suit new data, I don't change the data to fit my model.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2017, 01:00
by spazsinbad
Heheh - I could make 'change' jokes but will refrain.... :mrgreen: I appreciate the effort put into these calculations however from my own experience (look at Performance Data in A4G NATOPS) there are so many variables and I will admit I know nothing about these long boom refuelling flights over water with next to no knowledge (except PLEUS) about 'why this is so'.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2017, 01:10
by jbgator
Yahoo are you really done? Cause I was wondering:

1. Are the Aussie lawmakers really confident in the F-35 cause of AAR numbers enroute to wherever?

2. Steve, do you really have this much time on your hands?

3. Simple examples to show that how often you refuel DEPENDS:

Lets say you have 1000 NM range with fuel reserve. You fly from A to B which is 2000 NM across the water. Simple math would say you fly 1000 NM, top off, and go the next 1000. But what if you jump on the tanker (actually about 900 NM as it takes a while to refill) and you cannot take gas (your jet failed or tanker fails). 1000 NM to go on empty. So how about filling up at 500 NM out so you could turn around and come back if the fill-up fails. You do that but what about at 800 NM out where you now have 700 NM range left? So now you fill up at 700 NM out. But what about 900 NM out? You have 800 left. Are you getting the picture? As the range to diverts gets greater you refuel more often. This is a very simplistic example. Imagine a 4000 NM route where the diverts are left or right of your course as much as 1000 NM away. What would you do? The folks in the AF AOS have been doing this as long as there have been AR capable aircraft. They factor in winds and distance to suitable diverts and plan the ARs accordingly. You may find yourself in a continuos topoff iteration during parts of your route as the more aircraft you have trying to get on the boom/basket, the longer the whole iteration takes. Everyone is burning gas while you do that. What if that nugget takes longer to get connected? I have been in a flight of 6 on a KC-10 doing a continuous flow across the boom to stay topped off. As fast as 6 gets off #1 needs gas. I have tremendous respect for Marine Air, but they don't do this stuff for a living. That's what USAF runs all overseas movements via the AOS.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2017, 01:21
by steve2267
JB,

Is it a cardinal rule of long overwater ops, that at any given point in time, any given aircraft will have enough gas to divert somewhere given current / forecast weather? That is to say, does the AF ever conduct ops where during a certain stretch of a flight you may not be within a divert airfield (i.e. too far away)? Thanks.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2017, 01:28
by spazsinbad
Thanks for info 'jbgator'. Makes sense why 'continuously refuelling' has been mentioned earlier. In defence of USMC they are used to flying over water (same as USN) but they do so usually from a flat deck which should always be available - whilst bad weather will not be a problem for their F-35B/Cs with JPALS and future auto landing capability with fuel OK.

I'm suggesting that USN/USMC have a different mindset to these refuelling issues. Will be interesting to see the USN long haul over water flights (if they carry them out).

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2017, 01:43
by jbgator
Can't say you will always be able to divert but they actually alter the route of flight to stay within range of diverts (to your assumption of GC route...not necessarily). I have never done an AOS route where I did not have at least one divert for each leg of the route but I never did a Pacific crossing (Just Hawaii to CONUS).

I'm sure USN and USMC have different mindsets about AAR (and different from each other). Navy has their blue water ops and I'm sure the Marines have some unique concepts. But when you are moving aircraft across an ocean for delivery you think about risk differently than you do when there is no other option (blue water) or combat. It isn't about number of engines, if you flame out from fuel starvation it doesn't matter how many you have.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program on the Aussies and their confidence in the F-35.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2017, 02:35
by spazsinbad
:devil: We forgot about 'Oz lawmakers' on first page this thread I think :doh: They have been OK with it all along - no probs.

This is what I said about Great Circle route and I agree there are so many variables. For example we know the USMC going to Japan went north due to weather.
"...Then there are assumptions about the probably [meant probable] great circle route. Weather/wind at high altitude may favour a dog leg into a jet stream or out of a headwind Jetstream. OR cloud at altitude may dictate a less than optimal altitude (along with the jet stream considerations)...."

During my stint onboard MELBOURNE late 1971-early 1972 there were only four A4Gs so no possibility of a buddy tanker with 'blue water' ops the norm EXCEPT bad weather/swells could cancel flying for a time (or our late fast transits minimised flying day time). As mentioned on earlier threads I have been south of Hawaii with no chance to get their waiting for the wires to be fixed so I could get aboard. TRUST when VALIDATED/fulfilled is a wonderful thing. :drool: :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2017, 03:48
by steve2267
Not sure this is within the AF AOS rules, and you'd need your poopy suit for sure, but a GC route from Luke AFB direct to RAAF Amberley is only 6520nm or so (only 13.2 hours @ 0.84M @ 30K or 17.6 hours with a 1250kt headwind the whole way). :twisted:

The good news? Once you're up and tanked, and if you tank every 40 minutes, so you keep it within 4400lbs of a full load, you should have a divert range of at least 1325 nm (yeah, yeah, no wind, but that is a conservative swag too and ignores increasing fuel economy as you get lighter)...which means you should always be within divert distance of the west coast of the US, Hawaii, or American Somoa. Then you get into all those other islands and New Caldonia etc. Heck you could even divert to Henderson Field on Guadulcanal if you felt the need. :devil:

Too bad you couldn't let George fly the plane, and crawl back to a bunk in one of the weapons bays... Oh yeah, you'd roast. Nevermind.

GC_KLUF-YAMB.jpg

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Mar 2017, 22:13
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:
And I see 'maus92' does not bother to read other posts. At the top of this page the same 'no lightning protection' quote from 'beepa' is in full view. I guess that was not in the headline for the 'headline only' readers here. And as I typed my second paragraph 'maus92' removed the 'lightning protection ABC' quote.



I did. I was just trying to avoid nitpicking by the usual suspect. But if I didn't post from time to time, there would be nothing for you to complain about. 8)



You only post here to complain anyway.

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

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2017, 04:28
by spazsinbad
Complain about this-LM video about PLAN JERICHO with Ret'd BigsOfWig RAN & RAAF spruiking de truf man - nuttin' butt.


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

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2017, 13:00
by ricnunes
spazsinbad wrote:Complain about this-LM video about PLAN JERICHO with Ret'd BigsOfWig RAN & RAAF spruiking de truf man - nuttin' butt.




Did you noticed that the Growler wasn't even mentioned (let alone the -F variant of the Super Hornet)?
This is very interesting indeed (and almost amusing since it should be "sad" for all those Boeing fans and F-35 haters "out there") :D

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

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2017, 00:57
by Dragon029
Keep in mind that the video is from Lockheed Martin; there is a Boeing E-7A in the video, but you can't really have a video about C4ISR, etc without the C.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2017, 14:07
by ricnunes
Dragon029 wrote:Keep in mind that the video is from Lockheed Martin; there is a Boeing E-7A in the video, but you can't really have a video about C4ISR, etc without the C.


Yes indeed and that was one of the first things that came into my mind after watching the video but then I remembered that the E-7A Wedgetail is from Boeing.
So obviously I wasn't expecting the see the -F variant of the Super Hornet in the video (like you said it' a LM video or more precisely from LM Australia) however I think that expecting a Growler wouldn't be that far fetched since afterall this is also a video about Australia's future C4ISR force.

Could this be an indication that the Growler's future in Australia is uncertain (afterall the F-35 will be able to perform the Growler's roles) or like Dragon029 says because this is a LM video or even because of both reasons?

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2017, 15:27
by Dragon029
It'll be at least a decade until the F-35 can do the job of a Growler (in terms of wideband, 360 degree stand-off jamming). Maybe in 15 years there'll be an operation NGJ-equivalent available internally or in a podded solution, but that's a ways off, not to mention the continued evolution of EW & cyber, as well as the introduction of the Penetrating Electronic Attack platform may change those plans.

Personally, based on the language that's been used by the USAF in recent months / years, I expect PEA to either be a new platform (eg, some stealthy flying wing), or a completely different variant of an existing platform (eg, an F-22, B-21 or F-35 with 360 degree AESAs - personally I think the F-22 could be a good fit considering that it's meant to start getting replaced by the Penetrating Counter Air program at that point, and the F-22 has spare internal volume for cheek arrays or AESAs in the AIM-9X bays - not sure how you'd do rearward jamming without a pod or outer moldline change though).

Regardless though, the Growler's here to stay in Australia for the next 15 years at least.

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2017, 17:11
by spazsinbad
"...Regardless though, the Growler's here to stay in Australia for the next 15 years at least."

Yep - other posts have made it clear that our RAAF Growlers stay in lock step upgrades with USN including the NGJ.
:doh: ALL THE WAY WITH NGJ! :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 11:58
by ricnunes
Dragon029 wrote:It'll be at least a decade until the F-35 can do the job of a Growler (in terms of wideband, 360 degree stand-off jamming). Maybe in 15 years there'll be an operation NGJ-equivalent available internally or in a podded solution, but that's a ways off, not to mention the continued evolution of EW & cyber, as well as the introduction of the Penetrating Electronic Attack platform may change those plans.
.
.
.
Regardless though, the Growler's here to stay in Australia for the next 15 years at least.



Yes I fully agree with you on this one. Actually, I believe this is why Australia committed to the NGJ afterall the current Jammer pods carried by the Growlers are "so good" that they actually jam the Growler's own radar :roll:
And 15 years is not a short-term period (and neither is a long-term to be considered a "future system") so yes I believe that Australia will acquire the NGJ for its Growler fleet and even assume that the NGJ will take 5 years to end its development and to be field (IOC for the NGJ is planned for 2021 if I'm not mistaken or 4 years from now) this would give the Australian Growlers at least a decade (10 year) period of operations with the NGJ.
After this the F-35s will have the EW and Cyber warfare capabilities added to them and then I strongly believe that they will eventually replace the Growler, at least in the RAAF.

Regarding a podded version (of the NGJ) for the F-35 this could be a possibility for the future - could it also be because of this that Australia is committed to the NGJ?
Nevertheless I believe that the F-35 would be able to perform the vast majority of EW roles without the pod since it's a stealth aircraft and as such it can perform its role much closer to the sources to be jammed without being detected and therefore becoming more effective (even without a jammer pod) than a non-stealth aircraft (like the Growler) with pods.


Dragon029 wrote:Personally, based on the language that's been used by the USAF in recent months / years, I expect PEA to either be a new platform (eg, some stealthy flying wing), or a completely different variant of an existing platform (eg, an F-22, B-21 or F-35 with 360 degree AESAs - personally I think the F-22 could be a good fit considering that it's meant to start getting replaced by the Penetrating Counter Air program at that point, and the F-22 has spare internal volume for cheek arrays or AESAs in the AIM-9X bays - not sure how you'd do rearward jamming without a pod or outer moldline change though).

Regardless though, the Growler's here to stay in Australia for the next 15 years at least.


Here I have to disagree a bit with you.
Unless I'm missing some important information, what I read about the USAF and it's future EW capabilities is that they won't have or don't plan to have a dedicated platform for EW (or else they could just purchase the Growler, no?). What I read is that the USAF's "EW platforms" will be the F-35A and the B-21 the later of which and if I'm not mistaken will be equipped with similar EW (and cyber) warfare capabilities (as the F-35).

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 14:17
by Dragon029
ricnunes wrote:Regarding a podded version (of the NGJ) for the F-35 this could be a possibility for the future - could it also be because of this that Australia is committed to the NGJ?

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're asking here; I'm just saying that a jamming pod is a possible (and much more likely) route for adding NGJ-like capabilities to the F-35. The alternative is to somehow integrate high power, multi-band jamming system internally to the F-35, which would be rather difficult given the limited volume in the areas where you'd need to put jammers for ~360 degree jamming (leading edges of the wings, trailing edges of the tail, etc).

Nevertheless I believe that the F-35 would be able to perform the vast majority of EW roles without the pod since it's a stealth aircraft and as such it can perform its role much closer to the sources to be jammed without being detected and therefore becoming more effective (even without a jammer pod) than a non-stealth aircraft (like the Growler) with pods.

The F-35's stealth is a big advantage and that's why I believe it'll replace the Growler if PEA doesn't, but it still doesn't allow the F-35 to jam targets that are behind it / to its sides, nor does it allow the F-35 to jam things like VHF/UHF search radars.

Here I have to disagree a bit with you.
Unless I'm missing some important information, what I read about the USAF and it's future EW capabilities is that they won't have or don't plan to have a dedicated platform for EW (or else they could just purchase the Growler, no?). What I read is that the USAF's "EW platforms" will be the F-35A and the B-21 the later of which and if I'm not mistaken will be equipped with similar EW (and cyber) warfare capabilities (as the F-35).

"Penetrating Electronic Attack" isn't something I've invented:

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... mming.aspx

Twenty years after the Air Force gave up its EF-111 stand-in jamming platform, it is again looking to create an escort electronic warfare aircraft capability, inheriting the mission from the Navy.

Air Combat Command chief Gen. Hawk Carlisle, in a recent interview with Air Force Magazine, said the service is aiming to field a Penetrating Electronic Attack platform in the 2030-2035 timeframe.

“We believe we need not only Penetrating Counter-Air, we also believe we need Penetrating Electronic Attack,” he said of aircraft capable of getting past high-end air defense systems. The platform could be a variant of the PCA aircraft, or “we have something that can go a little faster in that realm,” or it could be an unmanned platform. “So there’s a lot we’re thinking about” with the PEA, he said.

“The Navy is kind of leaning toward a standoff capability” in electronic warfare, “because of the way the fleet operates,” Carlisle noted. “We, in the Air Force, responsible for theater-level airpower, believe we need penetrating as well and so, my guess is, there will be…a synergy there where the Navy concentrates on a standoff capability, we concentrate on a stand-in capability. And then we marry those two together to make the greatest electronic attack capability we can.”

The Navy has included the Air Force in its EA-6B Prowler and later EA-18 Growler missions since the EF-111 “Spark ‘Vark” was retired, allowing electronic warfare exchange officers to fly on those aircraft in the jamming/escort role.

Carlisle said that after a now-underway service-wide Enterprise Capability Collaboration Team review of multi-domain command and control, it will do one on electronic warfare and flesh out EA plans. The services are also working a joint look at theater electronic attack and electronic warfare launched by Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work last year.

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

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2017, 15:41
by ricnunes
Dragon029 wrote:Sorry, but I don't understand what you're asking here; I'm just saying that a jamming pod is a possible (and much more likely) route for adding NGJ-like capabilities to the F-35. The alternative is to somehow integrate high power, multi-band jamming system internally to the F-35, which would be rather difficult given the limited volume in the areas where you'd need to put jammers for ~360 degree jamming (leading edges of the wings, trailing edges of the tail, etc).


Basically what I'm asking is if there's any "concrete" information if any Jammer pod will be or is being developed for the F-35?
So far I only "heard" (or read) rumours about it but again these were only rumours and certainly not "evidence".


Dragon029 wrote:The F-35's stealth is a big advantage and that's why I believe it'll replace the Growler if PEA doesn't, but it still doesn't allow the F-35 to jam targets that are behind it / to its sides, nor does it allow the F-35 to jam things like VHF/UHF search radars.


Are you sure that the F-35 won't be able to jam VHF/UHF radar using for example it's AESA radar as a directional jamming antenna?
If yes, could you provide me any info on that regard? Thanks in advance.


Dragon029 wrote:Unless I'm missing some important information, what I read about the USAF and it's future EW capabilities is that they won't have or don't plan to have a dedicated platform for EW (or else they could just purchase the Growler, no?). What I read is that the USAF's "EW platforms" will be the F-35A and the B-21 the later of which and if I'm not mistaken will be equipped with similar EW (and cyber) warfare capabilities (as the F-35).
"Penetrating Electronic Attack" isn't something I've invented:

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... mming.aspx



Thanks for the link you provided.

By reading the article whose link you provided and also by clicking the "Penetrating Counter-Air" link on the article, my interpretation is that the most likely possibility is that both the "Penetrating Counter-Air" and the "Penetrating Electronic Attack" aircraft will be the same aircraft or at least based on the same aircraft, the B-21.

In my opinion the most logical choice would be for the B-21 to be able to perform most/many of the dual strike and EW roles that the F-35 will also be able to perform with the difference that the B-21 will have a much longer range (likely similar or around the same as the B-2 and/or other Strategical Bombers) while the F-35 will be supersonic and highly maneuverable/agile (and also cheaper) and thus much more capable in terms of Air-to-Air missions. This could bring advantages in terms of operational costs.

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2017, 20:17
by beepa

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

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2017, 21:32
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'beepa' - some story details....
Australian Aviation Pioneering Spirit Alive in the F-35
March 2017 CODE ONE Magazine

"...Under the command of Squadron Leaders Andrew Jackson and David Bell – Australia’s first qualified F-35 pilots – the two RAAF F-35s transited a distance of more than 16,000 kilometers (8,000 nautical miles) from their current home at Luke Air Force Base outside of Phoenix, Arizona, to RAAF Base Amberley in [near] Brisbane....

...The F-35s were refueled in-flight by RAAF KC-30 tanker crews and made overnight stops at Andersen Air Force Base on Guam and Hickam Air Force Base, Honolulu, Hawaii, before completing the transit to Luke AFB, Arizona, on March 10...."

MAP: “The journey of the Lady Southern Cross, illustrated by the red dotted line, is compared in this graphic to the journey of the F-35, illustrated by the purple line. The F-35's total flight time was ~20 hours, at a maximum altitude of greater than 30,000 feet, and an average speed of 450 knots. By comparison, the Lady Southern Cross's flight time was 52 hours, with an altitude of no more than 15,000 feet and an average speed of 150 knots.” http://lockheedmartin.com/content/lockh ... 380415.png


Source: http://lockheedmartin.com/us/news/featu ... cific.html

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2017, 21:28
by spazsinbad
Probably - as the article cited is about F-35 & spare parts - in part - other bits will appear elsewhere - in meantime....

viewtopic.php?f=61&t=28931&p=364858&hilit=Industry#p364858 [for de bulk of it]
Industry Advocates Fully Funding F-35 Spares Accounts Despite ‘Broken Budget Process’
22 Mar 2017 Megan Eckstein

"...F-35’s performance while in the Avalon Air Show.
“Just a few days before that airshow, those two aircraft were at Luke Air Force Base. Flew to Hawaii, flew to Guam, flew to Australia, flew to the air show, was quick turn to fly during the air show – it hadn’t been supposed to do that, but did & did it exceptionally well – came back from Australia to Guam to Hickam & landed back at Luke, all on schedule with no hiccups. The reliability for what we’re seeing for the maturity of that aircraft is really well.”" [reliability is really well?]

Source: https://news.usni.org/2017/03/22/lockhe ... et-process

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

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2017, 21:50
by spazsinbad
:doh: Long article as usual with one sentence paragraphs FFSake so it is tedious to read but some good info nevertheless about 'standing up' and 'not sitting down' to... SLDinfo get serious with paragraphs & less coloured text - it is meaningless.
Transitioning to the F-35: The Aussies and the F-35 Global Enterprise
21 Apr 2017 Robbin Laird

"During my recent visit to Australia, I had a chance to talk with Wing Commander Steven Bradley, Deputy Director Air Combat Transition Office...

...there are several transitions which will go on throughout the standup of the F-35 in Australia.

First, there is the transition from the US to Australia.

Second, there is the transition at Williamtown where the first operational squadron the second squadron, which is to be a training squadron, will spawn.

Third, there is the transition associated with the IOC of the F-35 in Australia, during which the RAAF will operate throughout Australia with the services getting a good initial look at the aircraft.

Fourth, there is the interactive transition where Aussie F-35s fly throughout the region and beyond and cross learn with other global F-35 partners and US and allied F-35s operate in Australia and learn from the Aussies with regard to the evolving approach to joint integration.

In other words, because the F-35 is being stood up at the same time in many allied countries as in the United States cross learning is built into the standup and initial operating experiences....

...Question: How important has been your engagement at Luke in standing up your initial F-35 squadron?
Wing Commander Bradley:
The pilot training center at Luke has been crucial for us.

Our first squadron is not a training squadron but an operational one, therefore we have focused our initial training efforts in the United States on generating the required number of pilots, maintainers and support personnel necessary to declare Number 3 Squadron operational in 2020.

The second squadron that we will stand up at Williamtown will be Number 2 OCU, or Operational Conversion Unit, which is the school where we will train our pilots and maintainers.

Once we have our school up and running, we’ll then look to transition our last two Classic Hornet squadrons, which are 77 Squadron and then 75 Squadron.

The transition is quite aggressive with each of the squadrons transitioning from the classic Hornet to the F-35 in a 12-month period.

When you look at other F-35 users and the stand-up rate for squadrons, they typically take around the 24-month mark to convert a squadron....

...We face a major challenge in that we are not going to shut down a Hornet squadron and then set aside time to transition; we have to keep the squadron operational while we transition to the new F-35 squadron.

That is a challenge, which we need to meet.

We have trained five pilots to date at Luke and our 6th, who is the first squadron commander for 3 Squadron, is just about to depart from Australia and start his training.

Wing Commander Darren Clare has both a Super Hornet and Classic Hornet background, and we have a mix pilots who have flown both types in our first squadron construct....

...The first aircraft will arrive at the end of next year.

We will then have 2019 and 2020 to work towards Initial Operating Capability in Australia.

We will be putting the F-35 through its paces in the Australian environment.

Our overall verification and validation process will happen in that two-year period.

We’re basically examining every aspect of the F-35 system in the Australian environment and during that time, we will be working with army and navy as well.

By the end of 2023, we aim to have all three F-35 squadrons online and operational as well as the training school....

...If people are looking at this particular airplane in Australia’s instance as simply a classic Hornet or Super Hornet replacement, then they’re wrong.

This is the introduction of an entirely new system, a system which can be a catalyst for the entire Australian Defense Force to move to an entirely new level in warfighting capabilities."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/transitioning-to ... nterprise/

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2017, 00:50
by neptune
[quote="spazsinbad.........Question: How important has been your engagement at Luke in standing up your initial F-35 squadron?
Wing Commander Bradley:..The pilot training center at Luke has been crucial for us. Our first squadron is not a training squadron but an operational one, therefore we have focused our initial training efforts in the United States on generating the required number of pilots, maintainers and support personnel necessary to declare Number 3 Squadron operational in 2020.,,,,[/quote]

...IMHO, me thinks that some valuable time could/ should be spent by the Aussie naval infantry with the US Marines in review of their new F-35B tactics with their naval infantry tactics.....same aviation systems with the same benefits....just no lilly pad!!
....C-130 FOB refueling/ rearming, ISR, etc.
:wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2017, 01:52
by popcorn
Oz gets bragging rights.

https://news.usni.org/2017/05/12/austra ... force-2025

Australia Set to Have First All 5th Generation Air Force by 2025

Australia aims to be the first all fifth generation air force, integrating the network capabilities of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter with its land and sea components, as well as its allies’ and partners’ forces, its air marshal said Thursday in Washington.

Air Marshal Leo Davies added in his address at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank, that Australia will “have no legacy aircraft after 2025” under its current defense spending guidance.


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

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2017, 22:36
by ricnunes
popcorn wrote:Oz gets bragging rights.

https://news.usni.org/2017/05/12/austra ... force-2025

Australia Set to Have First All 5th Generation Air Force by 2025


So much different from Canada!
I should have been born Australian...

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

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2017, 20:58
by spazsinbad
Australian Air Force Chief Sees Opportunities for More Integration with U.S. Navy, Air Force
11 May 2017 RICHARD R. BURGESS

"...Davies [Air Marshall Leo Davies, chief of staff (rong) of the RAAF] [HE IS THE "CHIEF of AIR FORCE" formerly he was 'staff officer to the "CHIEF OF AIR FORCE for Fsake] said the F-35 has crystalized a debate between the Australian military services, forcing them to think about network capabilities that will integrate the three services from design through operational delivery.

“This aircraft has redefined ‘joint,’” he said. “JSF also means that with the U.S. we are more than just friends and allies. We are technology partners whose capability brings us shared futures. fifth-generation systems were conceived with that purpose in mind from the very outset.”

He noted that RAAF F-35As will be fully networked and interoperable with U.S. Air Force F-35As. U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs and U.S. Navy F-35Cs, “an airborne team of teams. Our pilots draw from common intelligence mission data, common threat libraries, from common target acceptance and validation. They are supported by a network of nationally agnostic command-and-control systems and electronic warfare assets. They accept airborne early warning and control systems and aerial refueling, all drawn from a common combined force. They have trained together. Indeed, many of them have fought together. … Software and hardware combine to make this team one of the most lethal and versatile air combat capabilities available to allied and coalition forces.”

Davies also noted than the RAAF F-35s will be interoperable with those of regional allies and partners."

Source: http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20170511-raaf.html

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

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2017, 22:32
by steve2267
So, no more F/A-18E/F's flying down under after 2025? What about Growlers?

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

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2017, 22:40
by spazsinbad
By 2025 our Growlers should be lockstep in upgrade to NGJ same as USN - if all goes well. I guess a case can be made that Growler/NGJ is 5thGen but one gets the drift of the (perhaps) hyperbole. In 2025 I'll be 77 - if I make it - 1 step at a time.

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

Unread postPosted: 16 May 2017, 22:51
by popcorn
Air Marshall Davies seems clear on his perspective on what he considers a 5Gen Air Force ie. one built around and leveraging 5Gen capabilities the F-35 brings to the table.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2017, 01:56
by johnwill
spazsinbad wrote:By 2025 our Growlers should be lockstep in upgrade to NGJ same as USN - if all goes well. I guess a case can be made that Growler/NGJ is 5thGen but one gets the drift of the (perhaps) hyperbole. In 2025 I'll be 77 - if I make it - 1 step at a time.


I made it to 77 and if I can, so can you. And enjoy every minute of getting there. As they say, if I had known I would live this long, I would have taken better care of myself.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2017, 02:03
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: Heheh 'JW' CONGRATS - I like your last phrase... at least they still fed me when I was 64... (ask the BEATLES). :devil:

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

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2017, 13:48
by ricnunes
steve2267 wrote:So, no more F/A-18E/F's flying down under after 2025? What about Growlers?


From my perspective, the "Australia Set to Have First All 5th Generation Air Force" sentence is in my opinion centered around combat aircraft.
In Australia the Growler isn't considered a combat aircraft but instead a support aircraft much like the RAAF's AWACS aircraft (Wedgetail) or Tanker aircraft (KC-30).

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

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2017, 15:04
by juretrn
ricnunes wrote:
steve2267 wrote:So, no more F/A-18E/F's flying down under after 2025? What about Growlers?


From my perspective, the "Australia Set to Have First All 5th Generation Air Force" sentence is in my opinion centered around combat aircraft.
In Australia the Growler isn't considered a combat aircraft but instead a support aircraft much like the RAAF's AWACS aircraft (Wedgetail) or Tanker aircraft (KC-30).

It would really be odd if they decided to retire an expensive piece of kit such as the Growler after less than 10 years.

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

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2017, 18:07
by ricnunes
juretrn wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
steve2267 wrote:So, no more F/A-18E/F's flying down under after 2025? What about Growlers?


From my perspective, the "Australia Set to Have First All 5th Generation Air Force" sentence is in my opinion centered around combat aircraft.
In Australia the Growler isn't considered a combat aircraft but instead a support aircraft much like the RAAF's AWACS aircraft (Wedgetail) or Tanker aircraft (KC-30).

It would really be odd if they decided to retire an expensive piece of kit such as the Growler after less than 10 years.


The Growler perhaps not but the Super Hornet (in this case -F variant) you can bet on that! :wink:

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

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2017, 01:16
by spazsinbad
johnwill wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:By 2025 our Growlers should be lockstep in upgrade to NGJ same as USN - if all goes well. I guess a case can be made that Growler/NGJ is 5thGen but one gets the drift of the (perhaps) hyperbole. In 2025 I'll be 77 - if I make it - 1 step at a time.


I made it to 77 and if I can, so can you. And enjoy every minute of getting there. As they say, if I had known I would live this long, I would have taken better care of myself.

You would enjoy this website (mentioned earlier in relation to the NAVAL F-111B testing info). The PDFs keep piling up on this website - some more enjoyable than others according to taste - there are now even some USN/USAF & RUSKIE ones:

http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com.au/

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

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2017, 03:38
by blindpilot
spazsinbad wrote:
johnwill wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:By 2025 .... In 2025 I'll be 77 - if I make it - 1 step at a time.


I made it to 77 and if I can, so can you. And enjoy every minute of getting there. As they say, if I had known I would live this long, I would have taken better care of myself.

You would enjoy this website ....
http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com.au/


The absolute worse part of my getting old, is that I lived to see all those photos I took out the boom window, of everything that flies, .. and all those airshow patches I exchanged with all manner of units ... AND THAT I THREW AWAY YEARS AGO!!!
Now seem to be valuable enough to fund my retirement ... IF I HADN'T thrown them away ! :bang: :bang: :bang:

BP

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

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2017, 05:28
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: :devil: THAT's NOT MEMORABILIA! THIS IS MEMORABILIA! :devil: :doh:

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

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2017, 07:01
by spazsinbad
Speke of the BOOM Winda & it APPEARS! All 1 gazillion pages - OMG! I'm not going to read it all but hey - here 'tis.....

FROM: http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com.au/

FLIGHT MANUAL - USAF SERIES - KC-10A AIRCRAFT (1,376 pages) 15 Jan 2008

https://www.filefactory.com/file/4f9ykd ... %29A-1.pdf (25.5Mb) prolly slow download
_______________________________________________

Also the FLIGHT MANUAL (USAF) for the LTV A-7D Corsair 20 Sep 1972

https://www.filefactory.com/file/1slhgt ... Manual.pdf 600 pages (56Mb) again SLOW download
______________________________________________

Start of LTV A-7D MAINTENANCE manual pages:
http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com.au ... date=false
&
http://aviationarchives.blogspot.com.au ... date=false (Crusader NATOPS on this page also)

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

Unread postPosted: 24 May 2017, 08:54
by spazsinbad
Question please for 'GUMS' / anyone familiar with A-7D AoA Indicator colours. To me RED seems to be only chevron colour.

Four Page PDF from the LTV A-7D USAF Flight Manual 20 Sep 1972 attached which has the graphics seen below....

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

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2017, 01:16
by spazsinbad
Weapon Delivery Manual (NonNuclear) T.O. 1A-7K-34-1-1 for the LTV A-7K aircraft, dated 15 October 1981

https://www.filefactory.com/file/28frn2 ... NonNuclear).pdf (72Mb)

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

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2017, 02:48
by blindpilot
spazsinbad wrote:Question please for 'GUMS' / anyone familiar with A-7D AoA Indicator colours. ... graphics seen below....


<Caution on> Keep in mind that this old brain also has a habit of remembering when I was flying an X-Wing fighter with R-2 piloting, back in ???? or sometime like that ... :? :? <caution off> So if he hasn't gone senile yet, Gums is the right source.

But it seems to me that I remember when I was riding backseat in an F-4C circa 1971?, that pilot made a point of saying the Navy and AF AoA indicator systems were different. So the D and E might not be the same? (nor A-4s and A7Ds)
Could that memory be right? Or was that in the X-Wing?

FWIW
BP

PS then there was the time in the balloon with Jules Verne ... :D :D Somebody help me get these cobwebs off! Why am I posting here on this subject?! :shock: :shock: Dang that's 46 years ago, how does Gums remember this Sh#@ ?

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

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2017, 02:52
by spazsinbad
'BP' thanks. AEONS ago we'all had a discussion about these issues here - I don't believe we got to the A-7D. 'Gums' is prolly in the ROCKY MTNs by now - I'll go look. For sure USAF had different AoA Chevron colours - NAVY is standardised for now.

Here is onesuch: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27304&hilit=angle+attack+approach+color

SADLY graphics missing from this dissgussion: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=245210&hilit=Tougas#p245210

Maybe missing graphics here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24483&p=337306

F-16 experience for NAVY pilot Cartoon below: download/file.php?id=20666

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=26634&p=281091&hilit=angle+attack+approach+color#p281091

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

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2017, 03:40
by blindpilot
spazsinbad wrote:'BP' thanks. AEONS ago we'all had a discussion about these issues here -...


Hot Doggie! I ain't going senile after all. Not bad for 46 years ago, off the top of my head! :D
(And I do remember him saying the Navy was Backass Ackwards)

Hmmm.. I need to dig through my PMs and try and get together for social beverages if Gums is back in the mountains.

BP :devil:

PS so that's how you remember. Post the same thing every 4 years or so and back link them ... :roll: :D

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

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2017, 04:12
by spazsinbad
AbsoBloodyLutely. I have no memory except for what I manage to save into my computer of the day / and / or back up medias (often these are trashed - just like real memories) and wot can be founded online. But as I know from my in-comprehensible GiggleByte PDF of the 4.4 persuasion - online storages can be fungible or NONbloodyExistent. I blame the USN and securitah. However as one may imagine I know only what I know and the rest? HE knows. Goodnight from HIM.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 May 2017, 16:42
by spazsinbad
Waltzing Matilda [4 page PDF of article attached below]
Jun 2017 Nigel Pittaway

"Nigel Pittaway was at Australia’s International Airshow at Avalon in early March where Lightning struck not once, but twice, with the arrival of the first two Royal Australian Air Force F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters....

...Fighting the F-35: An Operational Perspective
In the weeks leading up to the Avalon air show, AIR International spoke with the Director of the RAAF’s Air Combat Transition Office, Group Captain Glen Beck, to find out what feedback has been received so far from the Australian pilots flying the F-35 at Luke.

Starting our conversation Gp Capt Beck said: “If it was a terrible aircraft I’m sure everyone would have heard from a bunch of Australian fighter pilots, that perhaps we weren’t happy with it; but we are happy with what we’re seeing at the moment. It’s certainly got a lot of potential and even though it doesn’t yet have its final software load, it’s an amazing aircraft.”

Gp Capt Beck, himself a former F/A-18 Hornet pilot, said the feedback so far, including that of at least one RAAF Fighter Combat Instructor, is that the F-35A is comparable to the classic Hornet in an air combat manoeuvring engagement.

Expanding on the comparison, he said: “It’s very similar to a Hornet and the F/A-18 is probably the best of all the fourth-generation fighters when it comes to dogfighting. The F-35 has a very good high angle-of-attack capability. Like the Hornet, it allows you to pull and sustain more G in turns and its overall manoeuvrability is very similar to a Hornet.

“But you need to put some context around that. You have to ask if we are still in World War One, and therefore need to get into a visual engagement starting with a turning fight. Well, it’s not like that anymore and hasn’t been for some time, so the chances of ending up there aren’t as great. That’s where the F-35 really comes into its own, because it has the five [characteristics] that make a fifth-generation capability.”

Gp Capt Beck noted how the term ‘fifth-generation’ is often misrepresented as purely stealth. In reality, the five fifth-generation characteristics are low observability, advanced sensors, sensor fusion and integration, data and networking capability, and internal weapons carriage.

He said: “In the old days it used to be platform against platform, a Mirage against a MiG-21 or a Hornet against a MiG-29, but that’s not how it works anymore. When you’re operating this aircraft it’s part of a broader network; you’re a node in a system and you are operating in a system of systems. The F-35 has the ability to collect and transmit an unbelievable amount of data, compared to legacy aircraft.

“If I’m flying a Hornet, I have to find my target myself and I have to track my target myself, I have to lock on to my own target and I have to shoot at it and guide on to it - or I have to find my target on the ground, then find it on my FLIR [targeting sensor] and release a weapon. Any F-35 can find a target and any other F-35 can use that information to engage it. The aircraft just gives you a lot more flexibility in how you employ weapons. It means the person closest to the bad guys doesn’t necessarily have to give themselves away, because someone further away [in another F-35] can provide them with all the information they need. Things like that are huge game-changers, and that’s why legacy aircraft just can’t compete.”

Source: AIR International June 2017 Vol.92 No.6

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

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2017, 04:06
by steve2267
spazsinbad wrote:
Waltzing Matilda [4 page PDF of article attached below]
Jun 2017 Nigel Pittaway

Gp Capt Beck, himself a former F/A-18 Hornet pilot, said the feedback so far, including that of at least one RAAF Fighter Combat Instructor, is that the F-35A is comparable to the classic Hornet in an air combat manoeuvring engagement.

Expanding on the comparison, he said: “It’s very similar to a Hornet and the F/A-18 is probably the best of all the fourth-generation fighters when it comes to dogfighting. The F-35 has a very good high angle-of-attack capability. Like the Hornet, it allows you to pull and sustain more G in turns and its overall manoeuvrability is very similar to a Hornet.

Source: AIR International June 2017 Vol.92 No.6


We've also seen and read the quotes from pilots that the F-35A is like a Hornet with a turbo (Dolbe Hanche) and it's like a Hornet with FOUR ENGINES!

So I got it in my mind to go look up turn performance for the F/A-18 A/C... but could not find the doghouse plots in the pilot's manuals that I found here and there online. In particular, I could not find them anywhere in Section XI Performance Data. That seems to be the same section that the Greece F-16C/D Block 50/52 manual has turn performance figures.

So... can anyone point me to F/A-18 turn performance plots? (G vs Airspeed etc with Ps contours)

I figure the F-16C Block 50 acceleration tables / figures oughta be in the ballpark (mark the lower bound) for F-35A subsonic acceleration based on comments by pilots.

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

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2017, 17:33
by spazsinbad
Royal Australian Air Force: JSF and Growler Update
Published on Aug 30, 2016 Defence IQ

“Air Commodore Michael Kitcher, Director General Capability Planning (DGCP), RAAF, discusses the plans and implications for the introduction of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the EA-18G Growler. This briefing took place at the prestigious International Fighter conference; November 2015, London, UK.

Issues under discussion at the 2016 meeting will include EW and SEAD, advances in Munitions, reliance on space assets and low earth orbit technologies, LVC, advanced fighter radar technology, and the limitations of stealth.”


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

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2017, 08:35
by spazsinbad
Good PDF below about AoA configurations with some colour with some material having been seen before at above URLs.
Review of Research on Angle-of-Attack Indicator Effectiveness
Aug 2014 Lisa R. Le Vie; Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia

"Abstract
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducted a literature review to determine the potential benefits of a display of angle-of-attack (AoA) on the flight deck of commercial transport that may aid a pilot in energy state awareness, upset recovery, and/or diagnosis of air data system failure. This literature review encompassed an exhaustive list of references available and includes studies on the benefits of displaying AoA information during all phases of flight. It also contains information and descriptions about various AoA indicators such as dial, vertical and horizontal types as well as AoA displays on the primary flight display and the head up display. Any training given on the use of an AoA indicator during the research studies or experiments is also included for review....

...Figure 14: AoA Indexer (Odle, 1972)
Odle (1972), Egan and Goodson (1978) looked at AoA displays in military aircraft and suggested a standardization of the system and the symbology across the military to reduce confusion and aid in skill and knowledge transfer when switching between different aircraft...." [NOT USN STANDARD Colour Configuration]

...4.2 Military AoA Systems
The AoA system for the T-38 (Figure 15) includes a dial indicator for each pilot that displays AoA as a percentage of maximum lift during all phases of flight as well as an AoA indexer which operates and illuminates when the aircraft is configured for landing or when flaps are extended 5 percent or more with the landing gear up (USAF, 1978). The dial is calibrated counterclockwise in increments of 0.1, with each increment from 0 to 1.1, representing approximately 10 percent of aircraft lift. It has two colored arcs, yellow to represent buffet warning and red to represent stall warning. Furthermore, the AoA indicator contained three white indices at 0.18 to denote maximum range, 0.3 to denote maximum endurance, and 0.6 to denote optimum final approach at 1g flight. The indexer will illuminate the chevrons and circle independently or in combination to indicate different AoA conditions such as red for low speed, green for on speed, and
yellow for high speed....

...The F-16 AoA system (United States Air Force, 2002) consists of an indicator located on the instrument panel, an indexer located on the top left side of the glareshield and the HUD AoA display (Figure 18). The AoA indicator displays AoA in true degrees on a vertically moving tape indicating -5 to +32 degrees. Color coding from 9 to 17 degrees corresponds to the color coding on the AoA indexer. The AoA indexer provides a visual indication of aircraft AoA by illuminating either one of the chevrons or the circle. The indexer operates continuously with the landing gear handle up or down. The HUD display uses an AoA bracket when the landing gear is lowered. When the flightpath marker is even with the top of the bracket, the AoA of the aircraft is 11 degrees. When the flightpath marker is in the middle of the bracket, the AoA of the aircraft is 13 degrees and when the flight path marker is even with the bottom of the bracket, the AoA of the aircraft is 15 degrees...."

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Li ... veness.pdf (1.6Mb)

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

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2017, 10:33
by magitsu
steve2267 wrote:So... can anyone point me to F/A-18 turn performance plots? (G vs Airspeed etc with Ps contours)

I figure the F-16C Block 50 acceleration tables / figures oughta be in the ballpark (mark the lower bound) for F-35A subsonic acceleration based on comments by pilots.


Here's a good article comparing turn rate vs. turn radius. F/A-18 has better turn radius, F-16 wins turn rate. F-16 has energy advantage whereas F/A-18 has higher AoA capability and less strict control laws. Basically F/A-18 will always point the nose better than F-16, which has to use thrust advantage.

Delicate energy management is key to F/A-18 dogfight.
I’ve heard it said by pilots with lots of experience in both jets the Hornet can’t lose in the hands of a “surgeon.” It will give you whatever you want, but you have to be disciplined.
https://fightersweep.com/4210/dogfighti ... 18-hornet/

It gets complicated if we make it something else than a gun fight... (J)HM(C)S+(H)OBS would affect the outcome, since it would take away some of the nose pointing need and dogfight AAM maneuvers better than a plane.
Image

Here's also very good one comparing F-16 and F-35 by none other than Morten 'Dolby' Hanche. http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfl ... t-og-f-35/

Overall I can say that a stripped-down F-16 has slightly better sustained turn rate than the F-35. However, an F-35 has the advantage with regards to getting inside the turn of its opponent. In a dogfight between the F-16 and the F-35 they will therefore both have strengths to play on.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2017, 07:22
by rheonomic
spazsinbad wrote:Good PDF below about AoA configurations with some colour with some material having been seen before


Here's the entry and source PDF on NTRS: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140011419

I'm kind of surprised that AOA indexers aren't standardized in a MIL-STD or similar, but I guess by now the USAF and USN/USMC communities have enough "buy in" to their respective systems that there are diminishing returns and that the issue is mitigated by training on exchange tours etc.

It's also interesting to see, on the civil aviation side, just how much the symbology varies for AOA display. That's something the FAA will probably be interested to standardize given their drive to get GA flying AOA. In the PDF, I've used the Alpha Systems AOA display in simulator work, and it's pretty neat.

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

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2017, 09:16
by spazsinbad
:doh: Whilst the USN have standardised their AoA Indexer displays & colours, one will be pleased to know that the F-35 Lightning II family have same symbology/colours (one day there will be more colours in displays also). Which is nice. :roll:

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

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2017, 04:12
by popcorn
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... f64424e25a

Cheaper F-35 Joint Strike Fighter still the only one for RAAF

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2017, 10:58
by spazsinbad
More Than Joint: The Aussies Forge A Way Ahead
01 Jun 2017 Robbin Laird

"Australian Air Marshal Leo Davies highlighted the “institutional interoperability which the Royal Australian Air Force was shaping with its closest allies, and notably with the US Air Force and the US Navy during his recent visit to the US. The Aussies are not simply camp followers – they are shaping a way ahead an integrated force, rather than staying at the service platform level.

When Davies introduced the new RAAF strategy at the Avalon Air Show earlier this year, he highlighted the service’s way ahead: “I don’t believe we, as an Air Force, understand how joint we need to be. We have come a long way – we talk a lot about joint, but I am not sure we are culturally able to shift from doing Air Force stuff first. I would like the Air Force in a joint context to begin to put the joint effect before our own Air Force requirements.”...

...The Aussies are debating ways to shape a more integrated force. In simple terms, this means that the services are looking at how they could get beyond a service concept such as the Naval integrated fires approach to a Joint integrated fires approach?... [A lot more & I'll let youse read it at the URL]

...In the mid 1990s when I worked at the Institute for Defense Analyses, I worked with the Roles and Missions Commission. One of the key tasks, which Congress had tasked the commission to pursue, was to determine what the United States might learn from allies. We worked hard on our white paper but when we delivered it to the commission we were told by a very senior member: “Good work; but why did you really examine the question? We are so much bigger than any of our allies, there is very little we could learn from them or apply to our own practices!”

Unfortunately, not much has changed in the attitude of many American defense civilians. However, few leaders in the US military share such views, as allies and the US adopt some of the same key platforms at the same time, like the P-8, Triton, and the F-35, [& WEDGETAIL!] while some allies operate more equipment more advanced than the US itself."

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2017/06/more ... way-ahead/

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 12:30
by Dragon029
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strik ... e-unveiled

Minister for Defence Industry Christopher Pyne has unveiled the first of the Royal Australian Air Force’s F-35A Joint Strike Fighter facilities at RAAF Base Williamtown.

The Off Board Information Systems Centre (OBISC), which has been dubbed the "nerve centre" for the aircraft, represents $16 million of the $770 million of works currently under way at the base.

The OBISC project provided 350 local jobs during construction.

"The centre is an Australian unique capability that hosts ground-based, off board, F-35A autonomic logistics information system (ALIS)," Minister Pyne said.

"The ALIS is the logistical nerve centre for the Joint Strike Fighter. It is used to support mission planning, manage air and ground crew training, manage day-to-day maintenance activities and to provide logistical support to the aircraft and associated systems."

ALIS, software developed by Lockheed Martin, will provide the information system hardware, software and data that performs maintenance management, fault diagnostics, supply support, mission planning and training management across the F-35A weapon system.

Minister Pyne said the investment at Williamtown has significantly contributed to the local area and economy.

"The overall investment in Williamtown is providing significant returns to the local community, with more than $215 million of contracts going to local businesses to date," he said.

"It demonstrates what happens when the government invests in high-end military equipment. It requires upgrading bases and material across the country, which then flows into investment in jobs in local industry."

More of the works currently underway at the base are on track for completion by mid-2021.

The facilities to be provided at Williamtown also include:

runway extensions;
base electrical, sewage, fire and storm-water management infrastructure; and
F-35A squadron headquarters, training and maintenance facilities.

The New Air Combat Capability project at Williamtown was approved by the government in April 2014 and is part of a $1.48 billion capability project undertaken by Defence across RAAF bases Williamtown and Tindal as well as forward operating bases.

Construction started in November 2014, with all works required to support the arrival of the first F-35A in 2018 on track for completion.


During the same visit Pyne also announced an update to the Wedgetail that's related to F-35 interoperability:

http://www.portstephensexaminer.com.au/ ... f-project/

“The first major upgrade that has been announced today provides critical ‘inter-operable’ capabilities with the allies on operations and with fifth generation aircraft including the JSF.”


There's a 29 minute long Facebook video linked on that article that has Pyne's announcement(s) and some Q&A as well.

I wonder if it's just stuff like Link 16 and (preparatory) SATCOM upgrades, or whether they can perhaps get MADL onto the jet (they've done a number of upgrades on the Wedgetail already, so if this is to be the "first major upgrade" I could see it incorporating hardware modifications to support MADL (incorporate some BACN tech), especially if the F-35 is meant to make up 75-100% of the RAAF's near-future fighter fleet.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 15:46
by bring_it_on
I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the upcoming upgrades to the E-7 (at the time they were being planned) would focus on ESM, IFF and Plan Jericho specific changes.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 15:57
by SpudmanWP
Dragon029 wrote:I wonder if it's just stuff like Link 16 and (preparatory) SATCOM upgrades, or whether they can perhaps get MADL onto the jet


Since it's an AWACS jet, I would think that Link-16 is already in it.

Communication systems including HF, VHF, UHF, Link-11, Link-16, UHF SATCOM and ICS


It's got DIRCM too

Electronic warfare self-protection measures including directed infra-red counter-measures, chaff and flares


http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/airforce/ ... etail.aspx

MADL makes the most sense.

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 16:16
by spazsinbad
Canberra to upgrade E-7A mission systems
05 Jul 2017 Greg Waldron

"Australia's Boeing E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning & control (AEW&C) fleet is to receive a mission systems upgrade.

The upgrade comprises "new and more advanced combat identification sensors, tactical data links, and communication and encryption systems", says Australia's defence ministry in a statement.

The value of the contract is A$583 million, with the work to be completed by mid-2022. The work will mainly be conducted at two Australian air bases: RAAF Amberley and RAAF Williamtown...."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ms-439029/

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 18:42
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:
Canberra to upgrade E-7A mission systems."Australia's Boeing E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning & control (AEW&C) fleet is to receive a mission systems upgrade. The upgrade comprises "new and more advanced combat identification sensors, tactical data links, and communication and encryption systems", says Australia's defence ministry in a statement...]


..... It has state-of-the-art flight deck, avionics and navigation equipment. An extensive communications suite is also included, which has three HF, eight VHF/UHF communications systems together with Link 4A and Link 11 systems.

The Aussie C-130Js have completed adding link 16/ 5 stations per a/c, as well as their frigates, F-18s, MH-60s, P-8As, P-3Cs and last but not least F-35s.
:)

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

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 20:59
by bring_it_on
Courtesy JDW -

Boeing Defence Australia (BDA) has won a AUD582-million (USD443 million) contract to upgrade the Royal Australian Air Force's (RAAF) E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft, the Australian Department of Defence (DoD) announced on 5 July.

A statement said the upgrade – under AIR 5077 Phase 5A – will be completed by mid-2022, and that up to 40% of the value of the deal will flow to Australian industry. BDA said the upgrade will feature new combat identification sensors, tactical data links, communications hardware and encryption systems, and mission-computing hardware and software upgrades.

BDA added that it will perform upgrades on the aircraft through three releases over six years, with support from Boeing's Airborne Surveillance Command and Control team in the US and a network of suppliers. The company added that it expects to deliver the first release of upgrades to all six aircraft in early 2018.

Two aircraft will receive the full suite of 'release one' upgrades by early 2019, which include target identification, mission computing, and larger visual monitor displays. The remaining fleet will receive integrated communications upgrades, data link upgrades, a new wide-band satellite system, and dual-display upgrades by 2022, said BDA.

Announcing the contract, Australia's Minister for Defence Industry Christopher Pyne said, "The upgrades are an important step in maintaining a potent Australia air combat force, and will ensure continued interoperability with Australian allies including the United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation members."

The RAAF operates six Wedgetail aircraft. The platform, which is based on the Boeing 737 airliner, achieved initial operational capability with the RAAF in November 2012.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 04:41
by spazsinbad
Reminds me of KLF [aka The JAM] "back to the heavyweight jam" COR time flies eh that is from 1991 "over and out".
Australia steps up to jam
05 Jul 2017 PEO(T) Public Affairs

"NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – The Royal Australian Air Force’s (RAAF) intent to collaborate on the development of the AN/ALQ-249 Next Generation Jammer Mid-band (Increment 1) (NGJ-MB) program is on track to become a reality with the assistance of the Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) Systems and EA-6B Program Office (PMA-234) and the Navy International Programs Office (Navy IPO).

The allies joined mid-June for a Cooperative Partnership week, during which the RAAF had an opportunity to gain insight into the current status of the NGJ-MB program, in anticipation of formally entering a cooperative project later this year.

PMA-234 and Navy IPO representatives, in concert with the Australian Department of Defence, are negotiating an agreement that will solidify both governments’ intent to establish the joint program office and mature the electronic warfare capability together.

“We are extremely excited about this international partnership,” said James Smith, PMA-234 principal deputy program manager. “NGJ-MB will allow more cooperation and interoperability throughout our joint peace-keeping missions as we protect our mutual interests from current threats and emerging adversaries.”

Graphic: "Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) on EA-18G GROWLER (Photo-illustration courtesy of Raytheon Co.)" http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/ ... erNGJ2.jpg (1.5Mb)

Source: http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=6582


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

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 04:44
by Dragon029
SpudmanWP wrote:
Dragon029 wrote:I wonder if it's just stuff like Link 16 and (preparatory) SATCOM upgrades, or whether they can perhaps get MADL onto the jet


Since it's an AWACS jet, I would think that Link-16 is already in it.

I'm aware that it already has Link 16, I was just talking about an upgrade akin to those coming to the F-35, where it already has Link 16, but not 100% of its functionality. I was just wondering out loud whether it'd be something [relatively] boring like that (or other similar things like cabin display upgrades), or whether this would bring considerable new capabilities. From bring_it_on's quote, it sounds like it'll be a mixture of both - the way they've worded / separated the terms here however:
integrated communications upgrades, data link upgrades, a new wide-band satellite system

still leaves me uncertain; integrated comms upgrades implies to me more back-end upgrades, data link upgrades sounds to me like upgrades to existing data links, while the specific mention of a new wide-band satcom system makes me think that it'll be the only addition / modification of antennas. Maybe the Wedgetail already has Ku-band antennas that will be able to receive MADL waveforms with one of those other mentioned upgrades, but AFAIK all of its comms are down around the UHF band and I wouldn't have expected its ESM systems to detect above X-band.

Still, I'll wait and see what we get and either way the Wedgetail's a great platform for getting the required upgrades in the near future.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 12:10
by spazsinbad
What an amaze article about Oz EW! http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia ... ar-BBDWNVO

Australia Set To Become One Of The World's Top Aerial Electronic Warfare Powers 07 Jul 2017 Tyler RogerAway!

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2017, 09:22
by spazsinbad
OLD NEWS for the RAAFie CHAPpies but READ it an WEEP CanaDUH!
Future F-35 production numbers released
19 May 2017 Ian Keddie in Toronto

"A new document released by the US Department of the Navy reveals further specifics of future Lockheed Martin F-35 multirole fighter aircraft production lots and confirms the timing of international deliveries.... [OTHER LRIP details]

...The LRIP 12 to 14 Justification and Approval (J&A) notice reveals that LRIP 12 will number at least 147 airframes whilst further long lead items for LRIPs 13 and 14 account for an additional minimum of 156 and 154 airframes respectively.
In addition, the document lists the number of aircraft allocated to each customer per LRIP lot and, whilst almost half the total number are for US DoD customers (USAF, USN, and USMC), at least 77 aircraft from LRIP 12 are for foreign customers.
 
By far the largest customer for LRIPs 12, 13, and 14 outside of the US will be the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), which is set to receive 45 aircraft across the three lots. The final 15 aircraft will be delivered under Lot 14 between January and December 2022. The RAAF’s expedited acquisition of the F-35A will see it become the first entirely fifth generation air force by 2025, according to a recent speech by Chief of the Air Force, Air Marshal Leo Davies, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, where he stated that the RAAF will ‘have no legacy aircraft after 2025’ under current procurement plans.

The J&A document also shows significant numbers for the Turkish Air Force, acquiring 24 across the three lots; the Netherlands will also receive 24; whilst Norway will get 18; and Denmark will receive 14 in total. Most notably, however, are the redacted portions of document which invite consideration on the likely destination of these aircraft.

Across lots 12 to 14 there are three redacted customers who will receive 24, 18, and 12 airframes respectively. It is likely that these aircraft are bound for South Korea, Japan, and Israel. Finally, one customer is redacted entirely with no numbers or variants listed but countries such as Belgium or Canada are possibilities as they are both in various stages of planning future combat aircraft procurements but have not yet selected the F-35.



Source: https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defe ... -released/

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2017, 20:07
by talkitron
The Australian quote about being entirely fifth generation seems to ignore recent Growler purchases. Even if the RAAF plans to divest the 24 Super Hornets, I doubt they would divest the 12 Growlers as buying F-35s does not give a high end electronic attack capability.

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2017, 20:17
by spazsinbad
Somewhere in this thread IIRC the RAAF have classified the GROWLER as a support aircraft. Yes it is a bit up in the air about what happens to the RAAF Shornets - perhaps the Air Marshal is giving a clue?

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2017, 22:59
by Dragon029
talkitron wrote:The Australian quote about being entirely fifth generation seems to ignore recent Growler purchases. Even if the RAAF plans to divest the 24 Super Hornets, I doubt they would divest the 12 Growlers as buying F-35s does not give a high end electronic attack capability.


The RAAF's view on 5th gen isn't just based on F-22 / F-35 stealth, sensor fusion, etc; the RAAF views being 5th gen as having a force based around information dominance, situational awareness, interconnectivity, etc. That incorporates the F-35s, our Wedgetails, P-8s, MQ-4Cs, Growlers, even our C-17s, etc which were recently fitted with satcom video downlinks, allowing paratroopers or natural disaster responders to get news updates in the air.

Naturally only one of the above mentioned platforms is a 5th gen fighter, but as spaz said the Growler (and I'd argue even the Super Hornet in 6 years) is classified as a support aircraft; its job will be to deny the enemy our level of SA. Super Hornets (if we retain them) will probably become bomb trucks / missileers for any long-range weaponry that won't fit in an F-35A's weapons bay (JASSM-ER, etc).

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

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2017, 23:08
by spazsinbad
A quick quote about what the RAAF expect the Growler to do:
Growlers roar into Avalon for debut
28 Feb 2017 Patrick Durrant

"...“As this is a rapidly evolving area we will work in partnership with the United States Navy to develop the next generation jamming capability, which will ensure that these aircraft remain at the technological forefront throughout their service life.” Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Leo Davies, said the Growler was a vital part of Air Force’s evolution to a future fifth-generation Air Force.

It's our job to show what this aircraft can do, not just for the Royal Australian Air Force, but also for the Army, the Navy and the ADF and that's going to be a really exciting journey. AIRMSHL Davies listed the wide array of ADF platforms the Growler would have to work with, including the Navy's new air warfare destroyers and also the ARH Tiger armed reconnaissance helicopters in service with Army.

“I expect this aircraft to spend more time flying with the Army and the Navy than it actually does with the Air Force.”..."

Source: http://www.australiandefence.com.au/new ... -for-debut

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2017, 05:43
by tincansailor
It would seen a waste to dispose of practically new first class modern jets. 24 F/A18F's are a force more powerful then a lot of the worlds air forces. With 72 F-35A, 12 F/A18G, and 24 F/A18F Australia will certainly be among the top ten air forces in the world. Where would members of the board rate Australia on a list of top air forces?

Such a list would be subjective, and effected by not easily quantifiable factors such as EW tech, stealth, training, logistical support, and leadership. Off the top of my head I would list USA, followed by Russia, China, UK, France, Israel, Japan, ROK, Germany, Australia. What kind of list would you guys come up with?

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2017, 06:03
by spazsinbad
8) Original intention was to have an ALL F-35A RAAF. So how about 100 F-35As and 1doz Growlers? Make sense? I would like to see some F-35Bs - 2 doz to make up the intended 100 F-35s - but tell me I'm dreamin'. :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2017, 17:16
by talkitron
tincansailor wrote:It would seen a waste to dispose of practically new first class modern jets. 24 F/A18F's are a force more powerful then a lot of the worlds air forces. With 72 F-35A, 12 F/A18G, and 24 F/A18F Australia will certainly be among the top ten air forces in the world. Where would members of the board rate Australia on a list of top air forces??


Let us focus only on fighters for the year 2025. Australia would not have anywhere the numbers of the US, China, India and Russia but would have much higher quality than China, India and Russia (and even somewhat the US, which is supposed to be one quarter fifth generation fighters in 2022). Arbitrarily ignoring France's nuclear weapons, I would take the Australian setup over the proposed French (approximately) 150 Rafales and 40 Mirage 2000Ds for around 2025. Germany's air force is underfunded; even the Typhoons are not getting the same upgrades as RAF Typhoons. Italy flies a mix of types with smaller numbers of F-35s by 2025 and Spain's replacement of its Hornets might be just getting under way.

So Australia might indeed be in a three way tie for fighter-only fifth place with the UK and Israel, both of which are acquiring F-35s and have many decent fourth generation aircraft. The RAF has more specialist, non-fighter fixed wing aircraft than the RAAF and IAF so would win in terms of the non-fighter fixed wing component of the air force.

Australia and Israel are punching way above their populations in terms of military procurement. Australia is also engaged in major vehicle procurement for the army and major surface ship and submarine procurement for the navy.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2017, 18:20
by talkitron
I left out Japan and South Korea. The fact that Japan's F-35s are replacing F-4s and South Korea still flies F-5s shows that Japan and South Korea are not always on the bleeding edge of fighter procurement when numbers matter. In 2025, Japan and South Korea each might have comparable numbers of F-35s to the UK. Japan's single-role F-15s are behind the multirole Typhoons and F-15s flown by South Korea, UK and Israel (Israel also flies single-role F-15s).

So let's stick Japan and South Korea into a six way tie for fifth place with Australia, Israel, Italy and the UK if we ignore France's fighter carried nuclear weapons and all non-fighter aircraft and all non-aircraft weapons systems. :D I tossed in Italy as they are allegedly buying 90 F-35s over the life of the program although Italians seem much less excited about the weapon system than Australians.

There's our fighter-only top ten: US >>> China, Russia >> India (numbers matter) > Australia, Israel, Italy, Japan, South Korea, UK.

Again for 2025, France and the UK are considerably above all of Australia, Japan, Israel, Italy and South Korea when we do consider the non-fighter aircraft, France's fighter carried nuclear weapons, the real fixed wing aircraft carriers of the French and British navies, satellites, pilot training, recent combat experience in the Middle East, etc.

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2017, 18:22
by ricnunes
By reading this I cannot help to think to myself that I should have been born Australian instead of Canadian... :(

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2017, 19:22
by talkitron
ricnunes wrote:By reading this I cannot help to think to myself that I should have been born Australian instead of Canadian... :(


To rub it in, Australia is also buying 15 P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft.

http://www.airforce.gov.au/Technology/Future-Acquisitions/Boeing-P8-A-Poseidon/?RAAF-Z4PUOpGXH/eLtWmc6qxYl9xYycb+rKng

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2017, 20:03
by viper12
ricnunes wrote:By reading this I cannot help to think to myself that I should have been born Australian instead of Canadian... :(


But, with a fork and a knife, you can poke and cut Poutine to death ! :mrgreen:

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2017, 20:33
by ricnunes
talkitron wrote:
ricnunes wrote:By reading this I cannot help to think to myself that I should have been born Australian instead of Canadian... :(


To rub it in, Australia is also buying 15 P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft.


And Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) ships...
And NEW Submarines...
And NEW destroyers...
And they have Helicopter Gunships, and, and so on....


viper12 wrote:
ricnunes wrote:By reading this I cannot help to think to myself that I should have been born Australian instead of Canadian... :(


But, with a fork and a knife, you can poke and cut Poutine to death ! :mrgreen:


To make things worse, I don't like cheese. Fortunately I enjoy Maple Syrup a lot. :wink:
And also and on top of that I don't live in Canada anymore (but obviously I don't like a bit what this current eccentric PM is doing to my birth country) in terms of defence procurements...

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2017, 22:33
by spazsinbad
OK already let us stick to Australia please - there is a very long running thread about Canada for any complaints.

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2017, 01:08
by white_lightning35
Speaking of Australian rankings, I ventured across the interwebs to GlobalFirepower.com to see what they think. It has now become obvious that the website is full of dung.

Apparently Egypt is now a top ten military power, and Australia is #22? :doh: Fear the mighty Taiwanese, Thai, and Brazilian air power!

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

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2017, 08:27
by tincansailor
ricnunes wrote:By reading this I cannot help to think to myself that I should have been born Australian instead of Canadian... :(



I guess it's mostly geography. Australia is more distant from their major allies, so they feel more vulnerable, and have to protect themselves. Both fought and suffered great losses in WWII alongside the other Commonwealth, and Empire forces. I suspect if Russian Subs, and Bombers start buzzing around Canada again they'll take their defenses more seriously. At least I hope so.

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 00:34
by ricnunes
white_lightning35 wrote:Apparently Egypt is now a top ten military power, and Australia is #22? :doh: Fear the mighty Taiwanese, Thai, and Brazilian air power!


Are you saying that someone considered Brazil (for example) as having a bigger air power than Australia?? I'm laughing so hard at that :doh:
The Australian Air Force would smash the Brazilian Air Force several times over, that's for sure! :wink:


tincansailor wrote:
ricnunes wrote:By reading this I cannot help to think to myself that I should have been born Australian instead of Canadian... :(



I guess it's mostly geography. Australia is more distant from their major allies, so they feel more vulnerable, and have to protect themselves. Both fought and suffered great losses in WWII alongside the other Commonwealth, and Empire forces. I suspect if Russian Subs, and Bombers start buzzing around Canada again they'll take their defenses more seriously. At least I hope so.


Yeap, your point about geography makes some sense. Coupled with this is the fact that Canada only seems to get their act together regarding military procurement when in dire need, i.e. when at war like recently happened in Afghanistan which forced the Canadian government at the time to purchase new tanks (Leopard 2s), new transport aircraft (C-17s and C-130Js) and new helicopters (Chinooks) among other equipment. But yes, I don't wish to deviate this tread from Australia anymore...

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

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2017, 02:25
by white_lightning35
Plus the future looks very bright for the ADF as a whole. There will be a big increase in overall spending, and it seems that there is also a coherent strategy looking forward. A strong economy will also mean that Australia's path is sustainable and will not be over the top. Perhaps Aussie politicians aren't all idiots. Imagine having some of those...

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2017, 21:40
by spazsinbad
First CO of No.3 Squadron RAAF with F-35As Wing Commander Darren Clare (yet to be stood up) had first F-35A flight at Luke AFB (I guess) recently - see photos sent via e-mail with no other details.

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2017, 23:00
by white_lightning35
I like the kangaroo on australian planes. US planes should start getting bald eagles or something....

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

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2017, 23:08
by SpudmanWP
Wait... These are AU jets.. Someone needs to tell them that the arrows point in the other direction :roll:

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

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2017, 08:57
by spazsinbad
Similar story also at: http://adbr.com.au/next-eight-raaf-f-35 ... -delivery/
Australia’s third F-35A on track for delivery
20 Jul 2017 Staff Writer

"The Royal Australian Air Force’s third F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) A35-003 is making progress along the production line at the Lockheed Martin headquarters in the US.

Head Joint Strike Fighter Air Vice-Marshal Leigh Gordon said the A35-003 was the first of the next batch of eight Australian F-35s currently in production in Fort Worth to begin the “mate” process, where major components of the aircraft were joined together to form the aircraft structure.

"The aircraft will then make its way down the assembly line and through its check flights in preparation for delivery in early 2018," AVM Gordon said.... "Like its two RAAF F-35A stablemates, A35-003 will be delivered to Luke Air Force Base Arizona in early 2018, where it will be used for F-35 pilot and maintainer training until permanently re-locating to Australia in 2020," said AVM Gordon...."

Source: https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strik ... r-delivery

[F-35A] Acquisition timeline and potential alternatives
18 Nov 2016 Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee

"...Australia's F-35A delivery profile of a total of 72 aircraft is as follows:
• 2 aircraft in 2014;
• 8 aircraft in 2018;
• 8 aircraft in 2019;
• 15 aircraft in 2020;
• 15 aircraft in 2021;
• 15 aircraft in 2022; and
• 9 aircraft in 2023...."

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... er/c04.pdf (100Kb)

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 07:27
by element1loop
On my days-off, I watch a very large pot of water come to the boil ... over a candle ...

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 20:42
by tailgate
It's too bad the F-22 was banned for foreign sales. I always thought that the F-22 would have been a outstanding fit for the Australians. I have no doubt that the Aussies would have guarded its secrets. However, I think the F-35 fits their vision going forward. They will not be disappointed.



Jim

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 21:02
by SpudmanWP
Why, its range is lower than the F-35, it's A2G sensors are limited, it has no FLIR, and it's weapons list is absurdly small.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 21:36
by ricnunes
SpudmanWP wrote:Why, its range is lower than the F-35 and it's weapons list is absurdly small.


Precisely! And the F-22 is also quite limited in Air-to-Ground missions/roles. For example it doesn't have the ability to engage a ground moving target.

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

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 23:49
by spazsinbad
8) Besides the 'yearning for something the RAAF never wanted' what else is there? The F-35A-but I yearn for some Bs! :doh:

Five pages of 'why the RAAF does not want the F-22' attached with OF COURSE the F-22 is not even available to USAF now.

Earlier quotes this thread this material: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=319219&hilit=Harvey#p319219
&
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=307623&hilit=Harvey#p307623 [hands knees & boomsadaisy]
Nothing 'stealthy' about the F-22 This article is quoted at least once earlier in this thread probably.....
21 Feb 2007 Air Vice-Marshal John Harvey, Program Manager NAAC

"...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...."

Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/ceo/record/21FEB.pdf (prolly not available now but in PDF below)

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2017, 06:54
by spazsinbad
I presume this table gives some idea of how 'naysayers were comatose' when the RAAF Hornets were 'delivered', a few are missing because early crashes. http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committee ... report.pdf (1.1Mb)

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

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2017, 20:42
by basher54321
tailgate wrote:It's too bad the F-22 was banned for foreign sales. I always thought that the F-22 would have been a outstanding fit for the Australians. I have no doubt that the Aussies would have guarded its secrets. However, I think the F-35 fits their vision going forward. They will not be disappointed.
Jim




As you have just recently finished flying F-22As did you at one point see potential for the RAAF to change the avionics and weapons load in an effective manner?

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

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2017, 00:23
by tailgate
No Basher, I just think that they knew that the 22 was off the table. They have requirements that they laid down and the 35 meets those requirements.

Jim

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

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2017, 08:05
by element1loop
tailgate wrote:No Basher, I just think that they knew that the 22 was off the table. They have requirements that they laid down and the 35 meets those requirements.

Jim


I wrote some detailed blog entries addressing this topic in 2007, mostly because the domestic political choices of the time were becoming toxic and warped due to extensive partisan dis-info, on air combat proposals.

Basically, what RAAF wanted was clearly the correct choice, for it and the ADF. And if the F-35A had been available sooner the F/A-18F also would not have been acquired.

The interesting fact (of the time) was that the critics of the F-35A, and F/G Super Hornets were arguing for an updated 'F/A-22B' plus F-111 combo. But the network and avionics updates proposed (by them) were very much in line with what the F/A-18F could already do (which they greatly criticised and rejected), plus F-35A would innately be designed to do precisely as they proposed, only better. But which neither the F-111 or F/A-22B type combo would be unable to provide any time soon, or for twice the cost and time, with massive technical risk.

The requirements RAAF (and joint ADF) were describing, was that of an F/A-18F type capability (or perhaps F-15E), which the F-22A did not provide, and could not be made to do so any time soon.

As for hitching an old F-111 to an F/A-22B conception ... well ... the F-35A is more survivable, faster, has similar un-refuelled range, flies efficient hi-hi-hi profile, and has potentially more weapon payload (post 2025) than an F-15E ... or F-111 ... bomber!

The F-22A was a clear non-starter, and if it came to air dominance ROLES, then the F-35A would be effectively as deadly in a regional context as having the F-22A, as it could provide a clear air dominance capability relevant to RAAF's needs.

So who needs an F-22?

I watched it taking off locally, several times, a few months back. Short field takeoffs, vertical by 2 k ft, then below 350 kt to 10 k ft, then you hear engines spool back up to accelerate to transonic, fast vertical climb. Engine sound directly above suddenly stops about a minute later, presumably level at ~60 k ft.

yeah ... that was compelling

http://www.geocities.ws/e/l/element1loop/index.html/

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

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2017, 06:49
by spazsinbad
Our JSF one step closer
12 Sep 2017 DeptDefPR

"The team charged with bringing home Australia’s F-35A Lightning II in December 2018 has reached a few important milestones. In May, 27 of the first cadre of Australia’s F-35A maintenance crew completed their technical training....

...The other Australian F-35A pilot currently under training, Wing Commander (WGCDR) Darren Clare, is still part-way through his operational conversion but recently completed his first flight in the F-35A after comprehensive simulation training. “The sims set you up very well for the flights,” WGCDR Clare said. “The jet feels very similar to a Hornet in most flight regimes, and it was exciting to take off in an airplane for the first time solo....

...WGCDR Clare will become the Commanding Officer of 3SQN when the unit transitions from F/A18A Classic Hornet operations to the F-35A. The RAAF personnel are fully embedded with the 61st Fighter Squadron “Top Dogs” and Maintenance Unit at Luke Air Force Base...."

Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/casg/NewsMedi ... JSF_update

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

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2017, 18:35
by spazsinbad
Contract awarded for local F-35 EW support
19 Sep 2017 ADM

"The local subsidiary of R&D company SRC Aus has expanded operations after winning a $17 million contract to produce data sets for operational missions for the RAAF F-35A Joint Strike Fighter. In opening SRC Aus’ new Canberra office on Monday, Defence Minister Christopher Pyne announced the company would deliver the 'Ghosthawk' mission support system to be used to produce trusted mission data sets, providing jobs for 15 engineers in Adelaide and 8 in Canberra.

“SRC Aus will play a vital role in developing our fifth-generation air combat force. Ghosthawk replaces our existing mission information systems with an integrated, next generation intelligence support system capable of collecting, manipulating and disseminating data to our pilots and their aircraft.

“The data from Ghosthawk underpins the key information advantage the JSF will bring to the Air Force – data on weapons, radars, other aircraft and EW systems, all integrated with the fighter’s on-board suite of advanced mission sensors to create unsurpassed situational awareness.” Minister Pyne added the work will grow ex