Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

[spazsinbad]

Thanks for clearing that up.

[spazsinbad]

The Senator MOLAN Imbroglio begins on the BASEment DWELLer thread but I thought to post the DIALOG here because....
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53171&p=389702&hilit=Molan#p389702 TWO PAGE PDF ATTACHED

Australian Senate Estimates Hearing 28 Feb 2018

STARTS page numbered 67 at BTM continuing on to page numbered 69
"...Senator MOLAN: As I try to understand the oversight and audit roles of this committee I would like to conduct a discussion, if I could, and finally ask a question on strategic policy as it relates to air, CDF. Could we have Chief of Air Force, please, or an air adviser?
Air Chief Marshal Binskin: [Who is CHIEF of Defence Force] We'll get Chief of Air Force.
Senator MOLAN: I'm really talking about the importance of the link between strategy and tactics through some form of operational concept. I have been presented over the last couple of years with a series of moving arguments, arguments which move over time in relation to my ability to understand them or the truth of them. One has come to my notice recently which I think has been passed to the Chief of Air Force. Air Marshall, have you seen the diagram that has come from—could I pass that diagram out to you now? Could you pass it to members of the committee please? Really the first thing to notice about this diagram is that—
Air Chief Marshal Binskin: It's simplistic.
Senator MOLAN: Absolutely. It's very simplistic, but is also goes up much higher than any other Army aviator has ever gone up.
Air Chief Marshal Binskin: And come back.
Senator MOLAN: I'd get a nose bleed.
Air Chief Marshal Binskin: Some have gone higher, but I don't think they've come back.
Senator MOLAN: It's an interesting diagram and it goes to three questions. The three questions are—before I very quickly go through the diagram—what is a realistic tactics scenario against which we can judge the effectiveness of our air capability? Is this a realistic scenario? Third, if it's not a realistic scenario, can you tell us what is? If it has realism anywhere, what are the implications for deterrence? They're the general three or four questions I'm getting to.
If I could explain the diagram, the diagram is, as the CDF said, very simplistic, but given the level of access that I guess this committee has, and given the level of access most voters get as they make a decision on governments in relation to defence, I think it or something like it may have value. The physical aspect of the diagram is that it supposedly concerns the approaches to Australia from north to 65,000 feet and about 800 nautical miles out from the north of the country. It talks about the F-35s and the Growlers and the E7As and the KC-30As and our current and future air defence capability. It has an opposing force—I guess this is where we get into the simplistic aspect of it—equipped with Su-57s and Su-35Ss. It indicates that there is an altitude deficient between what we are buying, the F-35s, and what we believe or certainly the person who constructed this believes the Su-57s and the Su-35Ss have. It implies a speed element, in that super cruise of opposing forces will lessen the ability of missiles. And it also implies judgements about the impact of missiles. As a committee which doesn't have the expertise that you have, I'm very interested in those three questions. Could I repeat the first one? What is a realistic tactical scenario against which we can judge our air capability?
Air Marshal Davies: This is part of the evolution of F-35 and really is now several decades worth of evolution. In there we have studied the physical characteristics—of aircraft and weapons, of radars and sensors. Around those you can build a set of tactics and capabilities that allow you then, in this case in the air battle, to make decisions.
What I would offer here is that this diagram, in a single snapshot of a particular situation, is just that: a snapshot. It is not at all indicative of a scenario that we would want to either design or—I think CDF would agree with me—end up in. What's not characterised here, of course, is the entire kill chain. What's not characterised here is the ability for us to detect early through many other sensors—JORN, air warfare destroyer, intelligence from coalition partners. All of those go into defining this particular battle space well before this simplistic diagram.
Senator MOLAN: That's good. That certainly makes sense to me. Are you saying this diagram is not possible or is unlikely?
Air Chief Marshal Binskin: I could draw you a thousand diagrams. I'm a combat instructor, I can draw. I can draw you a thousand different scenarios and differences, depending on the elements at the time and the mission. The reason it is quite simplistic is that if you compare it to the high fidelity 3D modelling with the proper models of the aircraft and the missile systems, whether it be kinematic radar cross-section, all the elements of it, the high fidelity modelling that goes into our assessments, and through all different scenarios—multiple aircraft scenarios; where we're outnumbered; where we have an advantage in numbers—all the different scenarios take us down a path that we then use to develop the tactics we then may use to employ the aircraft. Or in the case of this, what are our advantages and disadvantages? It doesn't matter whether you're in the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, you don't fight someone on their terms. You fight them on your terms. That's how you try and structure the fight to be. In simplistic terms: where did they come from 800 miles away to attack Darwin?
Senator MOLAN: Absolutely.
Air Chief Marshal Binskin: Would we sit there? There are so many what ifs that a simple diagram like that is not going to take into account.
Air Marshal Davies: These are the type of scenarios that we do take on board as being potentially the situation. We run these at realistic ranges. It's why our attendance at Red Flag in the US, for example, and the upgrade of our Woomera facilities is so important, so that we can then grow some fidelity around what we have made assessments for and test these. But at the moment I would say this is not only unlikely; it would be a very remote scenario that we would find ourselves in this situation.
Air Chief Marshal Binskin: That's this diagram.
Senator MOLAN: How do you express in some way that non-specialists can understand it—people who don't have the depth of knowledge that you have—your level of confidence in the system, which I assume aims to produce air superiority, air control—whatever the words are that you use?
Air Marshal Davies: Part of it starts with our selection of our equipment and the ability for that entire ADF order of battle—the things that the Vice Chief of Defence Force would characterise in our contemporary capability development cycle. It is no longer a consideration of a single element: it is the combined effect of the entire ADF. In that construct for the air battle we value highly the ability for us to operate, not just with the ADF, but with coalition partners. Therefore, some of the system design that we recommend to government includes that very piece, which allows us to be significantly advanced in not only our equipment but also our techniques and our training that allows our teams to do that. Operation Okra is a fine example of an upgraded classic Hornet that did a fantastic job for E-7 Wedgetail teams and tanker teams and are the choice of those that operate in Okra.
Air Chief Marshal Binskin: I don't want to downplay the potential threats that are out there. This is a highly complex battle space. It's not something that's happening at six knots or 20 knots; it's 600 knots-plus either way. So you're working at 2,000 kilometres per hour closing and greater in these scenarios with multiple aircraft and multiple systems, and your decision of win-lose is made in seconds, not minutes. It is a highly complex battle space, and the threats that we could potentially face are quite real out there. So we take it very seriously in trying to get the best equipment that we can for our people. This is an F-35 argument. We're looking at the best aircraft available for us in what we see as our tasking. When you look at some of the other specialist aircraft out there, the E-7 is best in class. In fact, it's an aircraft of choice for what it does at the moment in the Middle East as is the KC-30 tanker. So we're looking at the best equipment that we can get out there to give our crews and the ADF the best chance of success.
Finally, when you look at that, you look at the quality of the people, the quality of the training and the quality of the exercises that we do. We don't go out and do scripted exercises anymore; we go out there and the exercises are full-on. In this sort of scenario in the exercise you get shot, you go home. You go home and sort out what happened there that got me to that particular point and what the lessons are. That then gets fed back into the force design—what do we need in the enablers to be able to combat the system that we might be going against? It could be better cyber capability or more investment in the Growler capability. So it's not that one-on-one fight that it used to be. It really is a system-versus-system fight.
Senator MOLAN: I take those points. They are good points. Is there relevance in the difference between high capability? Is there any truth in that?
Air Chief Marshal Binskin: If you've got an aircraft that can go higher and faster it's something you have to count. Some would say it just runs into your missile quicker—but that's being overly simplistic. You would look at: how do I get first shot? I think this is simplistic. It indicates the F-35 will only fly to 35,000 feet, and that's wrong. Does the F-35 have super cruise? No, it doesn't. Does it have better radar cross-section? Yes. Does that mean that it might not be up there at that height and that speed but it's going to get earlier detections to be able to employ its weapons and how it employs the weapon? Does the adversary have a clean shot? Is it getting jammed? Another factor is if it's a long-range strike and they are a long way from home and they're worried about fuel. There are all these factors that will be there that, as a system-versus-system, will need to be taken into account...."

Source: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... e8/0000%22 (PDF 1.1Mb)

[element1loop]

There's a fundamental flaw in RAAF's starting logic here, they think JORN will work just like tested multi-billion dollar EW networks should. I've heard it stated with some considerable confidence that RAAF brass have this all wrong, JORN actually sucks. OTHR can be knocked out easy-peezy (despite being 700 to 1200 km in land) and jammed peezy-easy, regardless of redic kilowatts output, and redic gain sensitivity.

Dey shouda stress-test dis sucker! Why noon is think check stuff like dat till now?

stoopid raaf

[spazsinbad]

I like the way some distrust the RAAF Brass because some unknown person said something different. This is the context with which JORN was mentioned: "...What's not characterised here is the ability for us to detect early through many other sensors—JORN, air warfare destroyer, intelligence from coalition partners...." These would just be examples of the many sensors or am I just drowning, not just waving my arms around on the internet?

[optimist]

JORN's okay, there is a reason it's hooked in to the US system
https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/p ... 202016.pdf
"He said “look at this” as an image appeared on the monitor “I can tell you that that is a Boeing 747 taking off from Changi Airport in Singapore..”. Singapore is 4100 km from Alice Springs as the crow flies"

"The RAAF was aware of a test flight around the world of the US Air Force F-117 Nighthawk stealth attack aircraft. The idea was that the US Air Force would fly the aircraft roughly around the Equator just to prove that nobody could see it on radar. The operator told me that they picked up the aircraft over New Guinea and reported the sighting to the US Air Force. The Americans were flabbergasted but they knew that the reported location of the aircraft was exactly where the aircraft was at that time. The aircraft had, of course, been designed to be radar-transparent from ground or airborne radar operating in the Microwave range but Jindalee was looking down on it from the ionosphere and Jindalee operates in the very different HF (High Frequency) range.

(the story I heard was about the F-22 out of Guam)


But from the report, I see they tackled the great scandal that has been uncovered, The one that created a lot of noise.

Senator PATRICK: Fairfax has reported the Department of Defence has spent more than $2.3 million buying
musical instruments since 2015. This includes $25,000 of handmade flutes, $62,000 worth of bagpipes and
dozens of woodwind instruments priced well above $10,000. There are 743 full- and part-time musicians in the
ADF, who receive instruments worth on average $5,500 each. That's what the article said. You can either suggest
that it's wrong or maybe comment on it.
Mr Gillis: I'll get Major General Coghlan to answer the question.

Senator Payne: I had Brendon Gale in my office this afternoon. That was a better pass then I've seen him do!

Air Chief Marshal Binskin: What we'll do is give you the context and the policy side of it, and then the
procurement side and some of the things that we've learnt in this evolution. Before you get to it, there are a couple
of instruments that are on that list that, actually, if you looked at it logically, you would not purchase, and we
don't agree that that should have been the case. What it's done is put us to a point where we'll look at the policy
and align all three services across a single policy, which is what we didn't have in the first place. But there have
been a lot of myths and legends around this, and I'll get the major general to take you through some of that and
then the policy side of it.

[element1loop]

JORN's okay, ...

I've never doubted it.

[optimist]

JORN's okay, ...

I've never doubted it.

Forgive me, I've spent too long on the Vs threads. I've lost my sense of humour and can't tell when someone is just being funny anymore. I've seen worse said as a fact.

[element1loop]

JORN's okay, ...

I've never doubted it.

Forgive me, I've spent too long on the Vs threads. I've lost my sense of humour and can't tell when someone is just being funny anymore. I've seen worse said as a fact.

I'm just getting too snarky these days for people to tell I'm /sarc-ing. Nice quote btw.

[spazsinbad]

Yeah we get you think you are smart but how about putting some indication that you are sarking because you already have made ridiculous claims you could not back up because you read something decades ago & we don't have it archived.

[element1loop]

Yeah we get you think you are smart but how about putting some indication that you are sarking because you already have made ridiculous claims you could not back up because you read something decades ago & we don't have it archived.

Referring to you as "we" is a little sus.

If I referred to myself as "us" I'd feel weird.

We are not amused then!

Lighten up Spaz.

[spazsinbad]

You need to be polite and back up your claims. Not a lot to ask I know. Do it anyway.

[blindpilot]

Yeah we get you think you are smart but how about putting some indication that you are sarking because you already have made ridiculous claims you could not back up because you read something decades ago & we don't have it archived.

Referring to you as "we" is a little sus.
....
Lighten up Spaz.

Well there are at least two of "us" in his "we" and I strongly suspect another half dozen minimum.

However, having been down that road (sarc) myself more than once, I've learned to just bracket the comment with "<sarc on>" and "<sarc off>" It's saved me a lot of heart burn. Might want to try that.

FWIW,
BP

[element1loop]

Well, "we", I could make the same request of both of you on the rudeness v politeness front, there are sufficent examples from both of you, so use the PM system if you feel like venting or grumping, rather than stuff in threads. Waaaaay more than half a dozen people would prefer that, cheers.

[steve2267]

You need to be polite and back up your claims. Not a lot to ask I know. Do it anyway.

This

Well there are at least two of "us" in his "we" and I strongly suspect another half dozen minimum.

Having been personally insulted and subjected to unprofessional name-calling by the gentleman (used loosely, very loosely) in question, may I join the "us" group?

[spazsinbad]

BJORN Again

$1b contract inked for JORN upgrades under JP 2025 Phase 6
05 Mar 2018 ADM

"The preferred tenderer for the $1 billion Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) upgrades under JP 2025 Phase 6 has been officially confirmed. BAE Systems will deliver significant upgrades to the JORN Over The Horizon Radar (OTHR) which consists of a network of three radar sites located at Longreach, QLD, Laverton, WA, and Alice Springs, NT, and is operated by 1 Radar Surveillance Unit (1RSU) located at RAAF Edinburgh, SA.

“As a world leader in High Frequency radar technology, we are proud to have been selected to deliver an important upgrade to Australia’s most complex and critical Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance capability, BAE Systems Australia CEO Gabby Costigan said....

...JORN achieved Final Operational Capability in 2014 under Project JP 2025 Phase 5. The enhancements to JORN under that phase provided greater integration and connectivity between the JORN radar sites, its control systems and wider Defence command and surveillance networks.

BAE Systems’ Joint Open Innovation Network (JOIN) will also focus on activities to support the upgrade of JORN and the development of future JORN and intelligence surveillance reconnaissance capability."

Graphic: http://yaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/adm/i ... 902A1F.jpg (infinitesimal size)

Source: http://www.australiandefence.com.au/new ... 25-phase-6