Forum: Program and politics

Last edited by spazsinbad on Mar 30, 2012 - 04:43 AM; edited 1 time in total

I would say so. I have never seen any other suggestion. If there was potential for RAAF F-35As to be equipped for probe/drogue refuelling also, I think we would have heard this by now - if not at least because of extra cost involved. Our new tankers have both capabilities; so I gather anything different to USAF F-35A air refuelling not required. Our other USN style Hornet/Supers will drogue probe as per usual from our new Airbus KC-30As/Airbus_A330_MRTTs.

F-16.net Sponsor

That was an interesting read. Thank you to Spaz and Spud for the upload! Cheers

The stability of,the software on the F-35 is incredible.. not having a single, abort due to a software glitch in some 1700 flights. IIRC, the Raptor couldn't seem to go more than a couple of hours without hving to reboot the system

Too bad we can't have the APA/REPSIM and LM contingents in the same room.. LOL

popcorn wrote:

Too bad we can't have the APA/REPSIM and LM contingents in the same room.. LOL

That would give them credibility they don't deserve.

It should be an interesting meeting... especially if you include some of the bigger guys from the factory floor. I am sure they would be more than willing to 'demonstrate' to APA/RepSIM exactly how their F-35 is not a POS Wink

A bit old but relevant.

A complex project Page 20, DMO Bulletin Sept 2011

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/news/dmob ... _Sep11.pdf

"Many of you would have seen at least some of the recent public debate regarding Australia's purchase of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). In Defence circles, it is almost everywhere you look.

Media reporting on the JSF, or the F-35 as it is otherwise known, goes from the sensationalist to the factual and everywhere in between. The flavour of the reporting is usually swayed heavily by the individual 'commentators' or self appointed experts that are being interviewed.

Air Vice-Marshal (AVM) Kym Osley heads up the New Air Combat Capability (NACC) Project team in the DMO and is responsible for the finer details of Australia's JSF acquisition. AVM Osley has been giving interviews and background briefs to Australian journalists and media outlets on the JSF program, and the results are starting to show through more informed and balanced reporting.

AVM Osley has publicly noted that there is flawed analysis in some sections of the media on the JSF's capabilities, saying “these reports are based on incorrect assumptions and a lack of access to sensitive performance information."

One recent correspondent to The Canberra Times, speculated whether the JSF is as good as the now-retired F-111 aircraft. However AVM Osley rightly points out that the JSF will have technological advances, including stealth characteristics, which make it a uniquely 21st century capability.

In some reports there has been a preoccupation with flying speed and direct comparisons with other aircraft that are designed as single-role aircraft within a broader air combat fleet. Australia requires the JSF to not only be fifth-generation in terms of performance but also to be truly 'multi-role' in its capability.

The media also tends to assume that because the JSF System Development and Demonstration (SDD) program has suffered delays and cost increases, these automatically translate to the Australian JSF program. AVM Osley continues to point out that this is not the case. The Initial Operating Capability (IOC) date for the Australian JSF remains late 2018 - exactly what was advised to the Government in 2009. Also no additional funding has been sought from Australia beyond its modest initial contribution to the SDD - and the project funding level has not been increased beyond that agreed by the Government in 2009...."

Submission No 8
Review of the Defence Annual Report 2010 - 2011 | Organisation: Department of Defence
Name: Kym Osley Air Vice-Marshal | Program Manager New Air Combat Capability

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/publicati ... ew_JSF.pdf (175Kb)

SUBMISSION TO THE DEFENCE SUB-COMMITTEE
REVIEW OF THE 2010-2011 DEFENCE ANNUAL REPORT - ISSUES RAISED BY AIR POWER AUSTRALIA 16 March 2012

"1. On 7 February 2012, the Defence Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade ('the Committee') received submissions from Air Power Australia (APA) and RepSim principals asserting the 'catastrophic technical failure' of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program—and inferring that the Government is being misled by the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) and Lockheed Martin with 'significantly optimistic cost and schedule estimates'.

2. On 27 February 2012, the Committee—on tabling its report on its Review of the 2009-10 Defence Annual Report—identified cost, schedule and capability, as its main concerns with the JSF Program.

3. APA (represented by Messrs Goon and Mr Kopp) and RepSim (represented by Mr Mike Price) are mainly critical of F-35 cost estimates and capabilities, and in their testimony, made several errors of fact and misrepresentations about F-35 capability.

4. In response to APA and RepSim's claims that AIR 6000 is a failed project, AIR 6000 Phase 2A/B Stage 1 (14 aircraft) has not triggered any DMO 'failed project' criteria.
Specifically:
a. Cost is currently within the approved cost envelope.
b. Capability is expected to meet RAAF's planned Initial Operational Capability requirements as advised to Government in 2009.
c. Schedule remains on schedule to deliver our first two aircraft in 2014 for US-based training.

5. In regard to F-35 costs, and despite APA's assertions to the contrary, the Department of Defence has always made considerable effort to be clear on what is included in AIR 600 project cost estimates. The U.S. decision to defer 179 U.S. aircraft over the next six years will increase the cost of Australia's 14 aircraft but the AIR 6000 project remains within the cost envelope approved by the Government in 2009.

6. APA's criticisms of the F-35's aerodynamic performance and stealth capabilities, and their claim that the F-35 will not be competitive in 2020, is inconsistent with years of detailed analysis undertaken by Defence, the JSF Program Office, Lockheed Martin and the eight other F-35 partner nations.

7. To comprehensively rebut many of APA's assertions in regard to F-35 performance would require release of highly sensitive U.S. data. As neither APA nor RepSim have access to the detailed classified F-35 data, their analysis is basically flawed through incorrect assumptions and lack of knowledge of classified F-35 performance information. Without this knowledge, APA and RepSim can only speculate on the F-35's capabilities and its ability to counter extant and evolving threats.

8. Defence maintains that the F-35's ability to meet Defence's requirements has been carefully considered. In accordance with the endorsed processes and using the endorsed Defence Intelligence Organisation (DIO) threat assessments, detailed requirements were developed by a team of air combat professionals with those requirements independently scrutinised by DSTO analysts.

9. Over the past decade, the AIR 6000 project team has assessed how well the F-35 will meet those requirements. The analysis has utilised classified information, sophisticated analysis tools, professional analysts and air combat professionals in the form of our highly skilled fighter pilots, to determine the ability of the F-35 to meet Australia's air combat needs now and into the foreseeable future.

10. We remain confident that the F-35 in RAAF service will meet those requirements, noting that the F-35 will undergo technology refresh and block upgrades over the life of the Program to ensure he aircraft retains its capability edge (i.e. including software updated every two years and hardware every four years).

11. The answer from this work is that the F-35 is the right aircraft for Australia.

12. The JSF Program continues, however, to be closely monitored by Defence. The Minister for Defence has clearly stated our commitment to acquiring 14 F-35 A aircraft and that the schedule for delivery of the next 12 aircraft is under consideration.

13. The Minister has explained that Defence will conduct an exhaustive review of the risks of a capability gap and will recommend options for Government consideration later in 2012. The Minister has also stated that any decision on the next tranche of F-35 A aircraft is unlikely to be a priority for 2012."
Kym Osley Air Vice-Marshal
Program Manager New Air Combat Capability 9 March 2012

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/jsf/
&
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/ceo/record/index.cfm

Sounds good. Many thanks to "spazsinbad" and "SpudmanWP".
Finally some reasonably open talking from Official sources.

Ouch! I like how this guy works....

"APA (represented by Messrs Goon and Mr Kopp) and RepSim (represented by Mr Mike Price) are mainly critical of F-35 cost estimates and capabilities, and in their testimony, made several errors of fact and misrepresentations about F-35 capability."

IE. They're full of s...

"detailed requirements were developed by a team of air combat professionals"
"The analysis has utilised classified information, sophisticated analysis tools, professional analysts and air combat professionals in the form of our highly skilled fighter pilots"

As opposed to Air Combat Hobbyists

"Without this knowledge, APA and RepSim can only speculate"

Yes, the hobbyists can make guesses and assumptions

Has there been any more followups to this? Any more evidence given ... etc?

Did you read both the AU Mil reps and the LM testimony (2 separate reports)?

Yeah, didn't read the end of the LM one to see if it had wrapped up there.

munny wrote:

Has there been any more followups to this? Any more evidence given ... etc?

Any more would border on cruel ...

Forum: Program and politics

Australia's Review of the Defence Annual Report 2010-2011