Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

This is just bullshit. Australian Flight Test Services is like a ten person company. To claim that their only motivation in this is financial is just wishful thinking on Conan's part.

You are kidding I take it? I mean calling it "bullshit" when it is an established fact that Goon and his pals would have profited, really...

(I wonder, are you involved with APA and Goon hence the rabid defending )

It's exactly the opposite of an established fact! Kopp and Goon are analysts not entrepreneurs,.

Re: upgraded F-111/F-22 export scheme by APA... I personally think it was a valid proposal at the time and should be respected as such. I simply have to question the motives of those outright bashing the general concept. (other than mere point scoring on this Kopp guy). The near-militant opposition to the concept though only loses credibility imho.

I mean, what could $30-40m investment per F-111 do today in terms of a 6,000 hr upgrade platform?? Is this a legit debate or flat out not? And perhaps... in lieu of export F-22, could there be another comparative alternative to F-35A, providing IOC squadrons sooner than 20018/19? Let's at least get real with this whole discussion folks (if we're going to engage in it going forward) and not get entrapped in the cheap, tit for tat cirucs of personal attacks to make ones point... my 2 cents.

As for PAKFA capabilities go?? Nobody can truly say for sure.. just as nobody can truly speculate on final F-35A block V capabilities by 2020, sure. However, such speculation on either end is fair game for honest, analytical assessments, no?

Behold:

What was most disappointing about your comments, is that you chose to attack APA for doing the difficult critical thinking and rigorous analytical work which your office should have done in the first place, and clearly failed to do. The Joint Strike Fighter Program Office, under your leadership as PEO and previously DPEO, became infatuated with marketing the program over managing it. Given your professional and academic background in engineering, science and test flying, you should have known better. Others I am sure can and should elaborate on this matter further.

I have had the privilege of knowing a great many serving and former United States Air Force officers over the three decades I have been involved with military aviation, and I take much pride in being able to say that nearly all of them remain good friends and professional colleagues. People often ask why I keep a framed picture of Gen Curtis E LeMay in my office. The answer is simple – the values of integrity, honour, persistence and hard work, which Gen LeMay promoted so long and so hard, are worthwhile and necessary if anything good is to be achieved.

In conclusion, your comments to Inside Defense are mostly misrepresentations and errors of fact, and not what should be expected from a General Officer in the world’s finest Air Force.

This is just bullshit. Australian Flight Test Services is like a ten person company. To claim that their only motivation in this is financial is just wishful thinking on Conan's part. Whilst Kopp and Goon developed the proposal to upgrade the Australian F-111 fleet and purchase F-22A's as a replacement for the Australian F-18A's they were never going to be involved in the actual work. This work was always going to be carried out by the guys who maintain and repair the F-111's now; Boeing Defence Australia at RAAF Base Amberley, the DSTO (Defence Science and Technology Organisation, kind of Australia's DARPA) and the RAAF's Aircraft Research and development Unit.

Conan likes to complain about APA's bias and misleading articles but he's not averse to dropping a couple of lies in himself if the opportunity presents itself. To claim that Kopp and Goon stood to make financial gain from the upgrade of the F-111 and that this is their sole motivation for maintaining the Air Power Australia website is just a shallow attemp to mislead readers and to smear the reputations of authors whose views he disagree with.

Except for the spite bit this is quite true. The government line is to dismiss any questions regarding the JSF not being suitable for the RAAF with "we can't tell you why because it's classified, but rest assured the JSF IS absolutely the best plane for Australia" sort of answers. It's been reported that speaking out against the JSF is now a severly career limiting move in the department of defence, but many RETIRED air force officers agree that the JSF is, at best, a poor fit for Australia's requirements. Also, Lockheed Martin is now a major advertiser in Australia's main aviation magazine (Australian Aviation) and provides regular articles praising the JSF and its project management through a PR firm called the Williams Foundation who they fund. Funnily, no dissenting opinions ever get printed...

To return to the subject of this thread, Kopp's consulting jobs for DSTO were all about capability projections for the region. He writes most of his articles from this perspective. He does get over enthusiastic but he's talking about the situation we'll face if mature versions of these thing's start popping up all over the world like the various flankers do now.

That's just it Shep it isn't an established fact. It's exactly the opposite of an established fact! Kopp and Goon are analysts not entrepreneurs, suggesting that the RAAF would hand over the upgrade of 40 odd airframes of Australia's most capable strike aircraft to a couple of analysts is laughable! The idea itself is just STUPID! Talk about jump the shark. Tell me Shep, do YOU believe a professional air force would do something like that? Seriously? Because if you do I've got a bridge you might be interested in buying. LOL.

All the maintenance and upgrades of these aircraft are handled by Boeing Australia at Amberley in Queensland:
http://www.defence.gov.au/TeamAustralia/weapons_integration_aircraft.htm
They've been doing it for years, they did the block upgrade of the F-111 avionics and hardware, why would the RAAF go anywhere else? LOL.

Cue the anti-APA trolls.

Re: upgraded F-111/F-22 export scheme by APA... I personally think it was a valid proposal at the time and should be respected as such. I simply have to question the motives of those outright bashing the general concept. (other than mere point scoring on this Kopp guy). The near-militant opposition to the concept though only loses credibility imho.

I mean, what could $30-40m investment per F-111 do today in terms of a 6,000 hr upgrade platform?? Is this a legit debate or flat out not? And perhaps... in lieu of export F-22, could there be another comparative alternative to F-35A, providing IOC squadrons sooner than 20018/19? Let's at least get real with this whole discussion folks (if we're going to engage in it going forward) and not get entrapped in the cheap, tit for tat cirucs of personal attacks to make ones point... my 2 cents.

OMG! This is unbelievable! This isn't just a bias, this is nonesense and simply not true:

PAK-FA 2,0 Ma target supercruise? Not true. (current target 1,5) - And this is stated where?
PAK-FA all aspect stealth? Not true.
PAK-FA extreme agility (better than F-22) Unknown but unlikely. - And why unlikely?
PAK-FA high power ESA? Unknown.
PAK-FA high SA? Unknown. The same level as the F-35? Unlikely.
Su-35 supercruising? Not true. - Depends on the definition M 1.5+ not true, M 1+ true
Su-35 extreme agility? Better than F-22? Not true! - based on what...?
Su-35 3D TVC? Not true. - True
Su-35 Sidelooking ESA? Not true. - Well +/-120° actually provides some side looking capability, though there are no dedicated side looking arrays yet.
Su-35 High power ESA. Yes, but not AESA.

PAK-FA 2,0 Ma target supercruise? Not true. (current target 1,5) - And this is stated where?

PAK-FA extreme agility (better than F-22) Unknown but unlikely. - And why unlikely?

Su-35 supercruising? Not true. - Depends on the definition M 1.5+ not true, M 1+ true

Su-35 extreme agility? Better than F-22? Not true! - based on what...?

Su-35 3D TVC? Not true. - True

Su-35 Sidelooking ESA? Not true. - Well +/-120° actually provides some side looking capability, though there are no dedicated side looking arrays yet.