Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 22 Feb 2016, 03:17

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.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 22 Feb 2016, 03:39

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."

Dragon029 · by **Dragon029** » 22 Feb 2016, 04:05

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.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 22 Feb 2016, 04:08

OK thanks for explanation. And thanks for making the edited version available.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 22 Feb 2016, 05:42

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)

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 22 Feb 2016, 08:27

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)

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 23 Feb 2016, 04:29

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

smsgtmac · by **smsgtmac** » 23 Feb 2016, 06:40

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.

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 23 Feb 2016, 10:08

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.

Dragon029 · by **Dragon029** » 23 Feb 2016, 10:26

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)").

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 23 Feb 2016, 11:02

Thanks 'smsgtmac' & 'hornetfinn' for uncovering the oldness of the Norskie SimDood. :shock:

krorvik · by **krorvik** » 23 Feb 2016, 14:52

spazsinbad wrote::applause: Thanks 'smsgtmac' & 'hornetfinn' for uncovering the oldness of the Norskie SimDood.

Think the pdf said he was with the Danes. Not that we haven't got them further up north too...

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 23 Feb 2016, 18:07

OOoops - my bad.

blindpilot · by **blindpilot** » 23 Feb 2016, 18:40

spazsinbad wrote::doh: OOoops - my bad.

FYI, a little trivia. SorenS"E"N versus Sorenson will always be a clue. D"EN"mark has a thing for namea"sen" spellings.

BP

mor10 · by **mor10** » 23 Feb 2016, 20:00

blindpilot wrote:
spazsinbad wrote::doh: OOoops - my bad.

FYI, a little trivia. SorenS"E"N versus Sorenson will always be a clue. D"EN"mark has a thing for namea"sen" spellings.

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.