In March 2012, the head of the NACC project, Air Vice-Marshal Kym Osley, assured a Parliamentary committee that despite a recent ‘US decision to defer 179 US aircraft over the next six years’ (effectively increasing the cost of Australia’s 14 aircraft), project AIR 6000 remained ‘within the cost envelope’ originally approved by Government.
The ‘cost envelope’ was set by the Government in 2009 but the figure has not been revealed.
However, when you are in that kind of plush job, you just want the endless junkets.
Then there is the "it's classified" meme:
It is difficult to assess these claims, because some of the arguments are of a highly technical nature and much of the data necessary to form an understanding of the performance of the JSF is classified and not available for public scrutiny. As journalist Andrew McLaughlin points out:
The question of whether the F-35 will have sufficient capability in order to be relevant against forthcoming Russian and Chinese systems is not easy to determine without access to classified test data to analyse…Analysis from such groups as Air Power Australia claim that the F-35 will not have the range, power to weight ratio, manoeuvrability, and weapons load to be able to engage these adversaries on a one to one basis. They also claim that the JSF’s very low observability characteristics will soon be compromised by Russian low-frequency radar systems or infra-red trackers currently under development for ground based SAM systems…But these are claims which are not easily countered without revealing classified data.
Define "journalist".
Andrew now no longer works for Australian Aviation; an excellent aviation publication and trade press effort that isn't journalism like a traditional news organisation. At least one past interview I saw from Andrew in AA with Lockheed's F-35 front-man Tom Burbage, was totally softball. Trade press can only go so far.
Andrew is now senior PR for the NACC.
Good work if you can get it.
More later on the quality of Parliament's F-35 report.
UPDATE--
The report ends with:
"It is difficult to imagine that the United States will not see the
program through to completion and that Australia will not purchase significant numbers of the JSF."
Faith-based assumptions with little hard fact to back it up is a faulty play. Even more so with taxpayers money.
Parliament can now go back to sleep. Duty done.
4 comments:
That is a total joke what Andrew McLaughlin stated "the 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".
Just because they don't have access to the classified F-35 data, the F-35 is still the wrong aircraft for RAAF's requirements, no matter what classified components you put in that aircraft again still a wrong aircraft. In fact the APA contributors are more knowledgeable than the Air Force and the Department of Defence.
According to the Frequently Asked Questions, Dr Carlo Kopp has 25 years of experience as a defence analyst, 20 years of experience as an engineer in industry, and two hard sciences postgraduate degrees - he is the only academic in Australia today with concurrent academic appointments in hard sciences and military strategy - the APA website alone hosts over 250 of his publications; Peter Goon served as an engineer in the RAAF for 14 years, underwent Flight Test Engineer training at the US Naval Test Pilot School at Patuxent River followed by two back-to-back tours at the RAAF's Aircraft Research and Development Unit (ARDU), is a founding member of Australian Flight Test Services in Adelaide, a founding member of the Defence Teaming Centre (DTC), which he served as a Director/Deputy Chairman for many years, while becoming a leading contributor to the defence industry reform process. Other APA contributors and reviewers include retired parliamentarians, retired ADF generals, academics in strategic studies, and other former ADF, DoD and defence contractor personnel.
What Dr Kopp and Peter Goon claim that there is better technology being developed and this will serve to make the plane an expensive mistake. Which I strongly agree
The F-35 is becoming less affordable as the program develops
• The stealth capabilities are of a lesser order than other fifth generation aircraft and are likely to decline in effectiveness as military radar technology continues to improve
• The F-35's weapons payloads are insufficient for some of the tasks the aircraft will be required to fulfil and
• The F-35 is less aerodynamically capable (manoeuvrable) than it needs to be to perform adequately in a combat situation, especially against aircraft being developed by Russia (T-50 PAK-FA) and China (Chengdu J-20).
All in all the JSF is the biggest and ugliest, by far, of all time.
Andrew McLaughlin has got absolutely no clue what he's talking about. What he states his argument is all out of the loop and an outlier with all marketing information.
If Peter Goon see's my comment whenever he's around, I'm probably sure he'll think that Andrew doesn't even get the facts right and doesn't see why the F-35 is in deep trouble.
Peter
What my friend of mine explained to me about the Australian Aviation may have great photographs but they spread all untruthful rumours when they write in their articles about the JSF is a right aircraft etc.
Actually in the article I've found on Defence Update from Kristian Hollins called "A flying lemon or petulant pessimisum"? stated No Going Back? There are no viable alternatives for the RAAF to the F-35. To me is rubbish.
With no viable alternatives you'll be stuck with an increasingly expensive aeroplane which will result a failure for their air defence program and will face serious consequences.
Peter
Actually Dr Kopp was an excellent aviation publication when he use to be with Australian Aviation.
Peter
Hello Eric
The DMO/NACC including Andrew McLaughlin now a senior PR for the NACC are all essentially misleading us. Their solution to the F-35 debacle is to have faith. I like you said; blind faith.
Peter
Post a Comment