Eric, we love you- but there's more here than you see. The EA-18G has kicked butt so far. The ALQ-99 pod issue is overblown; they are the still 'best in class' in the world. The RAAF has looked 'under the hood' of the EA-18G and realizes it is quite an aircraft, most of which is out of public view. Man, give them a break.
Crow6g,look at what they did to Libya. They jammed cb radios. Man , give them a break, the Australia taxpayer is being conned. China and Russia have moved on.
The RAAF, looked under the hood? Please read the post regarding the Senate Report. They are tools,unable to prosecute any project. Man give us poor taxpayers a break.
Are contributors aware that the Gillard Government recently attempted to exempt DoD from FOI provisions so they could not be subjected to scrutiny?
The Wedgetail for example was acknowledged as probably not being able to meet design expectations and little has been said about it since its introduction to service. A whole of life support contract was apparently signed nearing $1billion, so what if the bloody thing is a deficient highly expensive fizzer and needs to be shed mid-life?
As long as the ADF continues to see Australian fighter needs as needing to defend Aussie airspace against 1980/1990's Russian fighters the Growler and the Joint PowerPoint Fighter will do fine!
This might be a good time to review how Carlo Kopp see's the arrival of the J-20 and its impact on the Super Bug:
Naval task forces structured around CVBGs and operating within the 1,000 NMI plus radius of the J-XX/J-20 would be at significant risk of rapidly losing their E-2C/D AEW&C and EA-18G Growler Electronic Attack coverage during the opening phase of any contingency.
Any notion that an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter or F/A-18E/F Super Hornet will be capable of competing against this Chengdu design in air combat, let alone penetrate airspace defended by this fighter, would be simply absurd. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet are both aerodynamically and kinematically quite inferior to the as presented J-XX/J-20 design, and even the shape based VLO capability in the J-XX/J-20, as presented, will effectively neutralize any sensor advantage either type might possess against earlier Russian and Chinese fighter designs.
How come all the pro Government/F-35/Growler contributing parrots on here dont sign on with a name or dont even bother to type one?
Now as for this piece, "you guys have no idea, which is exactly the way it should be." Are you for real, or do you have a substance problem?
NOT having any idea is precisely how we have already been led to massively expensive debacles such as Seasprite, Collins, Wedgetail, NH-90, ARH Tiger, Air Warfare Destroyer's, the Kanimbla/Manoora affair, KC-30 tanker, replacement Army vehicles, Combat uniform restricted information being given to China and the list goes on and on. Would you be prepared to be so pro "no idea" if the subject was insulation batts, the NBN or Reserve Bank foreign note production contracts? Of course not, so dont be so misleadingly simplistic about this.
There is a clear and present problem with ADF project management as well as general management and it isn't getting any better. Whats more if this continues it will lead to a dangerous financial and operational crisis that could affect how the ADF works. In 2003 HMAS Dechaineux nearly sank due to a burst pipe, nine years later in July this year a similar but less serious problem occurred on HMAS Farncomb, along with the current worrying reports about the state of the Armidale class patrol boat fleet it is a pointer to how this is systemic and affects day to day operations. This isn't theory pal this is real, it does not appear to be improving rather worsening, and it can, will, or has cost lives.
Instead of being a clueless Government fanboy suck hole you might want to do some critical thinking and realise that all those scandals and project failures actually add up to something. Like say a recurring, systemic pattern of inept bureaucratic failure. Or does your job rather rely on said system, so dont want to upset the gravy train?
If there was any substance to the political class (of all persuasions) in Canberra, they would be freezing all futuristic defence planning and directing funding toward remediating some of the forfeited and deteriorating capabilities.
So long as patronising largely foreign-parented defence industry remains the central plank of defence policy, instead of maintaining continuous adequate and credible military capacity, the ADF will head further toward becoming neutered.
Shedding 2 superfluous ministries and making DMO/DSTO subordinate within the Ministry of Defence could facilitate accountability that is seriously lacking. Hugely shrinking DMO and creating smallish cells within each of the respective Service Offices would vest authority for project management back into the respective armed forces, where it once functioned very well. Any of the Service Chiefs that had delusions of grandeur regarding force composition would then be conspicuously spotlighted.
Finally, though not surprisingly, the Senate FADT Committee agrees with you, Bushranger1.
Their latest report on defence procurement would have to be the best ever, by far.
That said, it still doesn't go far enough. It also demonstrates the pollies are still having some trouble connecting all the dots and still being misled by the piles of 'a total indifference to what is real' that continues to emanate out of the DMO and the mouths of some senior Defence Portfolio officials.
The report also also awards the Committee with a non passing grade in Management Problem Solving 101 since they failed to acknowledge the Root Cause and Causal Chain of what ails and is broken in the Canberra based elements of Defence, today, even though it was provided to them in evidence in a number of Submissions.
However, still a damn fine report, as far as it goes.
As for the parroting fanboys choosing to stay behind the skirts of anonymity, they should take a leaf out of Abe Gubler's play book. Though often times off with the fairies, at least Abe has the wherewithal to put his name to and take ownership of what he writes.
The following of the likes of Gary Fairlie of the DMO and those of their ilk could learn a thing or two from Abe.
As could the new Media/PR person for the NACC Air 6000 project office, Andrew McLaughlin.
What is also somewhat peculiar is that the parroting fanboys rarely, if ever, comment on posts about JSF issues and problems, like the one about Mike Gilmore's latest memo on the planned revisions to the JSF TEMP.
Funny you should mention Andrew McLaughlin Horde. I just picked up the latest copy of AA and I have noticed a marked difference in editorial style now he is no longer heading the magazine. Which just goes to show how a personality or group of personalities can influence the public face of a project via the media, through massaging facts and figures. His heading up of the NACC PR office should prove interesting to watch.
Hmmm.... no sign of the parrots rebutting anything we have said. I wonder if they will use a name next time, or have simply flown the coop?
Interesting Goldeel 1, because on DT Magoo has previously been very abusive regarding APA and those who reside within. No doubt ,the PR work from within the embattled camp(DMO and Defence) will be watched with interest. I await their reply regarding the recent Senate Report.(could I be waiting for a while?)
Magoo has surfaced in appointed role. Post on SNAFU. In response to a problem with the Armidale. Attempting to spin the unmitigated failure of another project, the Armidale Patrol Boats, or at least the failure of the DMO and defence to select an adequate vessel and maintain same. How is it that they continue to ignore the lessons of history, and fail to provide for contingencies and escalation of problems?
"Just to put things into context, this is the Australian DoD's side of the story...
'Last week a monitor system on HMAS Bathurst alerted crew to the presence of a small amount of water in a forward bilge. The water was pumped out using the ship’s fitted systems and at no point was the ship or its personnel in any danger.
Further investigation determined that the cause of the water was a small area of aluminium corrosion. The presence of the water was not caused by hull plate cracking.
At the time the boat was assigned to Operation Resolute and was conducting routine patrols in the vicinity of Christmas Island.
The boat was scheduled for a logistics visit to Singapore and has continued with that activity, where repairs will be made. It will follow the usual process for Navy ships requiring minor repairs in foreign ports" What a load of unmitigated crap. They failed again. Admit it. There are serious ongoing problems with DMO and Defence. It is totally systemic
The Armidale Class.Hull cracks, corrosion, amongst many other problems.Five out of 14 available? Low availabiltiy, and a flood of illegal entrants with no identification.There are apparentlty up to 40,000 in the pipeline. Where is the dynamic and emergency response to fixing the problem? Instead we get Defence Employees on Blogs pretending that they are private citizens pushing the party line. I.E., Defending the Indefensible.
Here is what an "ADULT" Government is doing about spin. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/spin-not-targeted-as-communications-jobs-axed-20120903-25abo.html
Andrew McLaughlin, "behaving badly being the 'yes man' he has always been". He is a F-35/Super Hornet advocate.
The way he publishes articles on defence has no clue what he's talking about and has certainly got no clue about air power. Andrew's argument is all out of the loop and an outlier with all thana marketing information etc. I believe that he doesn't report on the F-35 in a fair and balanced way, criticising it when warranted, and reporting on its successes and attributes as well. Plus his behaviour can be described as incongruent.
In fact we have lost very experienced technical engineers were purged a decade ago and replaced by semi-skilled or even unskilled business managers/administrators like Andrew and other folks too.
What Andrew stated that “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”. To me its idiotic and a joke.
I like to see Andrew get dismissed and bailed out from Aerospace Defence Industry, you can't trust him what he publishes the facts about air power etc.
BTW I'm an Air Power Australia fan. Awesome site. I always come to your website and research the articles that you, Dr Kopp and your other colleagues publish on military aircraft etc. You folks really know what you’re talking about which makes me learn everyday.
To me this (APA) site is a source of truth and I certainly don't see Australian Aviation have all very interesting reserach publications like that.
Dear Eric, Question is: What now? This culminating review of almost a decade of scrutiny starting with the (unmentioned) FADT report 'Materiel Acquisition and Management in Defence' of March 2003 tells us once again and in greater detail that Defence procurement including system support and the provision of required capability is not being achieved effectively and that the previously identified and necessary system changes to achieve sufficient and auditable performance have not occurred despite considerable external intervention and assurances by Defence and Government that the necessary improvements were in hand. Are we to merely proceed "business as usual" with large projects including LHD, F35, AWD and Collins Replacement etc and the hundreds of smaller (in dollar terms) projects, many of which are subject to comparable sub-optimal management? Are the recommendations of Senator Fawcett to be implemented? How is improvement to be measured and validated? Ely.
I really dislike the lemon F-35 Joint Strike Failure which I'm just like you guys an anti-JSF. To me the F-35 doesn't have any lightning bolts to strike out the adversaries at all. Perhaps I would call this aircraft "Overweight Baby Seal" because the airframe design looks extremely ugly and the characteristics with this aircraft is appalling and failing and certainly will continue to fail when it reaches operational service in 2018 or later.
The guy I use to know from the hobby shop was looking out for me explaining that if you're ever wanting to become a fighter pilot I never recommend the F-35. I can't trust the aircraft, because the flying hours are too expensive, unsafe to fly for e.g. single engine is a very nasty risk, no fire extinguishing system in the Integrated Power Package (IPP) bay, less range, slow acceleration, limited weapons payload, poor agility and the F-35 also exposes more heat when deploying full afterburner, which means the adversaries that are armed with BVR heat seeking missiles will easily find you and shoot you down from long range. Also faulty helmet mounted display.
The situation by relying only on stealth, AESA radar, advanced sensors, networking, data fusion capabilities, BVR AAMs and cruise missiles as stand-off while flying at straight and level with very gentle manoeuvres of presents of guns or missiles the JSF will be a “dead duck”. It doesn’t work that way which they’ll be placed at a significant disadvantage of being shot down while being chased by a Mach 2 Sukhoi that the F/A-18E/F and F-35A can’t escape.
The F-35 will be a dangerous and a killer to the well trained pilots, meaning that the aircraft is too vulnerable for anti-access high threat environments and unsafe to fly and operate.
You can watch on YouTube about 1/5 DOCUMENTRY ON F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER. Military expert Pierre Sprey, the founder and designer of the F-16 & A-10 Warthog airplanes, explains why the F-35 will not cut it on the modern battlefield. Which he is also an anti-F-35 and so is Winslow T. Wheeler from Centre for Defence Information.
25 comments:
Don't like it? GTFO.
What on earth does that mean?
Eric, we love you- but there's more here than you see. The EA-18G has kicked butt so far. The ALQ-99 pod issue is overblown; they are the still 'best in class' in the world. The RAAF has looked 'under the hood' of the EA-18G and realizes it is quite an aircraft, most of which is out of public view. Man, give them a break.
Crow6g,look at what they did to Libya. They jammed cb radios.
Man , give them a break, the Australia taxpayer is being conned.
China and Russia have moved on.
you guys have no idea, which is exactly the way it should be.
The RAAF, looked under the hood? Please read the post regarding the Senate Report.
They are tools,unable to prosecute any project.
Man give us poor taxpayers a break.
Are contributors aware that the Gillard Government recently attempted to exempt DoD from FOI provisions so they could not be subjected to scrutiny?
The Wedgetail for example was acknowledged as probably not being able to meet design expectations and little has been said about it since its introduction to service. A whole of life support contract was apparently signed nearing $1billion, so what if the bloody thing is a deficient highly expensive fizzer and needs to be shed mid-life?
WTH does that video have to do with Growlers?
I was starting to think you were losing it before Eric..now I have no doubt!
As long as the ADF continues to see Australian fighter needs as needing to defend Aussie airspace against 1980/1990's Russian fighters the Growler and the Joint PowerPoint Fighter will do fine!
This might be a good time to review how Carlo Kopp see's the arrival of the J-20 and its impact on the Super Bug:
Naval task forces structured around CVBGs and operating within the 1,000 NMI plus radius of the J-XX/J-20 would be at significant risk of rapidly losing their E-2C/D AEW&C and EA-18G Growler Electronic Attack coverage during the opening phase of any contingency.
Any notion that an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter or F/A-18E/F Super Hornet will be capable of competing against this Chengdu design in air combat, let alone penetrate airspace defended by this fighter, would be simply absurd. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet are both aerodynamically and kinematically quite inferior to the as presented J-XX/J-20 design, and even the shape based VLO capability in the J-XX/J-20, as presented, will effectively neutralize any sensor advantage either type might possess against earlier Russian and Chinese fighter designs.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-J-XX-Prototype.html
Back in the real world prototype 2002 is rapidly progressing through testing with rumors of J-20 prototypes 2003 and 2004 in final assembly.
Would you like to fly a Growler against this?
http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2012/08/photos-of-day-wing-contrails-vaporizing.html
Hey Chicom fanboy...
Gotta love those "real world" rumors!
Ask Dr Kopp & co how stealthy those wingtip vorticies are!
With any luck the ALQ-99 has been thoroughly re-engineered by Chinese Industry and re-designated the HQN-44.
This new kit - the HQN-44 can be produced for 199.95 $AUD and will be included on upcoming j-11 upgrades.
It will "mysteriously" perform just like the ALQ-99...
The best way to hide a dud project is to declare it top secret.
How come all the pro Government/F-35/Growler contributing parrots on here dont sign on with a name or dont even bother to type one?
Now as for this piece, "you guys have no idea, which is exactly the way it should be."
Are you for real, or do you have a substance problem?
NOT having any idea is precisely how we have already been led to massively expensive debacles such as Seasprite, Collins, Wedgetail, NH-90, ARH Tiger, Air Warfare Destroyer's, the Kanimbla/Manoora affair, KC-30 tanker, replacement Army vehicles, Combat uniform restricted information being given to China and the list goes on and on. Would you be prepared to be so pro "no idea" if the subject was insulation batts, the NBN or Reserve Bank foreign note production contracts? Of course not, so dont be so misleadingly simplistic about this.
There is a clear and present problem with ADF project management as well as general management and it isn't getting any better. Whats more if this continues it will lead to a dangerous financial and operational crisis that could affect how the ADF works. In 2003 HMAS Dechaineux nearly sank due to a burst pipe, nine years later in July this year a similar but less serious problem occurred on HMAS Farncomb, along with the current worrying reports about the state of the Armidale class patrol boat fleet it is a pointer to how this is systemic and affects day to day operations. This isn't theory pal this is real, it does not appear to be improving rather worsening, and it can, will, or has cost lives.
Instead of being a clueless Government fanboy suck hole you might want to do some critical thinking and realise that all those scandals and project failures actually add up to something. Like say a recurring, systemic pattern of inept bureaucratic failure. Or does your job rather rely on said system, so dont want to upset the gravy train?
Bravo Graeme and Goldeel1.
If there was any substance to the political class (of all persuasions) in Canberra, they would be freezing all futuristic defence planning and directing funding toward remediating some of the forfeited and deteriorating capabilities.
So long as patronising largely foreign-parented defence industry remains the central plank of defence policy, instead of maintaining continuous adequate and credible military capacity, the ADF will head further toward becoming neutered.
Shedding 2 superfluous ministries and making DMO/DSTO subordinate within the Ministry of Defence could facilitate accountability that is seriously lacking. Hugely shrinking DMO and creating smallish cells within each of the respective Service Offices would vest authority for project management back into the respective armed forces, where it once functioned very well. Any of the Service Chiefs that had delusions of grandeur regarding force composition would then be conspicuously spotlighted.
Sorry; re my last.
Any of the Service Chiefs 'who'...
Finally, though not surprisingly, the Senate FADT Committee agrees with you, Bushranger1.
Their latest report on defence procurement would have to be the best ever, by far.
That said, it still doesn't go far enough. It also demonstrates the pollies are still having some trouble connecting all the dots and still being misled by the piles of 'a total indifference to what is real' that continues to emanate out of the DMO and the mouths of some senior Defence Portfolio officials.
The report also also awards the Committee with a non passing grade in Management Problem Solving 101 since they failed to acknowledge the Root Cause and Causal Chain of what ails and is broken in the Canberra based elements of Defence, today, even though it was provided to them in evidence in a number of Submissions.
However, still a damn fine report, as far as it goes.
As for the parroting fanboys choosing to stay behind the skirts of anonymity, they should take a leaf out of Abe Gubler's play book. Though often times off with the fairies, at least Abe has the wherewithal to put his name to and take ownership of what he writes.
The following of the likes of Gary Fairlie of the DMO and those of their ilk could learn a thing or two from Abe.
As could the new Media/PR person for the NACC Air 6000 project office, Andrew McLaughlin.
What is also somewhat peculiar is that the parroting fanboys rarely, if ever, comment on posts about JSF issues and problems, like the one about Mike Gilmore's latest memo on the planned revisions to the JSF TEMP.
Peculiar and most strange but not surprising.
Funny you should mention Andrew McLaughlin Horde. I just picked up the latest copy of AA and I have noticed a marked difference in editorial style now he is no longer heading the magazine. Which just goes to show how a personality or group of personalities can influence the public face of a project via the media, through massaging facts and figures. His heading up of the NACC PR office should prove interesting to watch.
Hmmm.... no sign of the parrots rebutting anything we have said. I wonder if they will use a name next time, or have simply flown the coop?
Interesting Goldeel 1, because on DT Magoo has previously been very abusive regarding APA and those who reside within.
No doubt ,the PR work from within the embattled camp(DMO and Defence) will be watched with interest.
I await their reply regarding the recent Senate Report.(could I be waiting for a while?)
Magoo has surfaced in appointed role. Post on SNAFU.
In response to a problem with the Armidale.
Attempting to spin the unmitigated failure of another project, the Armidale Patrol Boats, or at least the failure of the DMO and defence to select an adequate vessel and maintain same.
How is it that they continue to ignore the lessons of history, and fail to provide for contingencies and escalation of problems?
"Just to put things into context, this is the Australian DoD's side of the story...
'Last week a monitor system on HMAS Bathurst alerted crew to the presence of a small amount of water in a forward bilge. The water was pumped out using the ship’s fitted systems and at no point was the ship or its personnel in any danger.
Further investigation determined that the cause of the water was a small area of aluminium corrosion. The presence of the water was not caused by hull plate cracking.
At the time the boat was assigned to Operation Resolute and was conducting routine patrols in the vicinity of Christmas Island.
The boat was scheduled for a logistics visit to Singapore and has continued with that activity, where repairs will be made. It will follow the usual process for Navy ships requiring minor repairs in foreign ports"
What a load of unmitigated crap. They failed again. Admit it.
There are serious ongoing problems with DMO and Defence. It is totally systemic
That's Andrew Mclaughlin, once again, behaving badly being the 'yes man' he has always been.
And as they say, when you have a 'yes man' working for you, one of you is redundant.
Solomon Shorter's response, surprisingly, displays a modicum of common sense for which, when it comes to things like the JSF, he is not well known -
"Solomon Monday, September 03, 2012 8:35:00 PM
lets pick out a few key words.
hull
corrosion
requiring port repair.
this is not a simple matter. hull corrosion serious enough to cause a ship to put in for repairs? serious stuff no matter what the RAN says."
The Armidale Class.Hull cracks, corrosion, amongst many other problems.Five out of 14 available?
Low availabiltiy, and a flood of illegal entrants with no identification.There are apparentlty up to 40,000 in the pipeline.
Where is the dynamic and emergency response to fixing the problem?
Instead we get Defence Employees on Blogs pretending that they are private citizens pushing the party line.
I.E., Defending the Indefensible.
Here is what an "ADULT" Government is doing about spin.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/spin-not-targeted-as-communications-jobs-axed-20120903-25abo.html
Hello Peter Goon (Horde)
Andrew McLaughlin, "behaving badly being the 'yes man' he has always been". He is a F-35/Super Hornet advocate.
The way he publishes articles on defence has no clue what he's talking about and has certainly got no clue about air power. Andrew's argument is all out of the loop and an outlier with all thana marketing information etc. I believe that he doesn't report on the F-35 in a fair and balanced way, criticising it when warranted, and reporting on its successes and attributes as well. Plus his behaviour can be described as incongruent.
In fact we have lost very experienced technical engineers were purged a decade ago and replaced by semi-skilled or even unskilled business managers/administrators like Andrew and other folks too.
What Andrew stated that “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”. To me its idiotic and a joke.
I like to see Andrew get dismissed and bailed out from Aerospace Defence Industry, you can't trust him what he publishes the facts about air power etc.
BTW I'm an Air Power Australia fan. Awesome site. I always come to your website and research the articles that you, Dr Kopp and your other colleagues publish on military aircraft etc. You folks really know what you’re talking about which makes me learn everyday.
To me this (APA) site is a source of truth and I certainly don't see Australian Aviation have all very interesting reserach publications like that.
Hope to hear from you
Regards Peter
Dear Eric,
Question is: What now? This culminating review of almost a decade of scrutiny starting with the (unmentioned) FADT report 'Materiel Acquisition and Management in Defence' of March 2003 tells us once again and in greater detail that Defence procurement including system support and the provision of required capability is not being achieved effectively and that the previously identified and necessary system changes to achieve sufficient and auditable performance have not occurred despite considerable external intervention and assurances by Defence and Government that the necessary improvements were in hand.
Are we to merely proceed "business as usual" with large projects including LHD, F35, AWD and Collins Replacement etc and the hundreds of smaller (in dollar terms) projects, many of which are subject to comparable sub-optimal management?
Are the recommendations of Senator Fawcett to be implemented?
How is improvement to be measured and validated?
Ely.
@ Peter Goon (Horde)
I really dislike the lemon F-35 Joint Strike Failure which I'm just like you guys an anti-JSF. To me the F-35 doesn't have any lightning bolts to strike out the adversaries at all. Perhaps I would call this aircraft "Overweight Baby Seal" because the airframe design looks extremely ugly and the characteristics with this aircraft is appalling and failing and certainly will continue to fail when it reaches operational service in 2018 or later.
The guy I use to know from the hobby shop was looking out for me explaining that if you're ever wanting to become a fighter pilot I never recommend the F-35. I can't trust the aircraft, because the flying hours are too expensive, unsafe to fly for e.g. single engine is a very nasty risk, no fire extinguishing system in the Integrated Power Package (IPP) bay, less range, slow acceleration, limited weapons payload, poor agility and the F-35 also exposes more heat when deploying full afterburner, which means the adversaries that are armed with BVR heat seeking missiles will easily find you and shoot you down from long range. Also faulty helmet mounted display.
The situation by relying only on stealth, AESA radar, advanced sensors, networking, data fusion capabilities, BVR AAMs and cruise missiles as stand-off while flying at straight and level with very gentle manoeuvres of presents of guns or missiles the JSF will be a “dead duck”. It doesn’t work that way which they’ll be placed at a significant disadvantage of being shot down while being chased by a Mach 2 Sukhoi that the F/A-18E/F and F-35A can’t escape.
The F-35 will be a dangerous and a killer to the well trained pilots, meaning that the aircraft is too vulnerable for anti-access high threat environments and unsafe to fly and operate.
You can watch on YouTube about 1/5 DOCUMENTRY ON F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER. Military expert Pierre Sprey, the founder and designer of the F-16 & A-10 Warthog airplanes, explains why the F-35 will not cut it on the modern battlefield. Which he is also an anti-F-35 and so is Winslow T. Wheeler from Centre for Defence Information.
Regards Peter
Post a Comment