It is unfortunate that with all of the bad advice to government by the New Air Combat Capability (NACC) office and others over a faulty multi-billion dollar program, that most reporters are sitting on a gold mine of stories and what do they do?
Copy-paste reporting.
That story qualifies for meta-data about things we already know…
…from one side.
Not reported are that those magical prices do not appear unless orders are confirmed up to the 3000+plus level; that unit prices don’t flatten out until about 1500 aircraft are made, and that assumes that there are no development problems.
It is interesting for the government to say that they will not accept a loss in air combat capability when they are picking a fighter aircraft as a stop-gap that has worse energy performance than the classic F-18 that is going away.
And more: the Super Hornet beats the F-35 in most useful metrics of what a joint combat commander needs.
Neither the Super Hornet nor the F-35 will be able to stand up to emerging threats.
Mainstream defence reporting in Australia: underwhelming, inaccurate, lazy, and not especially useful.
2 comments:
Will this be another Catestrophic defence spending decision?
I am an interested observer (for some time) and and thus not 100% across the fact etc, but it looks like we are on yet another costly road to failure in delivering a LEADING or even credible regional defence capability.
The JSF is POTENTENTIALLY an average performer, but point me towards some independent literature and actual benchmarks that show the JSF has the ability to launch a credible defence shadow and survive a high volume air asset attacks? Particularly from not too distance neighbouring capabilities that contain SU-30 family air assets?
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/
Post a Comment