Here is some more from the rabid F-35 fan-base, who today, try and pretend to be valid, worthy, credible subject matter experts on Australia's F-35 decision.
That which is claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Ditto for marketing claims.
"The F-35 will go places other jet fighters cannot go safely and it will shoot down the enemy before it knows it is there."
That folks is the lead story for the "news" piece...
I have observed the F-35 program for years and I can tell you that using the dumber-than-a-newborn-chimp gambit on your readership doesn't pay off. There are other things to check that with, like the Internet. (PDF)
The gambit has been known to work with the model airplane glue-sniffing bridgate, but let us continue with some of the nonsense.
Speaking to US Hill Air Force Base public affairs, Lt-Gen. Bogdan said "the F-35 will be able to shoot things down before the enemy ever knows it's there, making it a very formidable weapon system". He said the F-35 had stealth capability and high-tech sensors, giving the pilot 360-degree awareness of the battlefield and the ability to communicate and share information with other battlefield systems and platforms.
You can Goolge General Jekyll and Hyde's other comments on the F-35 program yourself.
The "aviation editor" does well with this statement.
This combination puts the F-35 in a class of its own.
Very true.
The F-35 is in a class of its own as a fifth-generation failure. Australian decision making on the F-35 has been a product of group-think, weak or no analysis, rent-seeking and faith.
That view is shared by one of Australia's most respected military analysts Andrew McLaughlin, who previously worked as a senior communications adviser to Australia's F-35 project office.
Ouch. Bad play. We do not talk about that! Really wish they didn't mention that. His gig at the New Air Combat Capability Office did not last long. It could have been characterized as a short visit. Don't know what happened there. In that NACC-flack role I expected an Internet tour-de-force from this industry friendly writer with a high volume of massive F-35 disinformation. Shocked it didn't happen. A loss to the gone-native-to-Lockheed-Martin-taking points NACC. They should have kept him.
In fact, the only aircraft that can come close to the F-35's capability is the F-22 Raptor and that jet is in service with the US Air Force only.
OK, but this as only one of many responses from a USAF general:
"If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22"
Since the F-35 is yet to show it can beat an F-22 or Typhoon in practice combat, it is at severe risk of not being able to face emerging Pacific Rim threats.
It will be years before this aircraft is ready to prove such a thing. And when it does not? Then what? Enjoy the RAAF flying club?
As another DOD official stated, the F-35 will need to be escorted by 4th gen aircraft when it is fielded. Because? It is too weak. And too expensive to own and operate for smaller threats.
I don't know about "most-respected" in that area. Andrew is a great guy. Did some historical work on the F-18 even. However just about everything that has come down the pike from him on the F-35 would make Baghdad Bob blush.
"There is no question that it (the F-35) is the best plane for Australia for the next decade and possibly for the decades to come," Mr McLaughlin said.
Well yes Andrew there is a question. Several questions. Which do not agree with your faith-based approach to things.
More? this quoting of LM in the piece:
F-35 maker Lockheed Martin Aeronautics argues the great value to Australia is that the warplane is six times more effective in air-to-air combat and eight times more effective in air-to-ground missions than planes it will replace, though this is yet to be proved in operational tests and evaluation.
Sure. At the end. The aviation editor puts that in. Shocking. A real reporter would exercise shoe leather and take that "though this is yet to be proved in operational tests and evaluation" as a continuation for the story.
Not an ending. A real senior editor would throw that back and say you have a lot more work to do. Marked as "not finished". Who, what, where and why.
---
-Time's Battleland - 5 Part series on F-35 procurement - 2013
-Summary of Air Power Australia F-35 points
-Aviation Week (ARES blog) F-35 posts (2007 to present)
-U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) F-35 reports
-F-35 JSF: Cold War Anachronism Without a Mission
-History of F-35 Production Cuts
-Looking at the three Japan contenders (maneuverability)
-How the Canadian DND misleads the public about the F-35
-Value of STOVL F-35B over-hyped
-Cuckoo in the nest--U.S. DOD DOT&E F-35 report is out
-6 Feb 2012 Letter from SASC to DOD boss Panetta questioning the decision to lift probation on the F-35B STOVL.
-USAFs F-35 procurement plan is not believable
-December 2011 Australia/Canada Brief
-F-35 Key Performance Perimeters (KPP) and Feb 2012 CRS report
-F-35 DOD Select Acquisition Report (SAR) FY2012
-Release of F-35 2012 test report card shows continued waste on a dud program
-Australian Defence answers serious F-35 project concerns with "so what?"
-Land of the Lost (production cut history update March 2013)
-Outgoing LM F-35 program boss admits to flawed weight assumptions (March 2013)
-A look at the F-35 program's astro-turfing
-F-35 and F-16 cost per flying hour
-Is this aircraft worth over $51B of USMC tac-air funding?
-Combat radius and altitude, A model
-F-35A, noise abatement and airfields and the USAF
-Deceptive marketing practice: F-35 blocks
-The concurrency fraud
-The dung beetle's "it's known" lie
-F-35's air-to-air ability limited
-F-35 Blocks--2006 and today
-The F-35B design is leaking fuel
No comments:
Post a Comment