RAAF instructors say Joint Strike Fighter is the real deal
- THE AUSTRALIAN
- SAVE
Two of the RAAF’s top combat instructors strongly reject claims the $19 billion Joint Strike Fighter project is a disaster and say they are confident the multi-role jet will outclass anything it encounters.
(The author uses 'Appeal to Authority" as the first fallacy out of the gate. So, first, for Australia, it is not a $19B project". It is more like $24B. Then add up to $6B more as the Super Hornets were purchased to bridge F-35 delay. $32B...and maybe more.)
The Senate has launched an inquiry into whether Australia should buy the JSF following claims that the plane would be easily shot down by its Chinese and Russian equivalents.
(First, for example, the Su-35 and PAK-FA are not designed to take on the F-35. They are designed, as part of an air campaign, to take on the F-22. Do that, with enough attrition on hand, and the F-35 is easy. The simulation the F-35 program was supposed to use to verify its ability to kill, 'VSim', is dead. Parametric analysis warned us, for years, that the ability of the F-35 to perform combat against existing threats was a problem. A resent flying exercise for the purpose of evaluation energy maneuver show that a 20 year old F-16 could dominate an F-35, in close, within-visual-range combat. An area of the combat envelop were the F-35's export-friendly stealth is irrelevant.)
The two Australian fighter pilots say the critics are wrong and, while some problems are inevitable in a massively complex project to develop such an advanced aircraft, those issues are being resolved. Both told The Weekend Australian they were confident the JSF would be a world-beater.
(Statements of wishful thinking do not make it so. The massive, long-running problems with the F-35, are not 'teething troubles' of a new aircraft type. They are: a poor, obsolete requirement, created in the 1990's and signed off on at the beginning of the last decade. They are: many design issues that, because of the requirement of commonality with the short-take-off and landing variant, doom the jet to significant compromise. Google, Defence statements on problem programs. You always see the throw-away word 'complex'. Many projects are 'complex'. The question is of the availability of sound management to bit off pieces of the elephant in a fashion which can deliver project success.Years warning 'you shouldn't do this' (U.S. GAO in regard to concurrency), later (2005) the F-35 business plan is "unexecutable" and the Secretary of the United States Air Force saying this kind of program (including mentions of concurrency) will never be done again. How about "acquisition malpractice"? The issues in fact are not being "resolved". For one of many reasons, the F-35 program is only in DOD procurement milestone-B. This is basically development and test. More, all the low-rate-initial production (LRIP) aircraft built (most) are illegal. LRIP can only happen in DOD procurement milestone-C, which states the production method and aircraft design are stable. Which they are not. "World-beater." Based on what evidence? An F-16 using the F-35 as a strafe target?)
Squadron Leader Andrew Jackson, a veteran RAAF fighter pilot with more than 260 hours flying the JSF and about 3000 hours flying Hornets and Super Hornets, is in the US teaching Australian and American pilots to fly the aircraft.
(How about flight test engineers with around 15,000 hours doing their craft? You can't get around aircraft weight problems, poor design assumptions and multiple systems that just do not work: almost 15 years after Lockheed Martin won the JSF contract. But pilot opinion? OK here is an excerpt from that F-16 v. F-35 test..."The test pilot explained that he has also flown 1980s-vintage F-15E fighter-bombers and found the F-35 to be “substantially inferior” to the older plane when it comes to managing energy in a close battle.")
Squadron Leader Jackson said Australians were plain-speakers and he was sure the hundreds of people involved in the project would speak up if they believed something was wrong.
(Right before they were fired. Welcome to life Squadron Leader Jackson. Tell me, what is the history in the Australian Entrenched Defence Bureaucracy of those that tell the truth about failed programs?)
“Those concerns would be fed into the process and if we felt there was an aircraft which could do a better job, that was more capable or better value for money and delivered the capability we needed then, absolutely, we would be pushing for that.”
(OK, here are test pilots telling the truth (which they didn't expect would be public). The F-35, will get shot down against old aircraft designs.)
Another top RAAF combat instructor, Squadron Leader Steven Bradley, said that if pilots did not believe in the aircraft they would vote with their feet and leave the RAAF.
(Lets see how that goes when you might only get a few hours a month in a defective aircraft design.)
“If I thought this aeroplane was no good I certainly would not be putting my pink skin on the line, or risking the lives of my mates or the soldiers and ships we’ll be protecting,” he said.
(You have zero proof. The aircraft has not passed DOT&E to go forward from development and test. This by the way can't happen until, the end of DOD procurement milestone-C. You Sir, do not have months of valid, U.S. testing, along with months of real, operational USAF flying squadrons running the aircraft. Zero... proof. It is unlikely you will be protecting anything. Air threats, or ground threats.)
The pilots rejected suggestions that the RAAF was sticking with the JSF because it had committed to it and was hoping for the best.
(You will be less worried about rejecting and more worried about ejecting if you have to face an enemy in this mistake-jet.)
And they said they would not be recommending that Australia buy the JSF if it were going to place them and other pilots in danger.
(Hard for them to recommend, when the aircraft has no, valid proof of contributing to air campaigns. Congratulations on your bad opinion.)
Squadron Leader Jackson said that while the JSF was already operational with the US marines, the aircraft was still being developed and problems were still being addressed.
(Most that have observed the F-35 being "operational" with the Marines, agree it is a sham. What was not mentioned by our two RAAF fly-boys, is that Marine declaration was pencil-wipped. The Marine F-35 squadron did no, valid, combat trials.)
That was not surprising, he said. “But as it stands the aircraft is an awesome capability.
(An awesome capability to lose battles and lose wars.)
“I have no doubt it will be able to do the job for us. It entirely outclasses anything else that’s out there at the moment.”
(An unsupportable statement is still, an unsupportable statement.)
The cost of the JSF is coming down steadily as more are produced. By the time the RAAF receives its first squadron, in 2018, they will cost about $US90 million each. That squadron should be operational in 2020.
(To date, no claim of F-35 costs has come to pass. There is also no value in something that won't be able to fight its way out of a paper bag.).
So there you have it. The RAAF is acting like a sales-force. An alleged Defence reporter, can only copy-paste platitude, and puerile, Lockheed Martin and New Air Combat Capability (NACC), talking points.
Let us see how this pans out with our elected officials.
More reading:
Sources: the following are U.S. DOT&E test reports on the F-35 (PDF files):
|2010|2011|2012|2013|2014|2015|
|2010|2011|2012|2013|2014|2015|
What is "DOT&E"?
The Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) is responsible to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. This office performs independent reviews on weapons systems and reports the results to the U.S. Secretary of Defense.
DOT&E's authority to operate is covered under, Title 10 U.S. Code, Section 139.
"World-beater"....
No comments:
Post a Comment