Weekend deception

The weekend print edition of The Australian has their annual and grossly misleading feature section on the state of the state of Defence as it were.

As usual it is paid for by big industry rent-seekers from Boeing, LM, ASC and other usual suspects. The big advert dollars are the only reason this feature gets breathing space in the paper.

The cover page of this piece says, "Defence Special Report" and not: Defence marketing advertisement.

From that, one would expect actual reporting.

Every year this sham is always worth reading because it is written by alleged people knowledgeable for Defence which instead of being reporters on the topic are in effect, advert copy flacks for industry.

The average reader would not know this; which makes it a problem.

The "analysis" is really just that poor.

There is the usual rent-seeking inspired article about how Australia will someday have its' home grown white-elephant subs at the cost of tens of billions. It is supported by a big ASC advert. The SA government defence industry advert is on another page. And, this is probably the best "article" in the litter.

Not mentioned is the toxic relationship between the dysfunctional DMO, ASC and RAN.

There are advert-copy pieces on RAAF fast-jet air power.

They are crap.

They mention the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and how great the Growler will be.

There is little mention of the serious pitfalls having to do with the Just So Failed or the fact that the Grower is pudgy and short-ranged, has legacy jamming solutions, and against emerging Pacific Rim threats, it will suffer a similar fate to the F-35: it will get run down and killed.

The entrenched defence bureaucracy is waging a significant disinformation campaign against the tax payer. They are helped by those kinds of people who have employment which depends on our money flowing to dud defence planning schemes. The special Defence feature in the weekend edition of The Australian is part of that effort.


-Australian Defence Reading List

Making ready for the rent-seekers

SLD continues with its' propaganda campaign which imagines value in the F-35 program.

All this....


And...

Operational testing is nowhere near realized.

A tremendous waste.

Paying for misleading shareholders?

"Lockheed’s Shareholders Have A Lot Riding On The F-35 Program’s Success".

All the more reason for LM leadership not to mislead shareholders. Past statements from them could be rated as such.

These guys make AIPAC look like amateurs

Rent-seeker update for the F-35C; It's all happy flowers:

An update on the effort to base the Navy’s F35C Joint Strike Fighter squadron at Naval Air Facility El Centro will be presented at a Board of Supervisors meeting Monday, following a recent trip to Washington where members of the Joint Strike Fighter Coalition met with government officials.

No question of the F-35C being a valid weapon (beyond platitude) is mentioned.

The coalition is hoping to assure decision-makers “how we are embracing this,” Gallinat said, referring to basing the squadron at NAF El Centro. It is important, she said, that decision-makers are engaged and they know the willingness and support the community has about locating the squadron in Imperial County.

And least we forget, the politicians. They need work too:

The report also lists the endorsement of Rep. Bob Filner, D-Chula Vista, Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, R-El Cajon, and Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Solana Beach, as well as some 14 local cities and associations who back basing the squadron here.

The Cause...and all that:

Meanwhile, fundraising efforts for the coalition have “stalled just a little bit,” she said, adding the organization is still actively looking for funding.

Those interested in funding the Joint Strike Fighter Coalition effort can contact the El Centro Chamber of Commerce at 760-352-3681.

Maybe by 2014 we will find out if the C can trap on a carrier. Maybe by 2016-17 we will know if the new hardware (TR-2) can drive a watered-down Block 3 software definition.

Then from there, a few more years, we might see OPEVAL.

Or not.

F-35 fan-base marches on

It is more fun when you take nonsense like this, copy paste it into a new document, double-space each line, print it out, then sit down and mark up all of the wrong statements with a red pen.

Some history:

Lockheed Flack Denies F-35 Problems

LockMart Consultant Calls Reporter Unethical

JSF Engine "Competition" Story Rises From The Grave

JSF Production Won't Meet Planned Numbers - Says WHO?

F-35 Proponents Say The Darndest Things

JSF Is Fine, Says LockMart Consultant

AOL LOL

F-35 fan-base still out there trying

Interesting questions leading to the wrong conclusion.

Simply because the F-35 will not be able to take on PacRim threats.

Commander's call topic propaganda

F-35 propaganda even shows up in Squadron Commander's Call topic sheet.

Pretty sad.



(click image to make larger)

Not the first time either.

Maybe they should explain during a commanders call how numerous USAF bosses bungled the tacair roadmap.

For years.

Over-optimism won't help Quickstep investors

Today's Australian Financial Review (AFR) has s special report Defence insert.

It has a piece of overly optimistic reporting on Quickstep and its industry hopes on the F-35.

It states that they hope for $700M over 20 years on F-35 work.

Yet in 2010 that was shown as "potential".




The article also implies that the U.S. is going to get 2400-some F-35s.

Given how the business plan has fallen down for the F-35, that many jets is a very big dream.

Poor investors getting mislead by a puff-piece article by an alleged leader in Australia on big-business finance "reporting".

I wonder where the rent-seekers will see their billions in F-35 work for Australia?

Canada's new top general starts off with mislead

"The F-35 is a program that is hitting milestones and doing quite well."

Canada's new top General.

I guess he has a different definition of "doing quite well" compared to normal people.

Faulty "think-tank", faulty results

(bottom of Williams Foundation website)

The Williams Foundation is at it again; using retired military status as a facade to push faulty defence industry talking points wrapped up as analysis.

The Williams Foundation has a bad history of spewing non-credible defence industry talking points

Today's article, "Growler money well spent: Defence, Williams Foundation" should be seen for what it is; a continuing behaviour to promote the greater defence conspiracy (correct use of the word) which enhances industry but has little to do with defending the nation.

No matter what the Williams camp and others state, the purchase of dud jamming gear is unfortunate.

Sir Richard Williams must be rolling in his grave knowing that an organisation is using his name to create a revenue stream--"don't forget to renew your sponsorship"--for questionable motives.

USMC not to be slowed down by "bureaucratic obstacles"

The USMC is going to start real pilot training with the F-35B at Eglin soon. Allegedly.

Marine Corps leaders, increasingly concerned about replacing their current fleet of aging fighters, decided to skip the formal evaluation of the plane's operational utility that the Air Force is completing before proceeding with its own pilot training flights at the base.

"The Marines are determined to get this plane into the field as soon as it can be safely accomplished. They don't want to be slowed down by bureaucratic obstacles," said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute think tank.

I wonder which "bureaucratic obstacles" Thompson means? This set of "bureaucratic obstacles", or this set of "bureaucratic obstacles"?

Gilmore, the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation, declined to comment on Wednesday on the Marine Corps' decision to skip the operational utility evaluation, according to his spokeswoman.

After all, according to Thompson and one of his pay-masters, Lockheed Martin, most of the F-35 troubles are the government's fault. So good to go ahead and get this done sooner. If a few $200M-plus mistake-jets are dumped in the process, well, the USMC survived the Osprey debacle. At least an F-35 mishap doesn't kill people by the bushel.

The ADF that is not

Some reads here and here from "The Strategist" (ASPI blog) in reference to an opinion piece by Mark Thompson.

Thompson may argue that:

"Even taking current shortcomings into account, Australia’s defence force is better equipped and prepared for action than at any time since the end of the Vietnam conflict."

But what is missing, the major issue, is proper adult supervision at the top of the ADF and Defence bureaucracy. Since a purge of Defence critical thinkers in the 1999-2002-era give or take a few years, we now are in no shortage of groupthink and management speak and style over substance. We may be able to do with a smaller ADF but it is less about the size and money spent and more about waste and gross mismanagement.

1.The Collins sub program is a disaster for billions spent and $700M +/- per year on sustainment.

2. The patrol boat sustainment is also very bad. There are around 5 of the 14 Armidale-class boats available and along with that, a variety of crewing and maintenance issues.

3. Our "new" amphib bought from the U.K. who are having a going out of business sale with military gear, is now in repair for 6 months since June due to a mechanical failure. It was marked good-to-go by our genius people that are supposed to look after these things before purchase. It was a response to the DMO-RAN cabal being unable to sustain previous amphib ships.

4. Our helicopter fleet is an expensive quesiton mark when lower-cost solutions will do. I suppose that as we get gouged more and more for gold-plated helicopter "solutions" the voices of the faithful will increase with their praise of the situation.

5. The air power roadmap is a mess. No one thought we would have to sustain old, classic F-18 Hornets out to the 2020s. But that is what is happening. Defence also wanted to waste money on dud jamming gear for the Super Hornet purchase. The Super Hornets were in response to late F-35s. Note: Defence made up all kinds of other reasons after the fact. The F-35 itself has been in serious trouble for years. After the nation spends somewhere north of $20-plus billion on patch-work, the faulty and tens-of-billions F-35 still will not have been here. I am curious what is a-ok with Defence when the Super Hornet costs around $23k per flying hour and the F-35 somewhere around $35k+ per flying hour? And, neither will be able to stand up to emerging threats.

6. Even though it has some problems, thank goodness for the Army. Which along with portions of the RAAF do provide some value.

7. A moribund Navy, an Army that will see more reformation and a RAAF that has some stuff that works and a bunch of other stuff that does not.

Of interest Thompson says:

"First, the sprawling Defence empire must be reformed root and branch."

Well, as I have mentioned, that is show-stopper; a deal-breaker. Any proposals before fixing that are cart-before-the-horse.

Also:

"Recent experience with the so-called Strategic Reform Program shows that this task cannot be left to the generals and mandarins. Outside intervention and independent oversight will be needed to reshape the enterprise so that it can be trusted with taxpayers’ money."

I will continue to observe for more great ideas out of the supposed people with bigger brains on these things than I.

---

-Defence White Paper Fantasy
-Analysing "The ADF Air Combat Capability- On the Record"
-Find out who is responsible for the Air Warfare Destroyer mess
-Analysis of Defence Materiel Organisation Major Projects Management and What Needs to be Fixed
-New DMO Boss warns the staff that business as usual is over
-Project of Concern list
-How dangerous is the Defence Material Organisation to our Defence Industry?
-Australia's Failing Defence Structure and Management Methodology
-More on the dud-jamming gear Defence wants to buy

Canada F-35 update

The implied threat to Canada if it decides not to continue with the faulty F-35 program.

"But Lockheed Martin has warned it won’t continue dealing with those firms if Canada decides not to go ahead with the F-35 purchase."

Waste a few hundred million on an earlier poor decision, or press forward and boost that failure by a real, several orders of magnitude?

H/T- Twitter: @a_picazo

Next LM boss tries some spin on AV Week

The Next LM boss has a few examples of spin with the F-35 program when talking to AV Week.

Here is an interesting one:

Lockheed Martin is on the hook to deliver the JSF low-rate initial production III and IV aircraft by the end of the year. Will you meet that deadline?

It's close. We experienced a 10-week strike in Fort Worth that just ended a month ago, and that could drive some challenges as to whether some aircraft get delivered late this year or early in 2013. We're in dialogue with our customer, and they know the challenges.

For the record, LRIP-3 is already late. The contract was to end in December 2011. Just a few months ago was the start of LRIP-3 deliveries to the customer. LRIP-4 contracts are to be completed by March of 2013. Given the number of aircraft to hand over, not all that far off.

Samurai faith

SLD is always worth a chuckle when they try to sell the troubled F-35. Here, they use Japan's latest defense white paper as an example of sound F-35 faith.

In other words, the new fighter aircraft needs to be able to effectively deal with high-performance fighters, as well as being equipped with sufficient performance to deal with cruise missiles and the ability to carry out its operations effectively in network-centric-warfare that has those functions as constituent elements.

Well, good luck. Interesting since communist appeasement types in the Bush administration refused to sell the F-22 to Japan.

I wonder if these 2010 Lockheed Martin claims (similar to claims held for years) will hold true?

(click image to make larger)

Quantum leap like the TV show (marketing)? Or quantum leap like physics (and what the engineers say is real)?

The Trautman fantasy

This week we learned that the first drop of a weapon shape was performed with the F-35. As time goes on, these first-time events give the appearance that their purpose is to benefit Lockheed Martin, so as not to incur U.S. Government schedule penalties, than they are to help America win wars.

As someone rightly pointed out, according to the United States Marketing Corps and others, 2012 was to be initial operating capability (IOC) for the USMC.

The USMC told us so.

Again. And again.

Let us look back oh-so-long-ago (2010) for how this was being projected by the con-artists in the USMC and DOD.

USMC: Still Holding the Beachhead on JSF IOC (March 2010)

"Our IOC is still 2012 and [full operational capability] 2024. Nothing has changed," says Maj. Carl Redding, Marine Corps spokesman.

Eager Marines to Deploy Early Version of JSF While Navy and Air Force Wait (April 2010)

Lieberman asked Marine Corps aviation chief, Lt. Gen. George Trautman, if he wasn’t taking a risk by fielding a squadron of Block 2B aircraft instead of waiting for the Block 3 version, like the Navy and Air Force. The F-35B is so much more capable than the AV-8 Harrier squadron it will be replacing that “its an easy decision to make” Trautman said. It will give Marine air component commanders their first ever stealthy STOVL aircraft operating off Marine amphibs.

JSF F-35B performs first vertical landing (March 2010)

The Marine Corps anticipates reaching JSF F-35B initial operational capability (IOC) in December 2012. IOC assets will include the first F-35B training squadron of 15 aircraft in VMFAT-501 at Eglin AFB, an operational test and evaluation detachment of 4 aircraft at Edwards AFB, and VMFA-332, the Corps' first operational squadron of 10 aircraft at MCAS Yuma. TheVMFA-332 aircraft will be equipped, manned and trained to execute Marine missions and deploy ashore or afloat.

SASC Hearing Sets Record Straight on JSF (March 2010)

We now know, thanks to Michael Gilmore, DoD’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, that there is a new system vulnerability issue that he describes thus:

“The program office is executing a comprehensive, robust, and fully funded Live Fire test plan. However, the program’s recent removal of shutoff fuses for engine fueldraulics lines, coupled with the prior removal of dry bay fire extinguishers, has increased the likelihood of aircraft combat losses from ballistic threat induced fires.

“F-35 live fire testing to date has shown that threat impact into fuel tanks results in sustained fires. In addition, the F-35 will be more vulnerable to typical non-combat fires caused by fuel leaks and other system failures without the fire-suppression systems. At present, only the Integrated Power Plant (IPP) bay has a fire suppression system.

“Though the configuration control process has approved the program office’s request to remove these safety systems as an acceptable system trade to balance weight, cost, and risk, I remain concerned regarding the aircraft’s vulnerability to threat-induced and safety-related fires.” (This quote is excerpted from Gilmore’s prepared statement, which he did not read out during the hearing—Ed.)

2010 also marked the year when the F-35 had another Nunn-McCurdy budget increase alert. The last link above mentions more of the scale of problems at the time than does anything that came out of the offices of the faith-based F-35 program cheerleaders.

Giving the Navy confidence

How reassuring:

..."leverages its experience with the RQ-170 Sentinel unmanned aircraft system (UAS), the Joint Strike Fighter F-35C and other Navy program technologies."

Nixon's silent majority

The difference between astro-turf and grass-root is...well, you decide.

DOD official on the road, misleading valuable allies

Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter is on the road helping Lockmart sell defective mistake jets.

He spins this fairy tale for Japan:

“It’s the linchpin of tactical aircraft inventories for the United States for decades to come, so we’re completely committed to it.”

Interesting, as it is unlikely to take on Pacific anti-access threats. That and no one knows what it will cost or how many we can afford to field.

The biggest alleged customer of the F-35, the USAF, certainly has worry.

Carter continues perpetuating the Ponzi-scheme.

“I wouldn’t have told you this three years ago, but I can tell you now: I think it’s getting on the path to finishing its development [and] ramping up to full-rate production.”

Add him to the witness list when the lawyers start eating this program alive.

The rest of the article explains how dumb it is to be a JSF Partner Nation member mooching for "best value" while off-sets are handed out to FMS customers.

Key words

Secretary of Defense Mr. Panetta, continues his work performing mistake-jet marketing for Lockheed Martin.

Words mean things.

"The F-35 represents, I believe, the future of tactical aviation for both of our armed services," Panetta said. "This advanced aircraft's air superiority, its precision strike capability will help ensure our dominance of the skies for years to come."

Emphasis added.

Hopefully not forgotten is this:

"Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

-Christopher Hitchens et al-