|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Oct 24, 2008 12:47:08 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Oct 24, 2008 18:48:40 GMT 12
From WWP website (I'll look for 'official' website release): from: worldwidewarpigs.blogspot.com/2008/10/high-drama-as-rand-specialist-leaves.html"DR DENNIS JENSEN MP FEDERAL MEMBER FOR TANGNEY MEDIA RELEASE JSF ANALYST LEAVES THINK-TANK AMID ROWA senior analyst who wrote a report critical of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has suddenly departed the RAND Corporation think-tank amid an international row sparked by his comments. Federal Member for Tangney Dennis Jensen revealed John Stillion, a respected senior analyst with RAND’s Project Air Force, had abruptly left the organisation and that there were suggestions he had been dismissed over the report. “His abrupt departure amid the controversy over his report raises some deeply disturbing questions,” Dr Jensen said in a speech to parliament Thursday. “There are suggestions in some quarters that he was dismissed over the document and that his removal was ordered by the US military.” Dr Jensen said his office had been told by Project Air Force director Andrew Hoehn that Dr Stillion had left the organisation but that no further details had been provided. He also said that Stillion was not his source for the material and that he had never had any contact with the analyst. In his pre-briefing report for the US Pacific Vision war games exercise held in August, Dr Stillion had assessed the controversial JSF as being “double inferior”. “Inferior acceleration, inferior climb, inferior sustained turn capability,” he wrote.
“Can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.”Dr Jensen confirmed he had distributed copies of the RAND report in a bid to stimulate debate about the controversial planned purchase of the JSF by Australia. “The program general manager of the JSF project, Lockheed Martin vice president Tom Burbage, and the program executive officer within the USAF, Major General Charles Davis intimated that those who released the Rand document and made statements about it had a vested interest.,” he said in his parliamentary speech. “Well, that person is me, and I do have a vested interest. I want to ensure Australia purchases the capability that it requires, not merely a capability it has been sold. “If the product is flawed, then our entire national security policy will be as well.
“And that is too important for us to ignore.”Dr Jensen also suggested Australia’s Defence Department may have undertaken studies of the JSF and may have produced similarly negative assessments.“Has Defence done any such analysis?” he asked.“If so, what were the results of that analysis? If they have not, why not?” (October 23, 2008)" " MAY in last para obviously highlighted by FN. What an evil bunch. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Leyland P75 on Oct 27, 2008 11:35:48 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Oct 27, 2008 11:53:58 GMT 12
Some curiously written bits "plussing up" is a classic: "The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would be attractive for budgetary reasons. It can perform very capably in the reconnaissance role, while its set partnership model smooths technology transfer issues. Unfortunately, its single-engine design would be a concern during maritime combat air patrols, and its declared status as a strike fighter works against it in a country that’s so insistent on the purely defensive functions of its weaponry.
The F-35B’s STOVL (Short Take Off, Vertical Landing) capabilities might make it a politically salable option as a defensive aircraft that could operate from dispersed locations, rather than easily-targeted bases. Of course, Japan is also purchasing a helicopter carrier for roles like disaster response…." Shades of Oz in that last sentence. ;D
Until the F-22 becomes available I would rather push on with the JSF buy. Sad that a bomber version of the F-22 will not be made available either. Then we could buy some for the 'piners after F-111'. What is it that makes something unavailable so attractive? Don't answer. ;D I don't want to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leyland P75 on Oct 27, 2008 12:21:26 GMT 12
I'm not sure that I recall anyone mentioning F-111. What does that have to do with it?
Don't answer..... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Oct 28, 2008 11:41:26 GMT 12
Bollocks to Cookie. I can say what I like when I like. What is your point anyway. If the capacity of the STOVL JSF is deemed necessary from the LHDs then it will eventuate. Just because the STOVL is more difficult than the ordinary JSF does not mean anything really. People will get on with it. Probably the ordinary JSF will have to be purchased before any consideration of STOVL version. No one has been questioning the purchase of the 2 LHDs to my knowledge. These will be superbly useful ships in RAN service.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leyland P75 on Oct 28, 2008 12:11:32 GMT 12
Right on FN, bollocks to that indeed!  Oldnavy......? |
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Oct 28, 2008 19:43:58 GMT 12
Soz guys. Spent the day flying...did I miss something?
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Oct 28, 2008 20:20:47 GMT 12
Tracking Back will na help ye Old Neptune with FORK of three PRONGs. It would seem that COOKIE has taken down his question to you. I did not save it to put it to you further. If that is possible. If me memory serves me - which it don't - the question was about: IF we get STOVLies JSF how will they benefit ADF compared to conventional (or even the JSF-C that will have extended range slightly)? These STOVLs will be more difficult to maintain and stuff. What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Oct 28, 2008 22:58:05 GMT 12
My understanding of the whole concept of JSF is to make 3 models all with much commonality. Indeed they should be a lot more similar to each other than significantly different types such as the F18A-D and F18E-F, making such procedures as maintenance even more easy for the F35.
Any new technology aircraft is going to be easier to maintain than an older generation aircraft. What does the JSF glossy show the maintenance man-hour per flight hour is? Fairly sure it will be less than existing types for all models and if the F35B is more than the other 2 it won't be by much.
Need to check with how it is all working out, but my further understanding is that all models of JSF have significantly longer combat radii than the F18A-D and the F16 various models, so people worrying about reduced range of the F35B need to remember what it is replacing and how much further forward it will be when launching.
The beauty of the F35B will be its ready deployability. F35A and C will be tied to either a long runway or mechanical launch/land assistance. This involves very expensive facilities and the associated risks. STOVL aircraft are simply more flexible.
Lastly, as discussed in another thread, qualifying an F35C pilot to deploy in support of a friendly nation who may have conventional carriers will be a really difficult evolution involving months of specialised training and it will become a major ongoing currency issue, whereas the F35B pilot can just go on board regardless of the platform. STOVL is easy.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Oct 29, 2008 7:26:35 GMT 12
So then 'STOVLing in' is different to "STOVEing in" (conventional carrier landings)? ;D
Another question from Cookie (or a comment) was that the LHDs were in danger of not being in service. This is news to me. As mentioned I guess we will have to purchase JSFs before any consideration would be given to STOVL version. Forward deployment on land (even in Northern Australia after bases destroyed by KOPP missiles) would be another reason for some STOVLies for RAAF even if they don't want to come aboard. Shirley the RAF/RN Harrier legacy makes a convincing scenario?
|
|
|
|
Post by Leyland P75 on Oct 29, 2008 9:37:46 GMT 12
oldnavy,
Just on the range issue, the JSF does indeed have longer range than the Fs 18 and 16 but this is on internal fuel only. As we all know, seeing an F-18 without at least a centre-line external is a bit of a rarity.....
There's no reason you can't stick external fuel on a JSF, but in doing so you lose the airframe's stealth advantage. Granted, we've done without stealth up until now, and there may be occasions where it is feasible to do so again. You could also, in certain situations, move to the edge of the detection zone using external tanks, dropping them to run "stealthy" on internal fuel for the combat run. There is also the issue of payload trade-off on a short takeoff when leaving the LHD's if you are carrying external tanks.
I read somewhere that there is work underway to develop conformal tanks that will be more stealthy than the traditional wing or centre mounted tanks. Granted, none of these issues are insurmountable, but it isn't as cut and dried as saying "JSF/F-35 has longer range"..... yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Oct 29, 2008 10:15:29 GMT 12
Good to see that there might be flexibility on the external fuel for JSF issue in future. Are not we getting ahead of ourselves with the JSF-B on LHDs? I'm all for it but just having them is a huge plus; whatever restrictions there might be. Given the LHD has a ramp and can make good knots into wind the payload issue may be less than imagined? I guess someone in RAN is working on this issue "as we type" - 'just in case'. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Oct 29, 2008 11:06:00 GMT 12
Another workaround for embarked JSF-Bs would be to tank them after T/O or some way down the track. Have not checked whether the JSF will have buddy refuelling. Seems like a good idea if a RAAF tanker is too far away!
|
|
|
|
Post by Leyland P75 on Oct 29, 2008 16:28:50 GMT 12
Tell me, with a straight face FN, that the prospect of seeing an Australian Fleet Air Arm again isn't why you're so excited about JSF!
I said "straight face"!
Seriously though, no doubt someone is working on it, even if it's just to see whether it's feasible. No reason it shouldn't be. At the end of the day, the launch platform makes no difference to the aircraft once it's in the air does it (apart from potential range advantages off a longe deck)? Similarly, there's probably no reason you couldn't fit a buddy tank or two under the wings. Even if you lost "stealth" it's not hard to imagine that stealth would be less crucial for aircraft configured as such, operating further away from the combat zone.
Probably the real issue will be in protection of the LHD if you were to use one as a carrier. One or two subs, an AWD, one or two frigates for ASW, a tanker and a tender. There goes the Australian Navy..... Sure, you'll still need to protect them even if they aren't utilised as a carrier, but surely any ship carrying six or so fighter jets has to be a tasty target....
It is interesting though, and certainly opens up some options for the ADF.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Oct 29, 2008 16:51:41 GMT 12
All modern fighters can air to air refuel. The only question would be whether they are USAF common (receptacle on fighter) or rest of the world common (probe on fighter). Not a problem in Australia because the Airbuses will do both.
My point about F35B is not that you have to deploy them on anything. It is simply that you can deploy them on loads of things. The LHDs are definitely possible. As to whether they would deploy there is another thing completely. I can assure you that F35A and F35C can only deploy forward to large established air bases or on large conventional carriers (C only). The B can go to those places and it can go to short unprepared strips, and it can go to remote mexe pads, and it can land on a Spanish freighter if needed, and it can FOB from roads outside the local disco.
People should stop seeing it as a limited capability of the conventional models and start seeing it as a completely new capability able to do many things the conventionals can't do.
Peter75, your point about external tanks is well made and quite apparent. That discussion goes on forever, because there are literally thousands of wot ifs. I think the main thrust of my point is just the simple message that F35 is an F18 replacement and it will be better in most scenarios. Be in no uncertain terms though, USN is buying FA18E and F because they want that kind of capability even when F35 is in service. They clearly think a lot of their Super Dogs.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Oct 29, 2008 19:27:30 GMT 12
Trident-Wielding-One makes a good point about changing our thinking re STOVL. Once the RAAF see the light on STOVL there will be no holding back I reckon. Shirley the RAF can put their oar in on it?
Having JSF buddy refuelling from LHDs forward would be useful.
OOPs missed peter75 post on previous page. The carrier as a high value target is valid but it ain't so easy to find in the first place. It is a well worn argument that has not held up in practice. For example I guess the Argies did sink HMS Invincible - but only in their deluded minds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leyland P75 on Oct 30, 2008 9:17:43 GMT 12
Well, in fairness, the carrier argument hasn't had a lot of practice. There are only two naval wars that I can think of since the introduction of the carrier, those being WWII and the Falklands. There were plenty of carriers going down in WWII. With the proliferation of subs in the region and the world in general, it is absolutely not out of the question that a carrier might be found and prosecuted. The Chinese surfaced not a couple of klicks from a US carrier not a year or two ago. One of our own Collins boats pulled a similar stunt in the relatively shallow Gulf of Carpenteria about four years ago. I think carriers are as vulnerable as any other surface combatants, albeit better protected, that's not to devalue them as an asset, it's just the nature of war.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leyland P75 on Oct 30, 2008 9:42:34 GMT 12
oldnavy,
Point taken, do you know what it is that they see as being the key advantages (if any) of the Hornet over the JSF? I read somewhere they're quite keen on the fact that the Super Hornet has a crew of two. My understanding was that the JSF will automate a lot of the function of the second crewman. Or are they, like us, using it as an interim solution?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Oct 30, 2008 16:20:55 GMT 12
Hi peter75, USN is absolutely tied to big deck conventional carriers and they therefore like big aeroplanes. In my view, the Super Hornets are big and the USN see them as F14 and EA6 replacements, and the F35C is an F18A-D replacement. With the Super Hornet being seen more as heavy metal than the F35 it would imply to me (without actually knowing) that the Super Hornet can carry more weapons/fuel? Last time I looked at the USN Super H squadrons, I thought they were predominantly E flyers? Our local desire for Fs is probably more to do with the politics of replacing F111s than with an actual need for two seaters (IE what would we do with the redundant F111 Navs?) Technically an additional cockpit/crewman adds around 1000 lbs weight to an aircraft thus penalising either fuel or weapons load. When it comes to pure fighters, single seat always seems to win the configuration argument. I really have no axe to grind on what's best. My two seat mates all swear by it. For me, as a former single seat pilot, I have no doubt most of the cockpit work done by an additional crewman can be automated/simplified and with two crew you are effectively just taking an extra pair of eyes along for the ride. ;D USN negative politicking about F35 will only ever be as loud as it needs to be to make sure they keep conventional carriers. They will love their F35Cs when they get them BTW, Navs are quite handy for carrying bags and wallets and other useful stuff on a run ashore. Another possible use for a back seater was seen in Top Gun. Goose proved useful to Maverick by bashing the canopy out of the way when they got in a flat spin heading out to sea...  (Although Super Hornets, being more modern, should have a much safer abandonment system than the old Tomcat.) |
|
(Although Super Hornets, being more modern, should have a much safer abandonment system than the old Tomcat.)