ABC (Australia) '4 Corners' programme 18 Feb - F35 expose [Archive]

rjtjrt

18th Feb 2013, 21:04

Cuefaye
As you are in UK and RAF retired, I don't think you can imply you are an unbiased observer.
We are all parochial, including me.
So UK citizens aghast that the magnificent 5th generation Typhoon not selected by those ungrateful ex convicts, French citizens dismayed such imbeciles wouldn't select let alone consider Rafale, US citizens chuffed that those fine Aussies selected the obvious stand out, etc.
I think we should have gone Russian, so there!
By the way Cufaye, were you here in some capacity representing a vested interest?
John

cuefaye

18th Feb 2013, 21:11

Silly chap. I have no axe to grind. And a once friend of mine in those days, when CAF, replied to my question about the possibilty of a Flanker acquisition, that he'd do a deal with the devil if it was in the best interest of his RAAF.

JSFfan

18th Feb 2013, 21:20

cuefaye (http://www.pprune.org/members/397630-cuefaye), I wouldn't use the word balanced, there were bad mistakes in it but the Howard and 2002 was accurate enough and for history prior to that there was also the UK/AU joint MOU to 'explore' procurement of next jet, where UK went to typhoon and AU declined and sat on the fence some more.

edit, as to flankers, there was a serious initial look and russia did offer

rjtjrt

18th Feb 2013, 21:35

Cufaye.
You must be a politician (fine chaps they are too) - you skillfully avoided answering the question about whether you were here representing a vested interest.

cuefaye

18th Feb 2013, 21:41

Not a pollie! Ex-military and gunrunner - at a ministerial level :eek:

cuefaye

18th Feb 2013, 21:58

the UK/AU joint MOU to 'explore' procurement of next jet

as to flankers, there was a serious initial look and russia did offer

Neither of which, in reality, were more than brief, cursory exercises. I initiated the first of these - it was an engineering set-up, which was at best a sham. No doubt you'll say it led to some workshare (not a lot}, but it was never really going anywhere vis-a-vis a EF2000 project; especially after John Howard (and Angus) dismantled the Acquisiton Process!

JSFfan

18th Feb 2013, 23:59

I don't know about the engineering, I'm going by distant memories and it was seconhand info, but my feeling is that it was a broad look, was in place before UK was keen on the ef2000 and that MOU would of ended when UK went with the EF2000. I threw it in as a bit of history
There was a later EF2000 proposal where we would get work share, do you mean this?

Bevo

19th Feb 2013, 00:30

I have often wondered why Australia did not look at the F-15E. The latest variants are pretty good.

FAR CU

19th Feb 2013, 00:34

For the benefit of those trawling through fast here, here is the
precis from the ABC Four Corners home page

Those in the wide brown land can see a repeat at 2335 tonight

The JSF project could cost Australian taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Is this plane a super fighter or a massive waste of money?

VIDEO: Interview with Lt. General Chris Bogdan - F-35 Joint Program Office

VIDEO: Interview with Orlando Carvalho, Lockheed Martin

VIDEO: Interview with Peter Goon, Air Power Australia

It's been billed as the smartest jet fighter on the planet, designed to strike enemies in the air and on the ground without being detected by radar. But after a decade of intensive development, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is over budget, a long way behind schedule and described by one expert as "big, fat and draggy".

The JSF project could cost Australian taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Is this plane a super fighter or a massive waste of money?

Four Corners reporter, Andrew Fowler, travels to the United States in search of answers. He goes to Lockheed Martin's top secret factory in Texas. He also secured the first television interview with the Pentagon's new head man on the project, whose candid assessment of the JSF would chill many in the Defence Department:

"Well, let's make no mistake about it, this program still has risks, technical risks, it has cost issues, it has problems we'll have to fix in the future."

The question is how and why did Australia lock itself into a project that both experts and senior US politicians say is dangerously flawed? Four Corners asks three crucial questions.

Why was the plane chosen without an open and competitive tender?

Why did the then head of the RAAF give the plane and the project his stamp of approval when it was barely off the drawing board?

And will the aircraft's capabilities have to be downgraded before it gets into service?

Reflecting on the decision not to open the purchase of a new fighter jet to competition, one insider told the program:

"Now we were proposing that we buy something being developed for the US Air Force if you like, on a whim."

Last year the Canadian Government was rocked by revelations that it had severely under-estimated the cost of the 65 Joint Strike Fighters it had contracted to buy. As a result Canada has been forced to halt the purchase and re-assess it through an open tender process. This has major implications for Australia. It suggests we could be under-estimating the JSF's true cost and it means if the Canadians pull out of the program the price of each plane will rise yet again.

Mk 1

19th Feb 2013, 02:33

That computersim shown - the one where the blue force lost all supporting assets (2 x AWACS, 6 x KC10) and 23 out of the 24 F35's - anyone know what parameters were used? How many enemy? What the combat loadings were? Relative positions at the start of the serial?

Could it be that you could construct a scenario where a squadron of F-22's gets hosed by a squadron of Sopwith Pups?

Andu

19th Feb 2013, 04:38

Mk1, the man running the simulation did say that that result was a bit more dire than most, but I don't think anyone wastes computer time on a totally unrealistic scenario. (I'll accept that they may have been attempting to make a point, but I can't believe they'd have put on something totally unrealistic for the cameras, if only because the opposing side in the argument - LockMart and DMO - would be so easily placed to refute their claims, making their whole argument fall over. I see that nothing's been said today about that simulation being unrealistic - or if it has, I haven't heard it. In fact, I've heard diddly squat about last night's 4 Corners on today's MSM news.)

Currently serving AAVN people have said here on Pprune in the past that they've been told by their political masters that the ADF cannot afford to lose an MRH-90 or a Tiger because of the cost, both politically and in $$$, that any such loss would entail. If that's true, imagine what restrictions the knucks will be under with the F35s when/if they ever arrive.

I'm reminded of when the RAN bought the FFGs. The whole concept of the frigate was that it operated as an ASW platform with its on board ASW helicopters providing the 'pointy end' of its ASW role. We bought the ship, but for a very long time, no state of the art helicopter that could operate from it. So what did they do when the first FFG steamed in through Sydney Heads? They flew a bloody Kiowa out from Watson to be placed prominently on its flight deck - and Bruce and Sheila Taxpayer and the useless media were happy and content.

I can't help but feel we're going to see something similar with the F35. They might be allowed out to provide a bit of noise at the opening of the odd Formula One meeting to impress the taxpaying punters - and after seeing its hourly operating costs, at precious few times in between.

SpazSinbad

19th Feb 2013, 06:39

'Andu' this would be a 'blanket denial':

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-58.html#post7700706

ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 16/03/2012 : Department of Defence annual report 2010-11 (http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=04ae6db96709241d69f389137ea2abf9&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fmilitary-aircrew%2F424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-58.html&v=1&out=http%3A%2F%2Fparlinfo.aph.gov.au%2FparlInfo%2Fsearch%2Fd isplay%2Fdisplay.w3p%3Bdb%3DCOMMITTEES%3Bid%3Dcommittees%252 Fcommjnt%252F2dbe833f-6e45-4a8a-b615-8745dd6f148e%252F0001%3Bquery%3DId%253A%2522committees%252Fc ommjnt%252F2dbe833f-6e45-4a8a-b615-8745dd6f148e%252F0000%2522&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fmilitary-aircrew%2F508289-abc-australia-4-corners-programme-18-feb-f35-expose.html&libid=1361259699269&title=F-35%20Cancelled%2C%20then%20what%20%3F%20-%20Page%2058%20-%20PPRuNe%20Forums&txt=ParlInfo%20-%20Parliamentary%20Joint%20Committee%20on%20Foreign%20Affair s%2C%20Defence%20and%20Trade%20%3A%2016%2F03%2F2012%20%3A%20 Department%20of%20Defence%20annual%20re...&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13612597188162)

The RAAF apparently declined to participate in the Four Corners show.

JSFfan

19th Feb 2013, 07:01

Andu, that's because ADF has already said the sim is rubbish
apa/repsim did the sim and it's on youtube with the assumptions, f-16net did a reasonable takedown of it, worth a read...add to that that the aim-120 missile ranges of 20ml with a 5% hit rate over this, when russian sim site say it's rubbish who also looked at it, apa/repsim increased the range of russian and decrease the range of US missiles, and it doesn't even agree with RU manuals..so it's garbage in garbage out.. add to that that the capability of the actual simulator software is like a billy-cart to the F1 race car the air forces use.
add to that that the air force sims have actually increased from 3:1 to a 6:1 in 4 f-35 vs 8 red air, as more has become known

kbrockman

19th Feb 2013, 09:50

What I don't understand is why didn't the Australian MOD or one of the politicians that where involved in the original purchase deal at least try to explain their reasoning behind going so quickly for the F35 ?

The whole report was certainly informative at certain points, albeit being somewhat slanted towards the anti-JSF side at certain points (yes, the simulation part was kind of laughable).

All in all though, I think that General Bogdan was at least trying to be as open as possible about the program which did the JSF more good than bad.
As far as PR tactics go there are basically 3 ways an interview like that can turn out;
1. Participate like General Bogdan, fairly open and as honest as possible which only helps the F35 case.
2. Like the LM representative, going in with a clear distrust of the interviewing journalist, he looked like a shady arms-dealer but at least he was there and tried to make a case for his company
3.Not showing up like the Australian DoD or involved politicians which only can be interpreted negatively.

Hempy

19th Feb 2013, 10:03

The whole program is available to watch via ABC iView.
ABC iview (http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/31151)

Chris Scott

19th Feb 2013, 10:37

Only in Oz, apparently:

"Due to copyright reasons this video program is available for download by people located in Australia only. If you are not located in Australia, you are not authorised to view this video."

SpazSinbad

19th Feb 2013, 10:41

Perhaps the video will work from here:

REACH FOR THE SKY - Four Corners (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/02/18/3690317.htm)

Courtney Mil

19th Feb 2013, 11:59

the air force sims have actually increased from 3:1 to a 6:1 in 4 f-35 vs 8 red air, as more has become known

I'd love to read more about that. As you know, man-in-the-loop combat effectiveness simulations was one of my previous jobs, so would be interested. Can you offer me a link or a reference please?

JSFfan

19th Feb 2013, 12:18

LM testimony to aus gov, link and quotes already given here and I think we talked about?
man in the loop had a greater than 6:1

also during the hearing, the dodgy EF2000 sim was brought up, did you have anything to do with that?

LowObservable

19th Feb 2013, 14:21

CM - As you know, the capability of the JSF can be enhanced simply by using new software...

...the software in question being PowerPoint.

JSFfan

19th Feb 2013, 14:44

Oh that's right, I forgot...it's a world conspiracy and only a dozen or so old men know the truth :ok:

chris, here's the transcript for now, perhaps someone will upload to youtube
REACH FOR THE SKY - Four Corners (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/02/18/3690317.htm#transcript)

SpazSinbad

19th Feb 2013, 15:29

For 'Chris Scott' this mostly unseen segment should be readily downloadable. Lt.Gen. Bogdan's uncut '4 Corners' interview - 17 minutes (58Mb):

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/fourcorners/video/201318_4c_bogdan_288p.mp4
__________________

Youtube versions of two uncut interviews are now online.

Bogdan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFM9myJ4KQc

Carvalho: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXkKjRBOdfw

Mk 1

19th Feb 2013, 16:30

@ kbrockman: "3.Not showing up like the Australian DoD or involved politicians which only can be interpreted negatively."

Then again had they appeared they would have had 2 choices; Either the old 'I'd tell you but I'd have to put you head in a safe afterwards' as the interviewer and general public are not permitted to know all the secrets, OR, they would be mainly stonewalling and using the emperors new clothes argument: trust us - it works we cannot tell you why we think that for OPSEC reasons.

At least by not appearing they can say that as they knew it to be a media 'beat-up' they avoided being dragged into the dopey discussion. Sprey being dragged out as an expert made me chuckle - he was revered as the 'genius' behind the F-16. Nobody would argue that the F-16 is now a highly effective multi role airframe. The F-16 that Sprey argued for was basically an early Mk Spitfire with a jet engine - a pure dogfighter armed with a gun and two sidewinder missiles. Relevant in the 1950's much less so in the 70's and 80's let alone today.

Chris Scott

19th Feb 2013, 17:39

Thanks Spaz,

All the links in your two posts work fine here in Blighty. Very interesting and comprehensive documentary, which might teach some of our own investigative journalists a thing or two.

Chris

Thelma Viaduct

19th Feb 2013, 18:20

Don't know why the aussies don't just buy something with a pretty dump & burn again, it will keep the natives happy.

http://th272.photobucket.com/albums/jj162/crokychips/th_tosser.gif

kbrockman

19th Feb 2013, 18:42

Nobody would argue that the F-16 is now a highly effective multi role airframe. The F-16 that Sprey argued for was basically an early Mk Spitfire with a jet engine - a pure dogfighter armed with a gun and two sidewinder missiles. Relevant in the 1950's much less so in the 70's and 80's let alone today.

What a load of BS, the Israelis more than proved the point of the original F16 by pretty much dominating in 1982 over the Lebanon skies with it, in combination with their KFIR's and F15's.
Designing an all new fighter and in the beginning putting the emphasis mainly on the basic quality of the Airframe-motor-basic avionics package with a limited role like they did with the F15 and F16 in the beginning is a very sensible way of doing things.
If the basics are right it will be fairly straightforward building and expanding upon it, something they should have done with the F35 in the first place.

FoxtrotAlpha18

19th Feb 2013, 21:42

What I don't understand is why didn't the Australian MOD or one of the politicians that where involved in the original purchase deal at least try to explain their reasoning behind going so quickly for the F35 ?

Because MINDEF is hot for another Super Hornet buy to shore up his legacy, and both he and the SEC made sure no one was available to 4Corners... :ugh::hmm::(

FoxtrotAlpha18

19th Feb 2013, 21:47

The F-16 has become a good jet DESPITE Sprey's initial input, not because of it. :hmm:

If Sprey/Boyd had fully had their way, there would be nothing at the hi end of the hi-lo mix... no F-15, no F-22... just F-16s and A-10s! :eek:

herkman

19th Feb 2013, 22:38

I would like to point out a almost the same situation went on in the early 70s with the F111 purchase.

Went on to be one of our better buys and we went back to buy more.

regards

Col

Mk 1

19th Feb 2013, 22:55

kbrockman: What a load of BS, the Israelis more than proved the point of the original F16 by pretty much dominating in 1982 over the Lebanon skies with it, in combination with their KFIR's and F15's.

Really? So these sources are wrong are they?

The navalized YF-16 was to have BVR radar, which was not part of the original planning for a USAF F-16. http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article25.html

Originally conceived as a simple air-superiority day fighter, the aircraft was armed for that mission with a single six-barrel Vulcan 20-mm cannon and two Sidewinder missiles, one mounted at each wingtip. F-16 Fighting Falcon (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-16.htm)

It seems Sprey and the Fighter Mafia wanted a hotrodded F-86. Before the aircraft entered USAF service:

The U.S. Air Force initially ordered 15 "Full-Scale Development" (FSD) aircraft (11 single-seat and four two-seat models) for its flight test program, but this was reduced to eight (six F-16A single-seaters and two F-16B two-seaters).[30] The YF-16 design was altered for the production F-16. The fuselage was lengthened by 10.6 in (0.269 m), a larger nose radome was fitted for the AN/APG-66 radar, wing area was increased from 280 sq ft (26 m2) to 300 sq ft (28 m2), the tailfin height was decreased, the ventral fins were enlarged, two more stores stations were added, and a single door replaced the original nosewheel double doors. The F-16's weight was increased by 25% over the YF-16 by these modifications.[31][32]

That last bit was from Wiki.

The F-16 the Israeli's used was a very different animal to the YF-16 of the Fighter Mafia's febrile imaginations.

kbrockman

19th Feb 2013, 23:57

Really? So these sources are wrong are they?

Not wrong but severely put out of context.
Initially the F16/F17 was very badly received by both the NAVY and the AIR FORCE, it was already very early known that the USAF wouldn't even consider a F16 equipped with a capable BVR Radar, the very simplified F16 was the only way that they (USAF) could be convinced signing up for the project, that way they where certain that the F15 wouldn't be cut to insignificant levels which was something they where very afraid of.

When we (and later the Dutch) got involved after we decided to exit the MRCA project (our F15-styyle big high tech Euro-fighter dream) and got in to a 4 partner nation LWF-project, the F16 was only a viable option when all the modifications would be included, the Radar, more weapon-points and a 25% bigger plane.
After that it was basically a no-brainer for the USAF to operate the F16 alongside their F15 because they realized it made good sense and they could keep the F15 (certainly once Reagan got into office).

The F16 today certainly is a very potent fighter but until the mid 80's (also the initial Israeli Block 10's BTW) where in no way as complex as the F16's we see today.

The idea that the fighter maffia where uniformly anti-Radar is just plain simply wrong, there was 1 member that somewhere said that it didn't even needed a radar, but the overall opinion was that a Radar certainly would be preferable.

I would have hoped that they went more like the F16 before and didn't engage in a 1 size fits all and does all from the beginning type of fighter the JSF has become now making it needlessly complex ,heavy, and ridiculously expensive.

A JSF for a limited number of tasks like air superiority and maybe a modern form of wild weasel task with a very limited A2G role in the beginning would have been a good idea, the weights could have been kept down ,no need for an initial 18500lbs weaponload and the frame, fuel and engine that inevitably goes with it.
No need for a fully functional A2G and A2A EODAS package from the beginning.
It would probably already have been operating by now and as years and technology evolve and the needs can be better determined as to how many actually need the full A2G+A2A capability, the program could be steadily updated according to the clients needs.

LowObservable

20th Feb 2013, 00:06

Mk1 - "Febrile imaginations"?

And your impact on military aviation history has been exactly what?

Bushranger 71

20th Feb 2013, 04:55

I am a John Boyd disciple (and I confess, an old F-86 Avon Sabre jock) believing his 'horses for courses' thinking regarding air platforms was valid, also his distaste for so-called multi-role combat aircraft. The simplicity of the original F-16 as a pure interceptor, with high thrust to weight ratio and great fuel fraction, would have had improved performance if wing area been increased to the extent he advocated, which did not happen. The enormous amount of R&D since accomplished for that airframe makes it potentially the most affordable air combat platform for many nations, if equipped with weapons systems since developed. Alternatively, it can be specifically reshaped for a strike role, like the Israeli F-16I 'Sufa'.

The US has for a long time been bent toward big heavy platforms requiring more fuel to be burned to carry more fuel. 2 engines and stuffing MRCA airframes with systems inevitably ups the unit acquisition and operating costs resulting in aircraft manufacturers now generally producing hardware that is getting beyond the affordability of many nations.

Considering all of the valuable R&D progressively accomplished for the F-16 platform, over 4,400 produced and the assembly line extant, US politicians should not have permitted Lockheed Martin to progress the F-35 JSF when they were also producing the F-22. It would have been far wiser to direct LM to progress F-16 version optimisations and award development of the JSF elsewhere.

With defence budgets shrinking worldwide, military aircraft design emphasis now needs to be bent towards what is affordable for particular roles. That is increasingly less likely to be big heavy twin-engine platforms, so role-optimised F-16s could be very marketable for those nations not enamoured with stealth concepts.

cuefaye

20th Feb 2013, 10:34

herkman

almost the same situation went on in the early 70s with the F111 purchase.

Nope, very different

Mk 1

20th Feb 2013, 11:14

LO: Absolutely nothing. And this proves?

JSFfan

21st Feb 2013, 12:20

Would this be the same F-16 that was full of problems and a push to cancel?

http://archive.gao.gov/f0902c/105793.pdf

UNCERTAINTIES IN F-16 PROGRAM
In reviewing the F-16 program, GAO identified a number of uncertainties. The following are the most important, but there are others.

-- Critical development and operational flight testing remains.

-- Issues of the F-16's ability to survive and remlain invulnerable in battle remain unresolved. Proposals to incorportate modifications to increase the F-16's survivability remain undecided.

--The rate of loss for the F-16 due to engine malfunction is currently estimated by the Air Force to be three times higher than that called for by Air Force specifications.

LowObservable

21st Feb 2013, 15:08

Mk 1 - It bears on the appropriateness of making such comments as yours about those who have had such an impact.

Also, it's overkill in the extreme to argue that the F-16A was radically different from the YF-16. 20 square feet of wing area and a few inches on the antenna size do not equal a redesign.

Whatever you think of Sprey's views now, trying to dismiss his role in the F-16 in hindsight is a losing proposition.

Bastardeux

21st Feb 2013, 15:30

Interesting to hear that the brookings institute has suggested 'modest' savings of $200 billion over a decade today...the end result was a halving of the US F35 order. It's not unreasonable to expect deeper defense cuts, like obama's suggestion of $300 billion. Will be interesting to see if this is a possible beginning of the fabled 'death spiral', not because of its capabilities, but because of finances...

LowObservable

21st Feb 2013, 15:57

Other than the right-wing AEI and Heritage (who don't count for much in DC at this point) most of the think-tank community has now called for cutbacks in JSF.

JSFfan

21st Feb 2013, 16:27

Good to see them coming around. A couple of years ago it was a total failure and should be cancelled, now it's just cut back a bit.
Well done think tank.

Bastardeux

21st Feb 2013, 16:36

I'm sure if you read through the other think tanks, you'll still find ones that think it should be cancelled in its entirety.

But in any case, it's still very bad news for a programme that's verging on unaffordability for a large number of its partner nations.

JSFfan

21st Feb 2013, 17:18

Would these be the same doom and gloom think tanks that wanted the f-16 cancelled because of the problems?
It seems it was put into production of 650 units with a 'we'll fix it later' attachment.

GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense require acomplete program review before making any commitments for USAF F-16 purchases beyond the first 650 aircraft.
This review should include an updated military, need assessment and comparison of F-16 performance under realistic operational conditions.

The multinational F-16 single-engine fighter aircraft has been approved for full production; the first-production F-16 is scheduled fordelivery in August 1978.
A number of uncertainties about the F-16 remain:
critical development and operational flight Testing remains,issues of the F-16s ability to survive and remain invulnerable in battle remain unresolved, the F-100 enqine problems are serious because it has only one engine,and the rate of loss due to engine malfunction is currently estimated t o be three times higher than called for by Air Force Specifications. The basic delivery schedule requirements have caused some degree of concurrency between full-scale development, production, and deployment end, this has created an element of risk for the production program that could complicate correction of subsystem design problems

Courtney Mil

21st Feb 2013, 17:29

JSFfan. You're clutching at straws, Mate. You're sounding like a politico trying to "big-up" any scrap of good news, even every piece of news that is just neutral. The F-16 programme (and many others in those times) went on in a very different economic climate AND during the Cold War when defence spending had a much higher profile. It was also far less expensive "in real terms" and, being MUCH less complicated, far easier to make work properly. It also had significant growth potential.

As we now know, it also did its job very well. Oh, and the F100 engine turned out to be a real winner in its day. I flew some 500 hours of F100 without a single hiccough - despite my best endeavours.

Good to see them coming around. A couple of years ago it was a total failure and should be cancelled, now it's just cut back a bit.Well done think tank.

Gosh. That completely exonerates you. Everything you've been telling us is clearly true.

This review should include an updated military, need assessment and comparison of F-16 performance under realistic operational conditions.

And that, as I've told you before, is exactly what JSF needs to see if it still meets our requiremtns since the available g has been reduced and the accel time increased.

Bastardeux

21st Feb 2013, 17:43

Would these be the same doom and gloom think tanks that wanted the f-16 cancelled because of the problems?
It seems it was put into production of 650 units with a 'we'll fix it later' attachment.

What relevance does that have with today's budget reality? Whether they adopt a "we'll fix it later" attitude or not is irrelevant if the money isn't there to procure the aircraft numbers in the initial plan!

And cutting your aircraft numbers in half, particularly on the scale the Americans' initially planned on purchasing, constitutes much more than "cut back a bit"

JSFfan

21st Feb 2013, 17:50

got a link to where the total buy has been cut in half of initial plan, or is this like your USN statement?
or do you mean it's a think tank idea and counts for nothing?

Courtney Mil

21st Feb 2013, 17:55

Who's that question for, JSFfan?

Bastardeux

21st Feb 2013, 18:48

Well seeing as it's not official policy, no. Just like you would never have found a link explaining that the RAF actually planned to only buy 180 Typhoons for years and years, but officially was going to buy 230.

Furthermore, I never said it had been cut, I simply stated a think tank's predictions in comparatively modest budget cut scenario.

The US needs to make cuts in its federal budget. Which is a fact. The defense budget makes up half of US federal discretionary spending. Which is fact. All but a very small minority of congressmen are accepting that defense cuts will be part of a budget deal. Which is fact. The F35 is the biggest single expense on the DoD's books, again, a fact. If you think the F35 is magically going to be completely immune, you are very, very naive.

Just This Once...

21st Feb 2013, 18:49

I flew some 500 hours of F100 without a single hiccough - despite my best endeavours.

Surely more like a thousand, or did you only start one of them?:)

cuefaye

21st Feb 2013, 19:00

I flew some 500 hours of F100

Not a representative sample

glad rag

21st Feb 2013, 19:06

And that, as I've told you before, is exactly what JSF needs to see if it still meets our requiremtns since the available g has been reduced and the accel time increased.

Perhaps those nice QF people may have a use for them?:}

LowObservable

21st Feb 2013, 19:30

Not sure what JSFfan is talking about since he's on my filter, but in fact I know of no DC think tank (at least to the right of POGO) that called for the pruning (let alone felling) of the project before 2010 at the earliest.

Courtney Mil

21st Feb 2013, 20:12

Not a representative sample

OK. I'm not sure if you're being serious or difficult.

:*During my three years flying the F-15, at Tyndall, I was not aware of a single engine failure in any of the three squadrons flying there. No, I don't know how many hours that was, but flying four waves a day, plus deployed flying and a lot of aircraft, I would imagine that would constitute a representitive sample.

Just This Once. Good point, well made. In fact, come to think of it, double the above mentioned sample size.:ok:

Andu

21st Feb 2013, 20:23

It's been a while since I read the Boyd book, so if I've got this wrong, I'm sure someone will quickly correct me, but as I recall it, Boyd led a small group of young civilian performance engineers - including Sprey, who fought tooth and nail against the USAF hierarchy of the day to: -

(a) keep the F16 (the USAF top brass and the manufacturers wanted very long range, multi-purpose platforms like the F111 and a much heavier F15 than the F15 turned out to be [thanks in no small part to Boyd and his team]) and

(b) keep the F16 small and agile so it could be primarily what Boyd saw it needed to be - an air superiority fighter that could defeat anything in the Soviet inventory. He didn't quite succeed in this, and the F16 ended up a bit heavier than the model he pushed for.

If I recall correctly, the USAF brass were never even mildly enthusiastic about the F16 and would have been quite happy to see it shelved at any stage of its development in favour of the big and heavy 'fighters' that they and the manufacturers wanted. It was only when Boyd presented his slide show around Washington clearly demonstrating that every aircraft in the US inventory (even the F4) was inferior to the Russian aircraft of the day that he began to gain some traction. (But not without continued resistance to the end. He later faced a court-martial for 'stealing' a million dollars of computer time to come up with this presentation.)

This slide show effectively killed the F111 as a first line fighter bomber when Boyd showed it to be grossly inferior to the Russian fighters in every parameter measured. (Incidentally, a couple of F105 pilots thanked Boyd after surviving encounters with Mig19s and MiG21s using his model that showed a Thud pilot the options to use that would best serve them against a superior aircraft.)

The A10 featured heavily at this same time. The USAF brass really didn't want it, and went to extraordinary lengths to kill the project. It survived, thanks only to politics and what amounted to sleight of hand, but was relegated to ANG units almost immediately, and until the Iraq war(s), it was seen as a dead end aircraft unworthy of the 'real' USAF.

Anyone who thinks he knows anything about the way the Pentagon (and Canberra?) works would do well to read the Boyd book and see just how corrupt the system was (and, I suspect, still is).

(Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War, by Robert Coram.)

JSFfan

21st Feb 2013, 21:21

The ugly duckling proved its self a swan and has been the back bone of many western air forces. Those looking through the prision of their past experience at the time, couldn't see the future.

cuefaye

22nd Feb 2013, 08:48

CM

A tad precious last evening?

LowObservable

22nd Feb 2013, 11:42

Andu - That is about right. The USAF was trying for speeds well above M=2.5, and supersonic on the deck, for what became the F-15. And no, there was no plan for the USAF to buy F-16s until Schlesinger shoved it down their throats in 1974-75.

On the other hand, the Air Force did accept the A-10 "willingly" but only because the likely alternative was an expansion of Army air. They just did not use them with any degree of enthusiasm, or upgrade them significantly in the first 25 years of use.

Mk 1

22nd Feb 2013, 12:23

@ LO "Mk 1 - It bears on the appropriateness of making such comments as yours about those who have had such an impact.

Also, it's overkill in the extreme to argue that the F-16A was radically different from the YF-16. 20 square feet of wing area and a few inches on the antenna size do not equal a redesign."

You forgot the small matter of the installation of the AN/APG-66 and the fact that the weight of the aircraft (you know that thing that the F-35 is continually beaten up on) increased by 25% :hmm: Yeah - you are right it was just a nip and tuck.:rolleyes:

Which was my point (that you conveniently missed) - Sprey is revered as one of the father's of the F-16 - his concept of a couple of heaters and a gun in a small lightweight airframe didn't even stand up well in the late 60's early 70's (see mods mentioned earlier). And this was in an era when the F-16 would have plenty of F-15's providing 'big brother' high end support. The F-16 also had plenty of close relations in the F-4's, F-105's and F-111 to play the interdiction/strike role. Fast forward 40 years and even the US only has 187 F-22's to play the high end role - and the F-35 will be replacing every other damn tactical platform except F-15E's so the F-35 will have to be a multi-role product. By that very requirement it will be complicated, larger and less manourverable (particularly given the specs foistered on it) than Sprey's F-86 on steroids solution. In other airforces, the only jobs it won't have will be performed by basic trainers and C-130's (and the like).

Having Sprey give his opinion is like listening to some old car enthusiast complain that in a crash the modern cars don't crash like a 1955 Buick. :}