ABC (Australia) '4 Corners' programme 18 Feb - F35 expose
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."
"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."
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,603
Likes: 0
Received 61 Likes
on
48 Posts
Originally Posted by JSFfan
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
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Last edited by JSFfan; 19th Feb 2013 at 14:51.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh that's right, I forgot...it's a world conspiracy and only a dozen or so old men know the truth 
chris, here's the transcript for now, perhaps someone will upload to youtube
REACH FOR THE SKY - Four Corners
chris, here's the transcript for now, perhaps someone will upload to youtube
REACH FOR THE SKY - Four Corners
Last edited by JSFfan; 19th Feb 2013 at 15:08.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,603
Likes: 0
Received 61 Likes
on
48 Posts
Uncut "Four Corners" 'Reach for the Sky' Interviews
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/fou...ogdan_288p.mp4
__________________
Youtube versions of two uncut interviews are now online.
Bogdan:
Carvalho:
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/fou...ogdan_288p.mp4
__________________
Youtube versions of two uncut interviews are now online.
Bogdan:
Carvalho:
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 19th Feb 2013 at 16:08. Reason: Utube Video URLs
@ 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.
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.
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 53
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
Last edited by FoxtrotAlpha18; 19th Feb 2013 at 21:48.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The F-16 has become a good jet DESPITE Sprey's initial input, not because of it.
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!
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!
Last edited by FoxtrotAlpha18; 19th Feb 2013 at 21:47.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Went on to be one of our better buys and we went back to buy more.
regards
Col
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
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.
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
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.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 53
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really? So these sources are wrong are they?
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.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-16 potential
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.
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.
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 20th Feb 2013 at 05:57. Reason: Grammar