[quote]That seems to have cracked it, thanks fa18!

-RP

Reading more of the APH transcripts. Very interesting, that they slipped stuff about JSF, not in the JSF section, but under strategic reform program. Could have easily missed it. Anyone tell me who Dr Jensen is?

confirming orders for lrip6,7,8 ...more planes=less cost, when turkey shifted 2 the remainder went up $1m each

Jesnsen is an opposition parliamentarian who uses apa for his talking points

In fact, you can now refer to the person you're quoting as anything you want.

"These are inconsistent with years of detailed analysis that has been undertaken by Defence, the JSF program office, Lockheed Martin, the US services and the eight other partner nations."

The cost and schedule of the development program are also "inconsistent" with the promises made and accepted by these august, well-informed and doubtless honest institutions; whereas the outsider critics turned out to be correct in saying (from 2007-08 onwards) that the costs were fantasy and that the schedule was infeasible.

Moreover, the JSFPO, the Joe Isuzus in industry and the officials defending the program used the same fallacy (argument from authority) to assert that the people (from APA to Navair and the Pentagon's Joint Estimating Team) who were criticizing the schedule were wrong, because only the anointed understood that the program could not be assessed against "legacy" metrics.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are three levels of risk with the JSF program: programmatic (which is now a fact, rather than risk, and the only question is how bad the final delays and overruns will be); operational; and strategic. The critics have won on the first and the verdict is still out on the second and third.

CM - Of course they could get a better range in Canada because the upper air temperatures are low and you can get to your cruise altitude more quickly and efficiently.

As for the negotiations: The partners don't matter. Their price will be whatever the US pays.

Good point. Or the Canadians might have different CONOPS. Although not from what I've seen so you must be right.

Promise?

Or you go the easy way and press the "Reply", remove the &noquote=1 from the URL.
Then you can remove any part of text between the [ quote ] and [ /quote ]

Dr. Jensen Official Biography
 

For 'Courtney Mil' Dr. Jensen Official Bio: Dr Dennis Jensen MP ? Parliament of Australia

Hold on he got his degree from Monash....which coincidently is where Carlo Kopp is a research fellow.....

From wiki He is a climate change denier and has supported a climate chage book written by a former CEO of a mining corporation and he's managed to get into a public spat with an aboriginal woman regarding colonialism......

Sounds like a nicely balanced individual, probably fits right in with APA.

EM - Very funny, but between this and citing the Fankiddy Playspace as a source, you're not helping your credibility at all.

The "coincidence" of Kopp and Jensen both passing through Monash might be explained by the fact that it has 62,000 students.

I don't want to drag this off-topic but if anyone actually wants to read Jensen's Wackypedia and follow the links, it's a different story.

Must try harder.

I don't often comment on other nations' politicians, but this Jensen guy sounds a bit colourful. From what I've read there, a pro-Nazi, Liberal, anti-Einstein, scientist that can't understand the greenhouse effect, spits on native Australians, self-proclaimed defence analyst that keeps failing preselection for his seat in Parliament. Have I got that wrong? So how does he get to serve on all those committees, etc. There must be more to it.

Sorry for the thread drift, but was interested to know where he was coming from.

Ah. Yes, LO. Following the links shows that there is more to it. The Wikipedia piece isn't very flattering, is it?

Errr so can you point out the bits in the links that explain that he isn't a climate change denier and he didn't have a public spat with an Australian voter about colonialism. LO pretty please? There appears to be no explanation of the source of the Lavosier groups funding the closest you can find is here

Inhofes List of Global Warming Deniers Includes Scientists Who Have Received Industry Money - The Daily Green

but it's an odd coincidence that the book he helped get published was written by the ex CEO of a mining corporation.

I'm just saying he's displayed some odd behaviour and his own party have nipped his preselection twice before. The first time not long after being elected and he managed to take only a quarter of the vote not exactly a ringing endorsement. He seems to have an interesting history certainly.

Not sure what my creditability has to do with anything? Mr Jensen appears to have done all of those things off his own idiosyncratic bat with no help from me.

It's not often I'll even comment about going off topic - indeed, I'd happily instigate such behaviour most of the time - but straw-man tactics seldom help one's cause, from whichever side of the argument.

I don't use the term "denier" in that context. What I said was that if you check the links you find something more nuanced. If you're looking for people with issues in the Australian JSF debate, you don't have to look very far to find them.

I agree, LO. First, sorry to have taken the thread so far off subject, I suggest we drop the Dr Jensen thing now.

Second, my reaon for asking about him was purely to see if there was anything there that would make him biased against the F35. The Aboriginal, book and Climate Change issues, unfortnate as they may be, are not really relevant.

Finally, the Wiki piece and the links to other souces didn't always seem to be describing the same person.

Real cost cost per flying hour.
Another Installment of ... F-35 Cost Per Flying Hour
Article goes on theorizing on lower total cost of ownership by using the new Flightsims more iso actual flying.
This offcourse is a bogus argument as this new simtech is potentially available for all platforms.

Let's be serious here, subsystems can be implemented just as easy on almost any older fighter, flightsim use only goes so far and the idea that you can achieve the same level of combat effectiveness vs less stealthy fighters remains to be seen and proven, AEW, AAR and all other support is just as much needed by the F35 generation as it is and was with the more conventional fighters.

A 70,000lbs fighter with a big 43,000lbs thrust engine is never going to be as cheap to operate as a fighter which wheighs much less.
I suspect the 31.9 vs 22 (45%) number is even very optimistic, it could very well be considerably more from the moment this thing is IOC and its shortcommings and other structural problems come to surface once it is being put through the paces of everyday operational use.
Lord knows the F16 had its fair share of problems at its conception, there are few examples of new fighters that operated without their fair share of glitches , further adding to the cost of sustaing this weapon.

edit, not to have to start a new message;
Also, what's happening on the software front;
SRN News : Pentagon sees some risk of delay in F-35 software

Millyuns for Thous
 

Nice 'howler' in the Amy Butler story on F-35A CPFH story:

Another Installment of ... F-35 Cost Per Flying Hour

"...The figure forthcoming to Congress next month, however, will be lower than that provided in last year’s selected acquisition report (SAR) to Capitol Hill, he says. That report cited the F-35A flying hour cost at $31.9 million versus $22.5 for the F-16 C/D...."

Very unlike Ms Butler, she's usually spot on! Perhaps a sub-editor's error...