Spot on. Defence see's right through this charade and APA has lost all credibility with them.
Sigh....I didnt want to get into this debate with you again rimjas, but since the below comments are indirectly aimed at me, because i sighted APA in my argument and therefore have only half a brain, i feel obliged to defend myself.
So mods dont blame me if this thing goes the way of the last little debate on the future of the RAAF were APA was brought up.
The average Australian who is uneducated on the topic will go "wow look at the pretty graphs and look at how much money we can save!!"
I dont agree with the F22/F111S idea and i daont agree with some of APA's analysis on this topic. There are just to many maybe's is the plan for accurate cost projections to be maid, so i am somewhat scheptical of the numbers given on the F22 (does it include lifetime costs) and the rebuilding of the F111, which is frought with risk.
For example Air Power Australia could state: "The SU-30 has a slim chance of photon torpedo's and hyperdrive being added to the aircraft in the region". In a way they aren't lieing. APA will then post graphs which happen to be based on the aircraft with said torpedo's and hyperdrive instead of the realistic capability. They will exclude the figure 0.0000001% chance of either technology even being invented yet let alone being added to the Suhkoi's, yet they use the words "slim chance". This is what they have done with the AL-41F and the ficticious stealth/streamlined weapon bay between the engines of the suhkoi. Neither of which will
everbe used by Indonesia. Notice how i said ever? Thats an APA tactic. Its probably a 99% chance Indonesia will not get these but ill smudge the figure to 100%
This is were you and me part ways buddie.
Here are just a few things wrong with what you have just said so simplisticly (i'm trying to be nice). By the way everything i am about to say i have said before so i am sure you are well aware of why the above statement incorect.
For some reason you only consider indonesia a threat nation, or a nation that needs to be considered. When the two nations (with current capabilities mind you, not the ones under development) who actualy have some capability to project power into the air/sea gap and northen australia or i.e. pose a
threat, are India and China. And dont start saying that a war with them is so unlikely that they dont need to be considered, because its about as likely as a war with indonesia, which you seem to consider a threat.
Do you know what stage of production the AL41F powerplant is in??? LRIP or Low Rate Initial Production. That is about the same stage of development as mauch of the F35 programe. And given the HUGE expansion in the export market for flankers and upgrades for them in PROC, India and SEA, could you explain exacltly how the russian are going to have trouble selling this in their next evoloution of flanker or as a powerplant upgrade, given its capabilities???? Because the way i see it its about as likely as ever seeing an F35 in RAAF colours. Your right it is about as likely as photon torpedoes huh???? Its intersting how you continually speak of future Australian capabilities as absolouts, but relegate the posibility of future threat capabilities to, how did you put it, "hyperdrive, photon torpedoes, and 0.0000001% chance". It seems you are more culpable when it comes to an inbalanced argument than APA, since you think the F35 will be some sort of a super fighter capable of doing anything, and the posibility of threat aircraft improving at all is so ridiculous to even consider it is evidence of stupidity.
Another example if you have an aircraft who's range is 900 miles and one that is 1000 miles. On a graph you can change the scale so that the bottom of the graph is 800 miles and the top is 900miles. So even though one aircraft has 10% extra range the bar on the graph is twice as long.. Air Power Australia do this all the time. For example to compare an aircrafts radar If you had two radars one with 1000 AESA modules and another with 2000 AESA modules.. Air Power Australia would then put a bar graph showing the larger radar with a 100% increase. Yet in real life the detection increase would not even be 50%. Air power Australia would then exclude the fact that the aircraft with the smaller radar has a radar cross section 1/1000th the size. So the the smaller radar'd aircraft would detect the other aircraft well before, yet the graph says otherwise. This is selective quoting.
If your going to make accusation like that it would be good to give some evidence, lest you look foolish by making childinsh, immature and overly simplistic accusations. Note the bottom of this page, three graphs i picked up from the APA website. Both show the whole length of the graph, not just the "top section" in order to exagerate any difference. 10M2 RCS to 0.001M2 RCS is pretty comprehensive. They dont "change the scale" to exagerate any differnce. They may not take track radii or EA into account but they dont claim to.
Anyway the F-22 will cost 317 million each (a) and the F-35 will only cost 38 million each (b) so nearly 10 times as much. That statement is 100% correct!!!
nfloorl: thats a lame attempt at sarcasm.
Could you back up your accusations with SOME evidence please????
In general terms the argument behind the F111/F22 idea may indeed be flawed and Kopp does have a personal/finantial interest in it. However people like Mr rimjas will use that to render any arguments made by APA as irrelevent because they dont like it upseting the warm, fuzzy feeling they get wgen they think of the F35, even though it is an argument based in factual analysis. Someones intention is irrelevent if their argument is backed up with EVIDENCE, which APA does. Now their analysis may be flawed to some extent, if so make a factual argument of your won to rebutt theirs, dont just make childish accusations.
P.S. it is slightly hipocritical to accuse APA of makeing simplistic or biased analysis, when you did use high school phisics equasions to support youtr argument concerning the F35's kinemetic performance. Perhaps your attitude towards any advancements in the flanker family can be seen in a similar light???
