for Gottliebsen to requote the F-22 acquisition line just shows how daft and uninformed he is - it also shows he doesn't do basic research
Yep had taken me all of two minutes to find the very basic infomation in regards to RAAF F35A's, But also if we don't respond to the media who make uninformed bile trading as insightful commentary how are we to inform the rest of the community.
*
We Should point to the Senate inquiry into JSF to*Gottliebsen*and make the follow points about JSF, and the 10 points to counter APA.
Point 1,
Classified data
"It is important to note that some submissions emphasised that it is impossible to accurately understand and critique the capabilities of the F-35 without access to detailed classified performance data."
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) told the committee that it does not draw on classified information for its public discussion papers and as a result 'have found it difficult to draw confident conclusions one way or the other from publicly available information'.
*Mr James Hicks cautioned that
'the F-35's effectiveness in air to air combat, air to ground and ship killing roles cannot be evaluated accurately without access to classified information'. Mr Hicks also warned the committee that 'comparisons made of the F-35 with other aircraft are frequently nonsensical'.
Point 2,
The F-35 test and evaluation program is currently employing a “fly-fix-fly” approach. While this methodology is appropriate to the complexity of the F-35 software, it has introduced some schedule risk to the program.*
The US Department of Defense acknowledged this risk in 2014 and curtailed and*rationalised the F-35 test and evaluation program to better focus resources on the testing of the final software to be delivered under the System Development and Demonstration phase in 2017. Notably, in 2015, the program achieved all planned test points, some 1,374 test flights and 9,582 test points.
Given the complexity of the F-35 software it would be unrealistic to assume that problems will not be encountered during test but the measure of a mature program is the ability to effectively prioritise and resolve these issues. The Joint Program Office continues to demonstrate that the safety of the F-35 Program and the delivery of critical warfighting capability to be delivered in the initial software by the end of the System Development and Demonstration phase will not be compromised.*
Similarly, it is unrealistic to expect complex programs to achieve 100 percent of requirements, but it can reasonably be expected that some lower priority functionality may be deferred to a later phase.
Point 3,
The Joint Program Office has acknowledged the schedule risk associated with problems identified during test and evaluation. As reflected in the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation report, most remaining development risk is in software. The Joint Program Office believes that schedule margin exists to develop further software releases, if required, without compromising capability requirements.
Defence believes that this schedule risk is clearly evident and that a delay of between six-12 months to the completion of the System Development and Demonstration phase is likely. Due to the significant gap between the Australian initial operational capability milestone being four years later than the US Air Force initial operational capability (2016) milestone and two years later than the US Navy initial operational capability (2018), Defence assesses that the Australian Program remains on track to achieve initial operational capability in 2020, fully cognisant of the issues raised in the report.
Point 4,
(APA points and appears to be fighting the last war)
"...the fundamental problem with the JSF goes to the question: why would you specify your new air combat capability to be comparable with what you have already got? That is what the JSFs have been from day one. You look at the specification, you look at the language of the marketing and the representations made in the formative years of this program; they kept comparing it to a F16 and a F-18. You ask why? That is what you have already got. That is not what is going to be out there in 10, 20, 30 years' time. People were driving along by looking in the rear-vision mirror rather than looking ahead and looking into the future and seeing what the reference threats are going to be—this is the net assessment process referred to earlier—and what you need to do to balance, what you need to do to counter those reference threats so you do maintain balance in global power or, in our case, balance in regional power."
And the rebuttal to the above,
"Since the 1990s, air to air missiles have become more intelligent and even better equipped. Meanwhile, fighter aircraft have not exceeded their 9-10G maximum emergency manoeuvre – and can't, as they retain a human pilot who would be knocked unconscious by a tighter turn. Obviously missiles have no such limitation.
As a result, the need to out manoeuvre one's opponent has all but vanished from air to air combat, based on statistical analysis of actual air to air kills. Both heat seeking and radar guided missiles now have a kill ratio of over 50% – generally speaking if someone launches a missile at you, most likely you will be shot down by it. Furthermore, the missiles themselves have gotten a whole lot more intelligent, being able to more or less identify "that's a flare, that's chaff, and THIS is my target", as well as plot an intelligent intercept on a manoeuvring target."
And this,
"The F-35's unequalled situational awareness, combined with advanced weapons and countermeasures, makes the F-35 highly survivable and lethal when confronting advanced threats in the air, land and sea battle space. It is not designed to perform like the F-22, a high altitude air-to-air combat aircraft. It is a multi-role aircraft designed to avoid Within Visual Range operations with acceptable turn performance comparable to the F-15E and F/A-18."
Point 5,
Defence noted that Squadron Leader Andrew Jackson, an experienced pilot who has flown both the F/A-18 and the F-35A, found the F-35 to be superior to the F/A-18, stating that 'in [his] experience flying more than 140 hours in the F-35 so far, it is better in performance and manoeuvrability than a representatively configured F/A-18 while remaining easy to fly'.
Point 6,
Mr Goon questioned the F-35's stealth performance, asserting that the survivability of the F-35 was 'defined around the ability to survive in a battlefield interdiction environment where the aircraft would be confronted by medium range and short range SAMs [Surface-to-Air-Missiles], and AAA [Anti-Aircraft Artillery] systems, assuming that hostile fighters, long range SAMs and supporting radars will have been already destroyed by the F-22 fleet'. Mr Goon asserted that the F-35's stealth performance was 'optimised around this model' but that the evolution of both radars and SAMs have differed from what was anticipated when the Joint Strike Fighter program was launched:
His submission word for word,
"The JSF's stealth performance, reflected in shaping, was optimised around this model, with independent technical analyses showing that the aircraft*will have viable stealth in the front sector, but much weaker stealth performance in the beam and aft sectors. The evolving market for radars and surface to air missiles has, however, taken a different turn to that anticipated when the JSF program was launched. Highly mobile long range SAMs, supported by high-power aperture radars, have been far more popular in the market than the short and medium range weapons which the JSF was defined to and built to defeat."
And once again the rebuttal,
"Stealth is much more than just the traditional view of using radical shaping and exotic materials to give a low radar cross section. True low observability (LO) is designed in from the ground up in every signature of the platform, including IR, RF and the visual spectrums. LO technology also means minimising the probability of intercept of its electronic emissions while at the same time enhancing networking capabilities and situational awareness to give a pilot decision superiority.
Stealth is not about preventing detection; it's about ensuring access. True stealth means that the pilot is able to choose where to operate, when to engage or disengage, and when to be seen or not be seen. It means reducing an adversary's situational awareness to almost zero, thereby providing improved mission success and increased survivability"
And*The Deputy Chairman of SRWF, Mr Geoffrey Brown had this to say,
"...it was an interesting discussion I had with the Deputy Commandant of Marines. He talked about his legacy aeroplanes which were F-18s, and some of the scenarios they have just run in the last couple of months where they have actually run the F-35 against a high-end surface-to-air missile system—similar to what Senator Fawcett was talking about. They had two F-35s clean and two with weapons, and they were able to do close air support in a very contested environment, which is something they could not do with their legacy aeroplanes. So as far as they are concerned, the capability of the aeroplane is much better for fighting high-end conflict than the F-18 was.
...
Because the stealth characteristics of the F-35 meant that it could actually deal with the high-end SAM, and then they could go in and do close air support with the F-35.
...
That is the normal procedure. Take them out or avoid them, one of the two, and when you are doing close air support you cannot avoid it"
Point 7,
APA and the F22 option,
"Without the F-22, the JSF fleet is irrelevant and will be defeated by lethal purpose designed air combat fighters now entering our region. Looking beyond air combat, the joint strike fighter cannot do close air support as well as the purpose-designed battle-proven A10 Warthog is currently doing in the Middle East. You cannot fly safety in contested airspace as the purpose-designed F-22 is doing today over Syria. Other countries will not commit their aircraft in Syria unless they have the protection of the F-22. I can provide proof it cannot survive a destruction of enemy air defence attack against modern SAMs. The JSF cannot control airspace contested with lethal, purpose-designed air combats like the Su-35, now being deployed in our region, and against the coming advanced design like the Sukhoi T-50 and the coming Chengdu J-20"
APA summarised its analysis of the F-35A in its Zero-One Comparative Technique table (ZOCT Table), listed at Appendix 4, comparing the F-35A to the F- 22 Raptor, T-50 PAK-FA, Chengdu J-20, Su-35S, and F/A-18F Super Hornet. APA's analysis concluded that:
"In terms of Fifth (5th) Generation Air Combat Fighter Capability Metrics, the F-35A JSF scores poorly, rating only slightly ahead of the F/A-18F Super Hornet—a Gen 4.5 design—yet well behind the Su-35S—the Russian Gen 4++ design"
And the APA slapdown,
The committee questioned APA regarding its confidence in the accuracy of its data and conclusions, noting that the information necessary to accurately assess the capability of the F-35A is highly classified, as is information regarding current generation Russian and Chinese developmental aircraft. APA, however, assured the committee that it is confident in its ability to accurately analyse the capability of aircraft without access to classified information about aircraft capabilities:
CHAIR:" I am a bit unclear here. Are you saying you can assess Russian and Chinese aircraft despite the fact that they were trying to keep all of those things secret? Are you saying that you have the wherewithal to just go in there and tell us with definitive facts what a Chinese or Russian stealth fighter can do?"
Mr Goon: "Within the limits of the analysis, yes. That is what you are supposed to do when you do the net assessments and start the capability development process"
The committee sought comment from a range of other witnesses regarding APA's ZOCT Table analysis. Dr Andrew Davies, the Director of the Defence and Strategy program at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, (had this to say)
"The list of characteristics (APA incorrectly calls these 'metrics') of what constitutes a 5th generation aircraft (a term that is not well-defined in any case) is selective and omits or grossly simplifies several of the characteristics that are the strong points of the F-35. Some of the characteristics that are included are of debatable value. In particular, the table has several entries that score for high levels of aerodynamic performance—which was never a design goal of the F-35 and is of questionable value in a beyond-visual-range encounter—a key design concept for the F-35"
SRWF was similarly critical of APA's information, analysis and conclusions, noting that 'to the layman the arguments presented by APA are very persuasive...However, the vast majority of APA's arguments are based on bogus analysis and conclusions'. SRWF advised the committee that APA's ZOCT Table 'is not recognised by anyone else as a basis for assessing 5th generation capabilities' and is 'fundamentally flawed and its conclusion is completely wrong':
"The table focuses excessively on flight performance qualities of 4th and 5th generation fighters. Over half the table relates to the relative flying qualities of the assessed aircraft. Even using these characteristics, a true comparison is only possible with access to classified data. For example, the table is factually incorrect with the data on flight characteristics presented on the F- 35 and Super Hornet. The performance of the Russian and Chinese aircraft is also misrepresented. However, even without access to classified data, open source reporting by the Indian Air Force on the deficiencies of the PAK50 give a good indication on the level of misrepresentation inherent in the table. There are videos available on the internet that point to the inadequate performance of both the J20 and J31. Chinese engine technology is many years behind their western equivalents.
The ZOCT Table places significantly less emphasis on the 5th generation characteristics of Very Low Observability (VLO), sensor fusion and network interoperability, which are fundamental to the successful attainment of air superiority in a hostile contested environment. The table significantly underestimates the VLO of the F-35 and significantly*overstates the Low Observability (LO) capabilities of the PAK50 and J20. Even open source reporting from Russia does not claim the same level of LO that APA states in the ZOCT Table. Another area where APA has significantly understated the F-35 and Super Hornet is in the performance of Active Electronically Scanned Array radars of each aircraft. The underlying data used by APA in their analysis of the competing radars is in error by a very significant margin and that leads to erroneous conclusions about the performance of the respective radars"
Point 8,*
Defence assessment of the F22,
"defence *advised that, even if it was possible for Australia to acquire the*F-22, its capabilities do not meet Australia's multi-role requirements, due to its limited air-to-surface capability."
Point 9
If defence got around the ban on F22,
"Some commentators have proposed reopening the F-22 production line as an alternative to the F-35. There are three key impediments to this presenting a feasible alternative to the F-35. Firstly, the US manufactured the F-22 under Congressional rules that the aircraft would never be exported. Secondly, even if export was feasible, the delivery schedule and costs would be prohibitive for a small production run noting the capability gaps that would emerge through both the planned withdrawal date of the F/A-18 A/B Hornet fleet and broader 5th generation integrated capability systems demands of the future force. Thirdly, and most significantly, the US has proposed developing a replacement for the F-22 in the 2030 timeframe. As such, Australia would run the risk of introducing a capability just as the33parent Air Force was ramping down operations and sustainment"
Mr Coultis warned the committee that, considering these circumstances, calls to acquire the F-22 are 'at best fanciful' and 'at worst deliberately disingenuous and misleading':
(We would most likely end up an orphan operator again!! )
Point 10,
Alternative aircraft assessed by defence and send the report to PM Trudeau , most likely he has already seen a report!
"The ability of the F-35A to satisfy the Government’s expectations of the air combat force was subject to a comprehensive analysis involving the full scope of available tools and techniques conducted over many years, including thousands of simulation runs and a series of human-in-the-loop mission simulator experiments. The best available performance data for both the F-35A and advanced threat systems were employed for these efforts. The combined results of this analysis indicated that the F-35A would be able to meet the Government’s air combat requirements over the period of its service life.
Aircraft considered to be alternatives to the F-35 were also analysed extensively by Defence. Alternatives considered included the Super Hornet, Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen. The capabilities of the F-22 were assessed but it did not meet Australia’s multi-role requirements due to its limited air to surface capability, noting also that US policy would not allow the F-22 to be sold to other nations. This extensive analysis identified where alternative platforms would be unable to meet all of Australia’s requirements and highlighted the vulnerabilities of some of these platforms to advanced threats that F-35 capabilities overcome. In addition, the available*alternatives were shown to have limitations in the ability to be modernised over their service life to defeat more complex threats beyond 2030"
