JSF in trouble again
- Thread starter RonnyMarl
- Start date
well, I have been a consistent believer in having a mixed pointy fleet for a number of reasons. I think everyone knows why, so I won't pollute the thread with a re-visit.Magoo said:
I'd have to say that I'm more partial to the F-15SG than a Superhornet though. Thats primarily due to issues of organic persistence through range benefit etc.....
and I was dragged kicking and screaming into the circle of believers as far as single engine jets are concerned. As much as the F-16 holds the record for safety/hours on single engines - I'm still partial to twins if we intend flying over the wet bits.
apparently I've got nothing to worry about though - so I'm happy to listen to wiser heads...
The reason why I used the Super Hornet as an example is because it's basically on 'off-the-shelf' design in its current Block 2 form, would also be more easily integrated into a network, and also uses many weapons and systems common to our current fleet. From a range/performance point of view, the F-15 would probably have the legs, so to speak, however it is unlikely we would order the aircraft in the same spec as the Singaporeans or Koreans, so it would therefore require some customising for our use!gf0012-aust said:
Certainly the single vs twin curve has narrowed in recent years, although the F-16 isn't known as the 'lawn dart' for nothing! I don't think single engined reliability and attrition rates will be a major factor in future combat aircraft purchases, except for carrier-borne fighters perhaps.gf0012-aust said:
Magoo
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #24
This thread is starting to look very much like another thread - JSF v Raptor.
The question I asked was - is there a problem with the JSF and if so, what are the cost and schedule implications. Magoo came back and pointed us at a AS DOD site media release which decride what the media was saying. I get very sceptical when DOD appears to be proactive - the media release was made on the same day as the media was reporting problems! Did they have some knowledge of what was about to be released in the media before it was released? I have been involved with Defence for too many years to believe that they can react so quickly. The media release would have had to have been released at a very high level (given the cost of this project).
On the other subject of JSF v Raptor, I did read today that it is 50% available for overseas sale. The lower house of Congress has passed it but it still has to go to the Senate. If I can re-find the links I will post them in the other thread - RAAF Stopgap Plan....
The question I asked was - is there a problem with the JSF and if so, what are the cost and schedule implications. Magoo came back and pointed us at a AS DOD site media release which decride what the media was saying. I get very sceptical when DOD appears to be proactive - the media release was made on the same day as the media was reporting problems! Did they have some knowledge of what was about to be released in the media before it was released? I have been involved with Defence for too many years to believe that they can react so quickly. The media release would have had to have been released at a very high level (given the cost of this project).
On the other subject of JSF v Raptor, I did read today that it is 50% available for overseas sale. The lower house of Congress has passed it but it still has to go to the Senate. If I can re-find the links I will post them in the other thread - RAAF Stopgap Plan....
A Damned Good Question.
The other points in your post are worthy of a response and, time permitting, will try to get to them. As well, there are a number of things happening that will go some way to answering them.
However, your last is a very good question and deserves a properly considered response.
The simple answer is in two parts. The first is that the numbers just don't stack up - either in terms of capability, cost or risk. What senior Departmental officials are telling the Government, the Parliament and the people of Australia is simply not supported by fact or even informed common sense.
The second part is, basically, national pride in our Defence Forces (the ADF and the hard working people in the Department who support them) and a desire for what is best for Australia and future generations of Australians. This is a common aim amongst those of us who have joined or who support the Group.
The more complex answer goes beyond the scope of a posting on a forum like this. However, the following three points are at its centre.
1. The collective you mention, namely, "ADF brass/DMO/DSTO/DefMin" should be split into two groups - the senior officials (or the bosses) and the workers/do-ers. Since the late 1990s, when the negatives of the consequential deskilling from the downsizing of Defence started to take effect, there has been a marked change, particularly within the Department (in Canberra) and, more particularly, at the senior leadership level, both in uniform and civilian. Prior to this change, the bosses used to listen to and take heed of the workers. This is not the case today, as many in our Group can attest.
2. The second point may be found in a paper entitled "The Root Cause of What Ails Defence, Today', authored by Mr Peter Goon but widely peer reviewed within the Group as well as by domain experts in organisational psychology and management. If you are interested, this paper may be found at -
http://www.ausairpower.net/apa-analyses.html
3. Most, if not all the major processes in the Department today, including the decision making process, are open looped and without accountabilities. The most recent example is Wedgetail with the interesting observation that it did not have to be this way. Those who established the project did an outstanding job, had a good handle on the risks, and had put in place the means for addressing the challenges and ways of turning risks into opportunities. But, following source selection and the resulting 12 month hiatus, changes to the project's management and planned oversight processes back in 2001/02 pretty much assured this would happen and in the way it is now evolving. Well one might ask why the bosses within the Department somehow think that 'bad news' improves with age?
Despite the negative comments this post will no doubt attract, I hope this helps you better understand the reasons behind the position that many are now taking.
Cootamundra said:
The other points in your post are worthy of a response and, time permitting, will try to get to them. As well, there are a number of things happening that will go some way to answering them.
However, your last is a very good question and deserves a properly considered response.
The simple answer is in two parts. The first is that the numbers just don't stack up - either in terms of capability, cost or risk. What senior Departmental officials are telling the Government, the Parliament and the people of Australia is simply not supported by fact or even informed common sense.
The second part is, basically, national pride in our Defence Forces (the ADF and the hard working people in the Department who support them) and a desire for what is best for Australia and future generations of Australians. This is a common aim amongst those of us who have joined or who support the Group.
The more complex answer goes beyond the scope of a posting on a forum like this. However, the following three points are at its centre.
1. The collective you mention, namely, "ADF brass/DMO/DSTO/DefMin" should be split into two groups - the senior officials (or the bosses) and the workers/do-ers. Since the late 1990s, when the negatives of the consequential deskilling from the downsizing of Defence started to take effect, there has been a marked change, particularly within the Department (in Canberra) and, more particularly, at the senior leadership level, both in uniform and civilian. Prior to this change, the bosses used to listen to and take heed of the workers. This is not the case today, as many in our Group can attest.
2. The second point may be found in a paper entitled "The Root Cause of What Ails Defence, Today', authored by Mr Peter Goon but widely peer reviewed within the Group as well as by domain experts in organisational psychology and management. If you are interested, this paper may be found at -
http://www.ausairpower.net/apa-analyses.html
3. Most, if not all the major processes in the Department today, including the decision making process, are open looped and without accountabilities. The most recent example is Wedgetail with the interesting observation that it did not have to be this way. Those who established the project did an outstanding job, had a good handle on the risks, and had put in place the means for addressing the challenges and ways of turning risks into opportunities. But, following source selection and the resulting 12 month hiatus, changes to the project's management and planned oversight processes back in 2001/02 pretty much assured this would happen and in the way it is now evolving. Well one might ask why the bosses within the Department somehow think that 'bad news' improves with age?
Despite the negative comments this post will no doubt attract, I hope this helps you better understand the reasons behind the position that many are now taking.
Last edited:
Cootamundra
New Member
Certainly it helps me with understanding your position and your willingness to stick to the same position. And for that I say 'thanks'!Occum said:Despite the negative comments this post will no doubt attract, I hope this helps you better understand the reasons behind the position that many are now taking.
At the end of the day one of the reasons why this baord works so well is that we tend to have well informed (at least as well informed as you can get in a public forum) discussions around very relevant topics. I appreciate your point of view whilst reserving the right to continue to disagree with both yours and your 'groups' position.
I'll look forward to your response to my list of 'reasons why not F-22'
Cheers
Cootamundra
New Member
Magoo I agree with your proposed structure and note that if the ADF were to adjust the program in such a way we would go a LONG way to mitigating much of the risks that have been outlined on this thread and other JSF threads. I also like the idea that with a staged obsolescence we would be setting the RAAF up nicely to reap the future UCAV developments without us having to wear too much of the financial/technological risk. I also agree with gf about preferring the F-15 but in the interest of lowering program risk accept that the Super Hornet would be the better (read that as simpler) bet.Magoo said:
Thanks for the backup.Cootamundra said:
Interestingly, a contact of mine tells me the F-15E has a bigger RCS than an F-111 clean and with an equivalent external stores load, while the SH's APG-79 is a better performing radar than the F-15E/K/SG's APG-63(v)2. The SH's systems are also baselined to be network-enabled (is that the right term???
) whereas the F-15E's kit would require much work to get to an equivalent level.Magoo
If the numbers are not stacking up, if the Department is misinforming the Govt of the day, then its encumbent on the Opposition to put forward a coherent case whereby the Govt is presented with an "on notice" opportunity.Occum said:
Lab are not so bereft of corporate knowledge that they're unaware of how the game is played if they seek to do it properly. The fact that their ShadMin failed to listen to his own DLO (and have gone through a succession of ex-Mil DLO's) is probably one of the reasons why they lack credibility and traction on this issue.
When the volume and style of Press Releases generated from his office have obviously changed in the last 6 months, then its blatantly apparent that he's been fed and that he actually doesn't understand some of what he promotes. (irrespective of any platform idealogical views that kick in)
eg, I know for a fact that navy have briefed ShadMin on specific issues - and with the full knowledge of PM&C and the "Dream Team", and yet he has then still carried on as though he's been left out of the knowledge loop. Its somewhat not surprising then when his credibility is called into question on other issues.
ergo - using ShadMin as a vehicle of influence to try and get the JSF binned puts you on a hiding to nowhere real fast.
Having been in Govt at the time that the press was having a field day with the Collins Class, albeit highly coloured and somewhat cavalier in truth as well - then I'm not sure why anyone would try and persist with an appeal to the public domain for change. Some of the stuff presented by the press (and still presented by the press) about the Collins is absolute nonsense - and yet even though there are a few who know its untrue - the damage has been permanent (in some areas). A recent stellar example is the sideshow that Bracks put on about Victorian capability re the ANZACs vis a vis South Australia and the Collins (and thus QA issues for the AWD). I sent him a polite spray and pointed out where he'd been spectacularly untruthful and where he had the gall to present it as fact. Surprisingly (jk), the vendors and some of the suppliers were feeding the State Govt and their tame press to distort facts and thus appear innocent of culpability. For a recent example of vendor insincerity and negligence, then go no further than Forgacs, or the work done on the ANZACs or on HMAS Sydney.Occum said:
Industry in Australia is credible? I gather that you haven't sat in on any of the early AIDN events when JSF offshore manuf was being discussed and everyone held hands and touted their capability in front of reps from US Dept Commerce, Boeing and DARPA. I've never heard such self serving tripe in one room anywhere.
Just because someone isn't in "the Group" doesn't mean that they are not working to improve processes and change. At present it seems that the elements outside of the "Group" are actually having greater success in scoring work and generating attention. (eg Charles Rutter's Qld model). perhaps thats because they're better at "politicking"
Blaming the outsourcing model per se has partial relevance - but its more of an issue that the outsourcing model as defined and pushed by Govt was completely inapprop as well. Its also an issue of change management. The two primary features of Defence industry have been compromised from within.Occum said:
I sat in on the panel that was tasked to determine the benefits of outsourcing within ADF. We argued at the time that less than 8% of international models demonstrated success in outsourcing and that it should be carefully approached on that basis if at all. In fact the only stellar example of outsourcing successfully working was an element within the USN. We tried to bring in that model. US Dept of Commerce and the USN were more than willing to help set up a structure - but it failed due to a lack of comprehension on the part of the Tier 2's in Australia who were more focussed on hammering the primes. (The self induced cancer of the SME's)
Federally, the only difference between Lab and Lib was that Lab wanted a 5 year transition - and Libs wanted a 2 year transition. Outsourcing, be it Garrison Support or be it ADF recruitment has been an unmitigated stuff up - but buried as a success. Its been buried by Govt - not by the uniforms or long term suits in the Def Executive. Every reccomendation we made re the outsourcing model was ignored. One only has to look at GS and Rec to see whats happened in the last 9 years - thats not something thats been white-anted from within - thats been an external governance policy issue driven savagely by PM&C and whatever relevant coterie of other super departments that the boss calls on.
The problem I have is that you appear selective in your criticism, and that it smacks of the oft expressed internal "mafia" or who are held responsible as soon as interest groups don't get their own pet projects across the line.Occum said:
To whit. I've had dealings with Peter Goon from the early foundation days of the DTC. Personally I like him - he's a personable bloke and is passionate about what he believes in, - but at the political level I don't think he's done himself (and issues he promotes), any favours with this Fed Govt. I know of people within the DTC and AIDN who actively worked against him because of idealogical and operation style differences - and I know that there are others who loathe him with a passion both personally and operationally. Schitt happens. You work with what you've got. Sometimes you're damned by association.
Its a damocles sword.
Last edited:
I think a comparison should be between the APG-79 & APG-63(V)3. the (v)2 is now out of the picture for the USAF F-15 upgrade, IIRC.Magoo said:Thanks for the backup.
Interestingly, a contact of mine tells me the F-15E has a bigger RCS than an F-111 clean and with an equivalent external stores load, while the SH's APG-79 is a better performing radar than the F-15E/K/SG's APG-63(v)2. The SH's systems are also baselined to be network-enabled (is that the right term???
Magoo
BTW, the F-15Ks are being delivered with the APG-63(v)1, but may be upgraded to AESA. I believe Singapore is getting the (v)3, not (v)2.
You're right, good pickup. The (v)1 was the original upgrade for the F-15C and is for the F-15K (similar to the APG-65 to APG-73 upgrade), the (v)2 is the first AESA upgrade/retrofit, and (v)3 is for the SGs and will be retrofitted to F-15Es. It uses some elements from the APG-79 which makes it lighter, more reliable, and easier to service.swerve said:
Cheers
Magoo
Last edited: