I love the comment that he has flown the F-18F in strike configuration ....... Means he has flown but has not converted to it as far as I can tell.
Sounds and smells like a zealot
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
Sounds and smells like a zealot
SpazSinbad
Active Member
Chris was a RAAF Academy Graduate on my No.67 Pilot Course, joining us underlings beginning of 1968 for Basic / Advanced Flying Training. He was noteworthy for being a 'contrarian' willing to argue anything for the sake of it. This could be fun - however often we required a simple answer and we 'middies and cadets' got used to NOT asking him for any advice/ knowledge (these Academy guys had lots of knowledge from their Academy years we did not). Anyway it never surprised me that Chris will argue and is still arguing - oh well.
A good bloke though - if annoying - and of course as smart as & always a big smile. I'm hoping Repsim does well despite the other chaps Michael Price small minded contribution....You're right, there is very little technical knowledge (no filter for the good from the garbage) which means they treat the information contained in the public submissions as gospel. I've been involved in providing responses to senate estimates and subsequent QoNs (non defence related) and most submissions are laughable but you have to respond.
I can't post links yet but hopefully you can follow the youtube info below. This was the greens' previous attempt at an inquiry. It's 34 minutes long but the senator is shot down by the RAAF. The senator has little knowledge of forward estimates and approvals.
youtube.com/watch?v=5hV8W4EzXRU
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The F-22 was and still is banned for export (assuming production did restart). One question that puzzles me is why the technologically advanced jack of all trades super fighter F-35 is available to friends (and a questionable friend i.e. Turkey) but the F-22 isn't. Clearly it is a more valued asset than the F35.
Er - no. To travel 500+ km a bomb needs a lot more than a guide kit. An engine is essential. That's a missile, not a bomb.
The thing that gets me is the example of the F-5 vs the Mirage and how the newer,multi-role, easier to operate platform with newer, more capable missiles was able to out perform a previous generation aircraft that had been designed asa high performance fighter and interceptor even though it was still better on paper. Then there was his bragging about recommending the Hornet upgrade to counter more advanced types entering service in the region. Doesn't he realise that both examples illustrate the advantage of embracing new technology over old and how advanced, well integrated systems consistently over match individually faster, more powerful but older tech foes?
The F-35's avionics (especially the ESW, CNI, and AESA radar) were designed for export with all the reverse-engineering protections built in. The F-22 has no such protections and would require too much money to redesign to meet the export spec.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Your explanation does not make sense to me. Canada and Australia would have no interest or minimal capability in reverse engineering the stuff in the F-22. Japan could but the gain would not be worth the loss in retaliation of denial of other critical kit IMO.
The USG does not differentiate export levels based on who gets it since once it leaves the US, it's out of their hands. It's either export friendly or not.
t68
Well-Known Member
When labour Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon was on the F22 band wagon years age I recall US Defence Secretary Robert Gates saying that had no problems with the RAAF having F22, but we had to get congress onside to change the Obey Admendment
Bill Summary & Status - 105th Congress (1997 - 1998) - H.AMDT.295 - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
Australia launches bid for F-22 fighter - National - BrisbaneTimes
I wonder if he ever wrote to Obey and got a reply
Out of their hands? Oh no! The USA is very fussy indeed about who gets what. There are multiple tiers of export approval depending on customer. The UK, for example, is on the highest tier. Recipients of US weapons can't pass them on without permission, & this is often refused, or granted subject to conditions such as 'X subsystem must be removed', depending on which country the weapon is to be sold on to.
Even passing on stuff made outside the USA needs US permission if there are any US parts or technology. The UK recently had a problem selling UK-designed & made PGMs to Saudi Arabia, for example, because of some US content. In that case (& it's far from unique) US controls were used in an attempt to sell a US-made alternative, but they're more often invoked because country X is on the US list of countries not allowed to receive a particular item.
If you want to continue to buy US weapons, or get support for those you already have, these conditions must be complied with.
This also applies to the disposal of said weapons especially aircraft even if they are 40 years old and being sold as is where is. For example when the RNZAF retired their A4K Skyhawks it took 10 years before an US approved buyer was finalised. The ones we kept for the museums we cannot fly nor could any be sold to a NZ or Australian warbird syndicate. So they are very strict.
Repsim do well? Not so well...Chris was a RAAF Academy Graduate on my No.67 Pilot Course, joining us underlings beginning of 1968 for Basic / Advanced Flying Training. He was noteworthy for being a 'contrarian' willing to argue anything for the sake of it. This could be fun - however often we required a simple answer and we 'middies and cadets' got used to NOT asking him for any advice/ knowledge (these Academy guys had lots of knowledge from their Academy years we did not). Anyway it never surprised me that Chris will argue and is still arguing - oh well.
He might know how to fly a Mirage but run a business? Seems to be out of his area of expertise...
Repsim was deregistered in 2014...
You say he is smart, but publicly disparaging RAAF headsheds to the Senate and Media and then attempting to rely upon them as your meal ticket doesn't strike me as the brightest plan...
Sorry that I was not clear enough.
I was not saying that the original buyer can sell /lease it to whomever it wants too. What I meant to say is that once the fighter leaves the US, we no longer can ensure who does & who does not have physical access to it.
t68
Well-Known Member
Yep even friends too!
Part of bomber Beazley last speech to parliment, pity I liked old Kim I reckon he was the best PM we did not get. I think the bit in bold sums it up best.
Kim Beazley: Final address to the House of Representatives. Full speech.
"There were some problems with the submarine as you would expect—teething problems. This is a question of patriotism. When I became Defence minister I understood this and I learned it soon, and it was a temptation to belt the Liberal Party to blazes with it. The radar of our Hornet could not identify most of the aircraft in this region as hostile—in other words, our front-line fighter could not shoot down people who would be the enemies in this region. Wasn’t that a wonderful opportunity for the Labor Party to finally lay to rest the ghost of Liberal Party claims to be the people who are best at managing the affairs of the defence of this nation? I shut up; I said nothing.
I went to the United States and, for five years, it was up hill, down dale and one knock-down drag-out after another with Cap Weinberger, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. I tried to get the codes of that blasted radar out of them. In the end, we spied on them and we extracted the codes ourselves—and we got another radar that can actually identify them, otherwise I would not be talking about it now. We got a radar that was capable of doing the shoot-down and the rest of what we wanted. I see there is an agreement signed by the defence minister—mate, I will believe it when I see it! I will believe it when I see it from that particular agreement that you have signed with them. That is not to say that I do not love the Americans and think that they are our most important ally, but they are a bunch of people you have got to have a fight with every now and then to get what you need out of them."
Part of bomber Beazley last speech to parliment, pity I liked old Kim I reckon he was the best PM we did not get. I think the bit in bold sums it up best.
Kim Beazley: Final address to the House of Representatives. Full speech.
"There were some problems with the submarine as you would expect—teething problems. This is a question of patriotism. When I became Defence minister I understood this and I learned it soon, and it was a temptation to belt the Liberal Party to blazes with it. The radar of our Hornet could not identify most of the aircraft in this region as hostile—in other words, our front-line fighter could not shoot down people who would be the enemies in this region. Wasn’t that a wonderful opportunity for the Labor Party to finally lay to rest the ghost of Liberal Party claims to be the people who are best at managing the affairs of the defence of this nation? I shut up; I said nothing.
I went to the United States and, for five years, it was up hill, down dale and one knock-down drag-out after another with Cap Weinberger, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. I tried to get the codes of that blasted radar out of them. In the end, we spied on them and we extracted the codes ourselves—and we got another radar that can actually identify them, otherwise I would not be talking about it now. We got a radar that was capable of doing the shoot-down and the rest of what we wanted. I see there is an agreement signed by the defence minister—mate, I will believe it when I see it! I will believe it when I see it from that particular agreement that you have signed with them. That is not to say that I do not love the Americans and think that they are our most important ally, but they are a bunch of people you have got to have a fight with every now and then to get what you need out of them."
SpazSinbad
Active Member
The other REPSIM contributor Michael Price Submission No.2 made disparaging remarks but now I think I know the reason (deregistration?). I stand by my Chris Mills remarks but I have no idea if he can run a business otherwise. Lots of people get into troubles running businesses - as I understand.
This isn't a free for all. He wasn't saying this in reference to the F-22, but the whole strategic relationship. Timor, code for the F-18s upgrades, intelligence, sub tech, missile tech, asia etc. We have issues much easier than restarting F-22 production, that we can't solve.
Selling the F-22 to Australia would have real strategic complications for them. That's why they decided not to sell to anyone (and other reasons). You would have to put up a pretty amazing argument with overwhelming backing (internal and external of the US) for that to change and in the F-22 piles of cash. I would argue the F-22 would really warp the ADF and RAAF. We would be primarily air superiority focused, which is not what we need IMO.
F-35 is what we need, multi-role, latest systems, sensors, range, works with allies, global, workshare, non-orphaned. Which is why the F-35 exists.
Yes, my bad. JASSM-ER and JSOW-ER will do hundreds of kms. JSOW is I guess a bomb and JSOW-ER is a missile. But with such munitions offering ranges 500-900km and excellent accuracy the idea that you need to carpet bomb a target by flying directly over it and dumbing dumb iron is long gone. Soon everything will be guided and glide.
I'm just surprised anyone listens to them and they get airplay. It really is the earth is flat type of stuff.
The trouble is that the media see them as so-called "experts" because they probably have good media and PR skills. They would also ensure that they make submissions to any related Parliamentary enquiries or committees. I wouldn't be surprised if they had one or two pollies as supporters. It's almost like an obsession with them or an article of religious dogma and creed.
The point many miss is with the F-35 (or for that matter most other multi role types) you can get away with a homogeneous combat fleet. Once you introduce the F-22 (or the original iterations of the F-14/15) you need to second type to cover the, strike, CAS, recon and other missions the specialist air superiority, interceptor etc. hasn't been certified for.
t68
Well-Known Member
Yep fully aware he was not alluding to the F-22 Raptor. The post was more directed generally towards post number 4991(swerve) and 4994 (spudman) and the thread drift towards what the US will export and to whom and to what level support they will get or to what was asked for. it was meant as an illustration on the levels of support even for a trusted ally not as a mouthpiece for an F22 buy for which I had already made a comment in 4990 in regards to the published comments of the ex Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon and US Defence Secretary Robert Gates