The Biggest Loser - Who Will It Be?

[gf0012-aust]

Since there was no competition, there is really no need for Boeing to initially offer a new deal that offers home workshare.

Not a very good way for government to watch over the taxpayers money.

I don't see that a run of 24 aircraft with argued high value workshare is a valid argument on taxpayer savings.

I've been involved in an armoured vehicle project where we needed to build 27 armoured vehicles for a specialist client.
we had 3 options:

1. get the germans to merge build and deliver working units to australia
2. get the germans to interrupt 1.5 hours production and do a specilaist run (and we pick up the interruption costs as well as the follow on costs)
3. buy a german run and then rebuild to project specs so as to get AIM

we went with option 2 and doubled the end cost of the platform

as for JSF. I once had the dubious pleasure of sitting in session at a Vic AIDN meeting where local industry pilloried the Minister (Reith) and openly stated that ADF should ask for mandatory work or not buy the plane. My view is that Govt does not act as a sheltered workshop facility to offer financial resucitation by proxy to australian companies - they have to stand on their own if they want to present as serious players. There are plenty of australian companies that get serious work - the difference is that they get on with the job and don't make a noise about it.

Interestingly enough, IMV, the least efficient companies at that session were the worst performers. The fact that they chose that venue (and it included ADF, US DoC, DARPA, NAVSEA, US State and personnel from the BMP programme) - only reinforced to me that they were clueless about the realities of doing the business. Meanwhile, the companies that got on with the job and tendering were scoring work.

Interrupting what is an existing production run for a small tranche of aircraft just to make some in Oz industry benefactors is irresponsible. If we order a follow on run of SHornets and that quantum approaches the Indian numbers - then that becomes worthy of attention.

Otherwise we are replicating the foibles of the armoured car project and then wondering why it lacks coherence and efficiency.

I'm all for including australian industry where its relevant - I'm not interested in any approach that treats it like a sheltered workshop on the mistaken and sometimes disingenuous concept that it's a national interest issue. (and these clowns at the sessions have the audacity to actually promote their own self serving interests as "national interest" parameters)

 

[Aussie Digger]

Wow. I really convinced now. Does "actively looking" at other contenders mean throwing away Air6000 before that process was completely looked at? As far as the F-18F, Defence has no clue about legacy aircraft in that category by proof of Dr Nelson's page that commented on the F-15E where almost everything mentioned about it was... Wrong. Sorry, I'm not up to believing a political hack or any of his toads. This is the same group of clowns that created the fantasy that F-111s could fall out of the sky past 2010. Wrong also. None of this is about capability any way, it is about the home workshare offered for JSF ( and to be fair looking out for that is of course a good thing )...and as for the Super Slow Hornet, a slick sales job to a clueless gullible buyer.

Speed is everything right? Whatever. This is SO wrong it's not even worth my time to discuss.

To think that RAAF is not aware of the capabilities of the aircraft it buys compared to others it MIGHT buy is simply absurd.

FYI that info I posted is NOT by Brendan Nelson, but Air Vice Marshall John Harvey. The RAAF AVM in charge of the JSF program.

If you want to discuss this issue based on a POLITICIANS knowledge of these issues, good luck to you.

Some of these "clowns" as you put it, AVM Quaife (Air Commander Australia) for instance, a LEADING JSF advocate, was appointed as Director - CENTAF Air Operations Centre in 2005 and responsible for ALL Air Operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa for a period of roughly 6 months. Seems SOMEONE doesn't think he's that incompetent or even a "clown"...

What is important, and in the end very sad, is that Defence believes everything hook line and sinker from U.S. Defence lobbying firms like (NDIA) http://ndia.org/ Organizations like this have one mission: Sell defence gear. In the case of the Super Hornet the sales job was done by a USN retired Rear Admiral that was the head project manager for the Super Hornet when it did fleet Opvals. When these guys retire, many of them have a golden revolving door right into the defence industry. I'm not blaming them because a lot of that is our (U.S.) own doing in a corrupt system. What I am blaming is Australian Defence going right along with whatever U.S. PowerPoint brief comes down the pike. Since you have very little useful Defence over-watch on military defence spending decisions, ( a joke really ) the taxpayer who is paying for this, is locked out of the whole process. Now one of the reasons in the case of the Super Hornet that you WANT a competition of other types is that the deal can be sweeter. Lets say Super Hornet wins in a competition.... look at India, if Super Hornet were to get selected there, there is a 30% Indian workshare written into the deal. What is Australian workshare on Super Hornet? Zip.
Here is that DSCA release notifying congress of the Australian Super Hornet sale:
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2007/Australia_07-13.pdf

Where this becomes even more important is if JSF goes real bad and Super Hornet fills the ranks of ALL of your fighter aircraft. Since there was no competition, there is really no need for Boeing to initially offer a new deal that offers home workshare.

Not a very good way for government to watch over the taxpayers money.

Wow what an insight you have into the Australian Defence Organisation. No doubt you get it the same place you seem to get MOST of your info, APA's website.

I've seen you quote it too many times here and at f-16.net to bother denying it.

There will be many benefits flowing to Australia from the F/A-18 acquisition. No doubt you've seen figures of $1.5b for facilities and through life support bandied about. If you think Australia contractors won't be building the facilities to operate the capability etc and providing the support to operate the aircraft, well there's not much hope for you is there?

 

[Aussie Digger]

I'm all for including australian industry where its relevant - I'm not interested in any approach that treats it like a sheltered workshop on the mistaken and sometimes disingenuous concept that it's a national interest issue. (and these clowns at the sessions have the audacity to actually promote their own self serving interests as "national interest" parameters)

Just like the APA crowd and AFTS? Hang on! I think I'm starting to see a re-occuring theme here...

 

[ELP]

Wow what an insight you have into the Australian Defence Organisation. No doubt you get it the same place you seem to get MOST of your info, APA's website.

I've seen you quote it too many times here and at f-16.net to bother denying it.

There will be many benefits flowing to Australia from the F/A-18 acquisition. No doubt you've seen figures of $1.5b for facilities and through life support bandied about. If you think Australia contractors won't be building the facilities to operate the capability etc and providing the support to operate the aircraft, well there's not much hope for you is there?

Hi AD hope you are having a good weekend.

Having "insight" as you put it into the Australian Defence Organization is not especially difficult is it?... Considering the deft plays on spin throughout the so called public discourse on the topics in question by Defence and all. And that there seems to be very little over-sight involved. I doubt the taxpayer thinks the process passes the smell test considerning the grand total performance on past procurements. Seeing as how Air6000 was cut off at the kneecaps as only one example.

As for quoting APA... hmmm let me see.... first of all on any given day I am sure I would disagree with them on a lot of things. Now what the real sad part of all this is they, are about the only one driving any discussion there on the topic of these defence purchases in question. What is even more amusing is how Defence toads are always scrambling to minimize or brush off anything APA says. Almost a bunker like mentality by Defence in their responses. :lol3 . So for all that, it is, if anything a great source of entertainment. Funnier yet is that if you didn't have APA there at all, every mil aviation plan no matter how silly would rubber stamp it's way through with little notice, as most of the Defence writers in the news organizations there really don't seem to have a full grasp of the technology involved. Oh yeah I have used APA on link sources many times.... uh, oh.... can't deny that. :lol3 My thinking is they probably have some kind of agenda don't you think? I have an agenda. Defence has an agenda. And You have an agenda.

As for Super Hornet workshare, there is a big difference between building a main component for it and support/sustainment work. The story of Super Hornet sustainment there is still yet to be written given that the jet only looks like a legacy Hornet. When all said and done, I will be curious to see what back-shop facilities stand up for local sustainment. Real curious.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hi AD hope you are having a good weekend.

Having "insight" as you put it into the Australian Defence Organization is not especially difficult is it?... Considering the deft plays on spin throughout the so called public discourse on the topics in question by Defence and all. And that there seems to be very little over-sight involved. I doubt the taxpayer thinks the process passes the smell test considerning the grand total performance on past procurements. Seeing as how Air6000 was cut off at the kneecaps as only one example.

Obviously you don't read the ANAO reports of enquiries into defence, or the transcripts of the Australian Senate's Joint Standing Committee Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade hearings. There's a fair bit of oversight really. At least as much as in the USA.

Tell me how much say does the US taxpayer have in relation to Defence Acquitisions? Or the British taxpayer? Or the taxpayer of ANY Country for that matter. Who is this taxpayer you continually speak of?

I'm one and I'm ecstatic that RAAF is getting a properly funded fleet of Super Hornets to replace our F-111's. For years we were getting NOTHING. The Labour Party under Robert McClelland (the previous Shadow Defence Minister) SUPPORTED withdrawing the F-111's from service and following RAAF's plan (based on available funding) of operating a solely legacy Hornet based ACG.

The point of the SH is to get a new air combat aircraft, with excellent strike capability into RAAF service by 2010. No other NEW combat aircraft is going to achieve that. That there are others with superior aerodynamic performance, I agree. However RAAF wants a strike fighter with 5th Gen capabilities. There isn't another fighter out there that RAAF could get with these into service by 2010.

As AVM Harvey stated today, RAAF is fully aware of the capabilities of other modern combat aircraft AND the SH and is happy with SH. So therefore is this taxpayer...

As for quoting APA... hmmm let me see.... first of all on any given day I am sure I would disagree with them on a lot of things. Now what the real sad part of all this is they, are about the only one driving any discussion there on the topic of these defence purchases in question. What is even more amusing is how Defence toads are always scrambling to minimize or brush off anything APA says. Almost a bunker like mentality by Defence in their responses. :lol3 . So for all that, it is, if anything a great source of entertainment. Funnier yet is that if you didn't have APA there at all, every mil aviation plan no matter how silly would rubber stamp it's way through with little notice, as most of the Defence writers in the news organizations there really don't seem to have a full grasp of the technology involved. Oh yeah I have used APA on link sources many times.... uh, oh.... can't deny that. :lol3 My thinking is they probably have some kind of agenda don't you think? I have an agenda. Defence has an agenda. And You have an agenda.

Being the loudest doesn't make them the sole respository of defence discussion in Australia and they only discuss air power issues. At the JSCDFAT hearings, Defence has briefed the Committee members behind closed doors with respect to their responses to APA's submissions.

They do this they state because of the classified information they need to provide to do so.

This is not a conspiracy. The JSCDFAT Committee members are bi-partisan and have announced publicly that they were satisfied with Defences answers. The fact that Defence is constrained by National Security issues, doesn't equate to being incapable of refuting APA's claims.

Certainly APA has an agenda. They want Government to order an Evolved F-111 from Australian Defence Industry and they want the contract to build them. F-111's make no sense in future operational scenario's without the necessary escort capacity of a high end A2A fighter. Hence their agenda of supporting an F-22 acquisition.

I have an agenda too and I'm arrogant enough to think it's the same as ADF's. I simply want the ADF to be as capable as it can be made. I don't agree with the majority of APA's ideas. That's hardly a secret though. I'm wondering what yours is but, since you state you have one?

As for Super Hornet workshare, there is a big difference between building a main component for it and support/sustainment work. The story of Super Hornet sustainment there is still yet to be written given that the jet only looks like a legacy Hornet. When all said and done, I will be curious to see what back-shop facilities stand up for local sustainment. Real curious.

I'd imagine the support arrangements would be very similar to what we operate for the legacy Hornets, minus that which we've established for the Hornet upgrade program.

At any rate, Australian industry involvement is NOT the "be all and end all" of an acquisition.

I don't hear many complaints about Australia's C-17 acquisition along these lines and it will probably have LESS AII due to the extremely small fleet size...

 

[Todjaeger]

Hi, Todjager,

F-22 Supersonic Drops with GBU-32 were done already.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=17723&rsbci=1&fti=133&ti=0&sc=400

SDB is still in testing for F-22 certification. SDB supersonic release was performed already using an F-111 for the initial test.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SDB.html

Unless the BRU-61/A rack has any problem or there are some other issues, doing the same with F-22 shouldn't be difficult. However a wait and see until the tests are complete would be a good idea. Thank you for mentioning that.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article2225.html

Checked the links, the LM one is a dead link, and the APA link has discussion of the SDB, no mention of speed on deployment. The info post on weapon deployment speed from Big-E came about, IIRC, from another member's posts stating that the F-22 could deploy a wing-kitted SDB at supersonic speeds. There was a news article on F-16.net that indicated a supersonic JDAM release, but I don't believe it had the wing-kit and wasn't mentioned in the article.

As for the ease of changing the export requirements for the F-22... I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I don't deny it can be done, I just don't believe it can be done easily for a number of different, mostly political, reasons.

-Cheers

 

[hybrid]

Checked the links, the LM one is a dead link, and the APA link has discussion of the SDB, no mention of speed on deployment. The info post on weapon deployment speed from Big-E came about, IIRC, from another member's posts stating that the F-22 could deploy a wing-kitted SDB at supersonic speeds. There was a news article on F-16.net that indicated a supersonic JDAM release, but I don't believe it had the wing-kit and wasn't mentioned in the article.

As for the ease of changing the export requirements for the F-22... I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I don't deny it can be done, I just don't believe it can be done easily for a number of different, mostly political, reasons.

-Cheers

Heres the article about a Raptor dropping a JDAM at supersonic speeds by Defense Tech, there's also a picture of the release from the ausairpower site.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002018.html
and
http://www.ausairpower.net/raptor.html

This makes me think that the SDB would have no trouble being released at supersonic speeds as well since Boeing did supersonic drops from an internal bay during testing.

PS. To make the link to the lockmart site work remove the redirect from Defensetalk. Worked for me that way.

 

[Occum]

Still drinking their bathwater, I see.................

Some comments from AVM John HARVEY TODAY that are germane to these discussions and carry a bit more weight than the "unnamed military and industry" contacts who state differently...

Believe the contacts you are unwilling to name if you wish guys, me I'm going to take the word of the AVM that's ACTUALLY in charge of this project...
[/FONT]

Keep gulping, AD.

Should be pointed out that this was posted by CPA back in February, 21st if memory serves - which ain't today, as you claim.

ADBR are being paid by CPA as part of their spin machine which is why Trev is feeding JH the 'dorothy dixes'.

JH is the man who is saying the JSF costs $47 million. :el

He and others are the ones who are saying that the DSTO has the lead on all the analyses, yet are not prepared to name who. Classic set up for, 'Not my fault boss, our decisions were all based on the DSTO advice'. In the meantime, the few analysts left in the DSTO who have the competencies and experience to do the proper analyses and who know the truth are being gagged.

Believe who you want, AD, it won't change the facts. However, if you keep drinking their bathwater, you are going to end up with a very upset stomach and a whole lot of egg on your face.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Keep gulping, AD.

Should be pointed out that this was posted by CPA back in February, 21st if memory serves - which ain't today, as you claim.

ADBR are being paid by CPA as part of their spin machine which is why Trev is feeding JH the 'dorothy dixes'.

JH is the man who is saying the JSF costs $47 million. :el

He and others are the ones who are saying that the DSTO has the lead on all the analyses, yet are not prepared to name who. Classic set up for, 'Not my fault boss, our decisions were all based on the DSTO advice'. In the meantime, the few analysts left in the DSTO who have the competencies and experience to do the proper analyses and who know the truth are being gagged.

Believe who you want, AD, it won't change the facts. However, if you keep drinking their bathwater, you are going to end up with a very upset stomach and a whole lot of egg on your face.

I thought you didn't want to "play the man" Occum, or am I incorrect about this too?

You are correct however about AVM Harvey, the questions answered by AVM Harvey were from February 07. My mistake. Today was the first time I read it...

Still by all means please continue to enlighten us with "facts". Forgive my ignorance, but who are CPA?

Are you suggesting perhaps the Department of Defence is paying a Defence Industry Magazine to "promote" it's plans?

Seems to me you've made this smear against the Kokoda Foundation too. Can anyone else detect the common theme here?

Still, I agree with you on yet another point. Some "hard data" would be nice please...

 

[Occum]

SDB clearances............

Heres the article about a Raptor dropping a JDAM at supersonic speeds by Defense Tech, there's also a picture of the release from the ausairpower site.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002018.html
and
http://www.ausairpower.net/raptor.html

This makes me think that the SDB would have no trouble being released at supersonic speeds as well since Boeing did supersonic drops from an internal bay during testing.

PS. To make the link to the lockmart site work remove the redirect from Defensetalk. Worked for me that way.

Hi Hybrid,

SDB clearance work, including super sonic drops, were done down here in Australia several years ago now by ARDU using an F-111. This was in concert with a bunch of other work in support of the F-22 program.

Folks at ARDU and in Industry revisited an earlier proposal put up to the Air6000 Project Office for doing similar work in order to help retire risk on the JSF Program. Put simply, this involved putting the JSF weapons bay inside the F-111 bay, along with a bunch of other stuff, effectively emulating the JSF from a stores carriage and release point of view. This would have meant the JSF weapons clearances could be done well in advance of the current program, thus mitigating the quite high risks associated with this type of work.

AVM John Harvey and his bosses would not have a bar of it.

 

[Occum]

Are you admitting to a mistake? There is hope yet.......

I thought you didn't want to "play the man" Occum, or am I incorrect about this too?

You are correct however about AVM Harvey, the questions answered by AVM Harvey were from February 07. My mistake. Today was the first time I read it...

Still by all means please continue to enlighten us with "facts". Forgive my ignorance, but who are CPA?

Are you suggesting perhaps the Department of Defence is paying a Defence Industry Magazine to "promote" it's plans?

Seems to me you've made this smear against the Kokoda Foundation too. Can anyone else detect the common theme here?

Still, I agree with you on yet another point. Some "hard data" would be nice please...

Pray tell where is there a 'play the man' in this post.

If you are referring to your 'drinking their bathwater' this is merely an observation of your debating style; your propensity to regurgitate whatever is said by those with whose belief system you have aligned yourself, with little if any curiosity let alone objectivity; those who do 'play the man' or use ad hominem argument by targeting anyone who has a contra or countervailing view to theirs. Those with whom you have aligned yourself along with their belief system. In debating and real world terms, this form of behaviour is refered to as sycophantic.

In terms of debate, observing how you carry yourself in the debate or argument is not ad hominem or, in your words, 'playing the man' and, since you have asked for facts, is, in fact, quite appropriate and legit, as you will find in any rules of debate.

However, ad hominem argument is one of the most primitive and flawed forms of debate, often employing snide and derisive commentary. The most base and unacceptable form of this style of argument uses untruths, often times known by their originator to be untrue (aka lies). In order to try to make their point and, therefore distract from the lack of substance in their argument, the ad hominem argumentor will often use untruths and lies to put down and demean their opponent/s in the debate in a way that is malicious. This is where and why such a form of ad hominem argument breaches the standards of normal society and becomes slander, or in the case where it is written down for others to see, libel.

In response to your question, CPA are known in Defence and Industry as the Central Propoganda Agency with the formal title of the Coordination and Public Affairs division. That is the 'CPA' that you see in file number of every defence media release. They are a very powerful but misguided group of PR and media types who tell even the generals what they can and can't say.

As for who is paying whom for what, this is not a suggestion but a fact. How do think publications like ADBR survive? It is certainly not on subscriptions. ADBR and several other publications have a number of contracts with Defence. Why do you think the Hon Dr Brendan Nelson was seen putting his arm around Trevor Thomas at the EDS cocktail party a month or so ago and letting everyone in ear shot know how grateful he was for the fine work Trev and Abe Gubler and ADBR had done in promoting his and Defence's position in the debate?

As for the Kokoda Foundation, where do you get off saying I have 'made this smear' against them? What 'smear' are you referring to?

I don't recall even mentioning Kokoda here. If I did, it would be on the basis of what I know about them, namely, the facts - the Kokoda Foundation was established back in 2004; their web site says they are an independent think tank; they are funded by Defence and some overseas companies including BAE Systems; and of the two papers they have published, the one on the JSF - "How much is too little" - made for interesting reading but failed to deliver any analysis or facts on one of the most telling points in the whole paper, namely the statement made about the Su-30 on page 35.

So, where is this mystical 'smear' to which you are referring or are you simply succumbing to the female side of your personality playing out some transferrance and projection game in asking your question of others on this forum, namely, "Can anyone else detect the common theme here?"

The only common theme here is sophistry and spin - commonly known as BS and a less than healthy amount of niavete and gullability!

AVM John Harvey is supposed to be doing the due diligence on behalf of the Australian people yet all that we hear coming out of his mouth is LM marketing spin.

Instead of attacking those who are trying to do the right thing and get the facts on the table, you should be asking the hard questions of those who are marketing the JSF on behalf of LM.

For instance, what is the MTOW of the JSF variants and why is it 'classified'? And, what is the price (UPC) Australia will be required to pay in the dollars of the years that Defence is intending to buy the aircraft?

As for 'hard data', I suggest the web site of those who appear to be your nemesis presents far more hard data, facts and logical argument in this debate than anywhere else. You really would do your self a service by reading some of it, if not all of it.

You might also respond to my request for more attachment space to post more hard data up here for members of this forum to view and, thus, inform themselves which, after all, is one of the main purposes of such sites and, I suggest, a bit more important than stroking the egos of those who carry the title of Super Regurgitator.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Dear Defence Talk readers,

It is not my intent to join your online debates on Australia’s air combat capability, though I commend all the participants for their involvement and interest in the defence of Australia. However the following statement made by “Occum” is factually incorrect and could even be considered slanderous and needs to be corrected.

As for who is paying whom for what, this is not a suggestion but a fact. How do think publications like ADBR survive? It is certainly not on subscriptions. ADBR and several other publications have a number of contracts with Defence. Why do you think the Hon Dr Brendan Nelson was seen putting his arm around Trevor Thomas at the EDS cocktail party a month or so ago and letting everyone in ear shot know how grateful he was for the fine work Trev and Abe Gubler and ADBR had done in promoting his and Defence's position in the debate?

The Australian Defence Business Review (ADBR) does not have any contracts with defence beyond that with several Defence members who have subscriptions paid for by their Defence element and periodic advertising within ADBR from time to time by Defence agencies. This includes the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) and Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) paying for advertising space within ADBR to promote their upcoming events such as the “Defence + Industry” and “Landwarfare” conferences.

While ADBR accepts advertising from Defence agencies and the wider defence related industry it is done so expressly without influence to our editorial content. ADBR does not print “advertorial” or advertising support editorial. This is not only the policy of the publication but also expressed in both of ADBR’s editorial principals, Mr Trevor J. Thomas and myself, being members of the Australian Journalists Association (MEAA-AJA) and committed to its binding Code of Ethics which includes an provision to resist advertising support editorial.

Further ADBR maximises its income from subscriptions in relation to offsetting print costs at a far higher rate (higher subscriptions, lower print cost to word count) than other magazines enabling a far higher degree of independence of the commercial realities of advertising than our competitors. To suggest that by accepting advertising a media outlet is inherently compromised undermines the very basis of 200 years of public media, known as the Fourth Estate, across the world. Of note is the lobby group “Air Power Australia (APA)” who have recently began to source income from Google Adsense on their webpage. I am sure “Occum” would not be suggesting that whatever claims they make to independence would be compromised by taking on commercial advertising?

Further “Occum” has made aspersions about Mr Thomas in relation to the EDS Defence launch in Parliament House. The “arm around” he refers to was as innocent as former Australian Prime Minsiter Paul Keating’s infamous ‘touching of the back’ of Queen Elizabeth II during one of her visits to Australia as Dr Nelson, a consummate politician moved through the crowd talking to his constituents. As I was standing 2m from this tête-à-tête I find it interesting that “Occum” would make such an analysis of the discussion. I could not hear what Dr Nelson said to Mr Thomas nor could others, certainly not “Occum” who was not present at this event.

However ADBR has not published its extensive commentary on air combat capability on the behest of Defence or to curry favour as suggested. But rather to present reasoned analysis to our readership so they are better informed. We have received no assistance in research or content preparation from Defence. We do not have any conflict of interest in this debate, including such clear conflicts as having submitted a commercial solution offering for the New Air Combat Capability (NACC) to defence.

“Occum” has made considerable mention of his unhappiness of “ad hominem” or “to the person” arguments made in relation to commentators about air combat capability. Despite making by far the most considerable ‘playing the person, not the ball’ argument by constantly suggesting there is either a massive level of incompetence across the entire non-APA balance of the professional defence community or we are all engaging in a giant conspiracy simply because this balance does not agree with the conclusions of “Occum”, the APA and a handful of other commentators. Certainly by applying the namesake Occum’s Razor one would conclude that the most simple, and hence most likely explanation, to all this is that “Occum”, the APA and a handful of other commentators are wrong on air combat capability.

If readers wish to find out more free downloads of ADBR editions are available at the ADBR webpage. Thankyou all for reading this note and the chance to clear the good name of ADBR on this forum.

Yours sincerely,

Abraham S. Gubler
Features Editor
Australian Defence Business Review