Thursday, April 24, 2014

F-35 not ready for an operational test squadron



It isn't ready for an operational test squadron but here is a story about fraud by trick or device in regards to the USMC F-35Bs newly stationed at Yuma.

The pilots and planners at VMFA-121 are part of a larger team developing tactics and procedures that capitalize on these new capabilities. “As the radar gets more stable, as the electro-optical targeting system, or EOTS, gets more reliable, as pilots become more proficient, as the flight envelope opens up, we can look at the tactics, techniques, and procedures we can bring forward from legacy aircraft,” explained Miller. “We can consider performing those procedures differently in the F-35 because of all the new capabilities it brings to the fight. We are just starting to break the surface on tactics development.

Similarly pilots are looking forward to a larger part of the flight envelope being cleared. “Flying at 400 knots and pulling 4.5 g’s in this fighter is difficult because it wants to do so much more,” Miller said. “Tactically we are rarely going to be flying the aircraft at less than 400 knots.”

The upcoming Block 2B software provides weapon capability and expands the flight envelope to Mach 1.2, 5.5 g’s, and fifty degrees AOA. The F-35Bs will eventually be cleared to operate at Mach 1.6 and seven g’s.

Also on weapons? No gun. No internal high-off-bore-sight dogfight missile.

Working EOTS, Radar and DAS? Not in the way that you would want to hand something over to an operational test squadron which is more worried about the capability that they do not have in order to establish tactics and operational plans for their jet. THAT is the job of an operational test squadron.

It still holds. It will be years before the F-35 will not need legacy aircraft to escort it.

And, it is possible that it will never get to the state where it can operate within many of its original design goals.


---
-F-35's air-to-air ability limited
-6 Feb 2012 Letter from SASC to DOD boss Panetta questioning the decision to lift probation on the F-35B STOVL.
-Is this aircraft worth over $51B of USMC tac-air funding?
-Value of STOVL F-35B over-hyped
-The F-35B design is leaking fuel




---



-Time's Battleland - 5 Part series on F-35 procurement - 2013 
-Summary of Air Power Australia F-35 points
-Aviation Week (ARES blog) F-35 posts (2007 to present)
-U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) F-35 reports
-F-35 JSF: Cold War Anachronism Without a Mission
-History of F-35 Production Cuts
-Looking at the three Japan contenders (maneuverability)
-How the Canadian DND misleads the public about the F-35
-Cuckoo in the nest--U.S. DOD DOT&E F-35 report is out
-USAFs F-35 procurement plan is not believable
-December 2011 Australia/Canada Brief
-F-35 Key Performance Perimeters (KPP) and Feb 2012 CRS report
-F-35 DOD Select Acquisition Report (SAR) FY2012
-Release of F-35 2012 test report card shows continued waste on a dud program
-Australian Defence answers serious F-35 project concerns with "so what?"
-Land of the Lost (production cut history update March 2013)
-Outgoing LM F-35 program boss admits to flawed weight assumptions (March 2013)
-F-35 and F-16 cost per flying hour
-Combat radius and altitude, A model
-F-35A, noise abatement and airfields and the USAF
-Deceptive marketing practice: F-35 blocks
-The concurrency fraud
-The dung beetle's "it's known" lie
-F-35 Blocks--2006 and today
-6 Feb 2012 Letter from SASC to DOD boss Panetta questioning the decision to lift probation on the F-35B STOVL.


---

Dumb rent-seeker of the week award

Rent-seeker so gallactically stupid he doesn't understand that Williamtown was always going to be the main F-35 base.


.

VA's secret list

VA's secret list.

Foote says the Phoenix wait times reported back to Washington were entirely fictitious. "So then when they did that, they would report to Washington, 'Oh yeah. We're makin' our appointments within -- within 10 days, within the 14-day frame,' when in reality it had been six, nine, in some cases 21 months," he said.

We have just deployed military forces to Eastern Europe to help deter Russia from a conflict started by our U.S. State Department, Administration and Congress. We still have troops deployed in Afghanistan for no purpose. Funds have been spent to support insurgents in Syria (again, not in any U.S. interest at all).

We hand out food-stamps and welfare checks as a gift for unsustainable breeding. But somehow, properly resourcing the VA isn't at the top of our list.

Bat



April 23, 1945
The US Navy puts an antiship version of the (Special Weapons Ordanance Device) SWOD-9 "Bat" into use, dropping it from Consolidated PB4Y Privateers on Japanese shipping in Balikpapan Harbour. The weapons were dropped at altitudes of 15,000 to 25,000 ft. from as far away as 20 mi., sinking several merchant ships.


H/T-Aviation History

.

F-35 costing for Australia...the real "cost"

This from a source with significant experience in Defence and Government in relation to the Australian F-35 issue:

The Future Fund is quarantined to provide for unfunded Public Service pensions, so I cannot see how it can be applied to fund a weapon system.

The other Government 'Bank Account' is called 'Consolidated Revenue'. The money flowing to CR comes from taxes, and at $12.6 Bullion, that's $504 from every man, woman and child.

If the price is $11 B for 58 aircraft, that makes the cost $189.655 million apiece.

Quite a cost for fleet that is not designed for air superiority. To quote Gen Mike Hostage, Commander, Air Combat Command from Defense News, 3 Feb 2014:

"If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22"

So, it does not require a monster brain to realise that with no F-22s, all F-35 fleet operates do not have an air superiority capability.

Meanwhile, our peace-loving neighbours are arming with Su-35S, PAK-FA and J-20 and do have a lethal capability.

So, I guess this is another of the 'no brainer' decisions of the Coalition Government

Government didn't tell you about the other $12~$14B in F-35 costs

Government didn't tell you about the other $12~$14B in F-35 costs. Again, this assumes a working aircraft. And it could be well over $14B. The above figure assumes 20 years for the cost per flying hour of 72 F-35s. It does not count engineering changes and other kinds of sustainment.

Note that the costs mentioned by the government might,...might...just get the aircraft here where we can park them. Look at the following numbers to sustain 72 F-35s at 200 flying hours per aircraft per year:

1 F-35; 200 flying hours per year, $40,000 (low figure) per flying hour: $8M

72 F-35 per year: $576M

20 years 72 F-35s: $11.52B

This doesn't count engineering changes to the aircraft. It doesn't count additional weapons and other sustainment.

This would be a worthy investment if the aircraft had top end combat capability. It does not. It never will.

Multiply that figure by about .59 to see what it would be for Super Hornet flying hours.

For a Gripen? Multiply that figure by about .18

Multiply it by 1.25 to see what it would cost assuming $50,000 per F-35 flight hour.

None of these aircraft will be able to beat an F-22 or Typhoon. Two rough analogs of the PAK-FA and advanced Flanker: the kinds of threats that will be in the Pacific Rim during the alleged lifetime of the F-35.


Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Stealth?




From a former F-15 guy...

Had an interesting talk a couple months ago with a F-22 friend. I've always given him a hard time about the wingtip tip vortices that can be seen 20-30 miles out. "We have been told we are not to exceed the most gentle maneuvers when transitioning from the BVR to visual range. Same goes for the F-35s".



H/T- Mark Farmer

Lacking balls



A few sensible voices in politics over the bad F-35 decision.

"No one has had the balls to call a halt to it or to even call for a full capability analysis against requirements."

"Once you've made a decision like this, it takes more balls to actually say the emperor's got no clothes than to continue pretending that the emperor in fact has clothes.

"We should be ensuring that this aircraft is defined as fit for purpose before we purchase it. "We haven't done that."

He also blamed Defence Department officials, whom he said had been "acting as salesmen for the Joint Strike Fighter" rather than doing their jobs and being "critical buyers".





Failed aircraft, the Australian Boomerang

This is another Blacktail presentation. It covers the failure of the Australian WWII-era Boomerang.

This is good work.

The part at the end that mentions how to avoid these problems in the future is well stated.

UPDATE - Australia will get less capability by replacing the F-18s with F-35s

Defence wants to buy 58 more F-35s (approved). This is on top of a previous want for 14 (approved). Currently 2 are in the production line.

The goal is to replace 71 highly upgraded RAAF F-18A/Bs.

Many problems.

The legacy Hornet has more combat capability. It can fire high-off-bore-sight dogfight missiles like the AIM-132 ASRAAM. The F-35 can't carry this class of missile internally. The enemy can fire this kind of highly capable missile, from a higher performance aircraft, which can find the F-35. The F-35 will have two 2 AIM-120 AMRAAMs. Which against high end threats that can jam, might have a probability of kill as bad as the Vietnam-era Sparrow (very low). It is  likely that the F-35 will lose an air to air battle.

The only way to confirm this is the following:

Can the F-35 beat an F-22 in practice combat? Can the F-35 beat a Typhoon in practice combat? Important because those two aircraft approximate some of the capability of emerging air to air threats in the Pacific Rim over the alleged lifetime of the F-35.

The Hornet has a gun. The F-35A has a gun but can't use it. The helmet cueing system does not work (source: DOD DOTE).

The F-35 is unlikely to perform strikes against heavily defended targets.  The same goes for the Hornet.

Sort off.

The Hornet is cleared for the JASSM cruise missile. The F-35 is not.

The F-18 costs Defence $11,770 per flight hour.

The F-35? USAF figured $35,500 per flight hour. And that assumed a working jet with reliability metrics that met the Joint Operational Requirement Document.

The F-35 is yet to prove any useful mission reliability or mission systems capability.

For Australia--given an inept DMO--F-35 cost per flying hour could be $40,000 to $50,000. The F-35 maintenance system called the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), which all of its alleged operational affordability was based on, does not work (source: DOD DOTE, F-35 JPO, GAO).

The Defence budget is a zero-sum game. The federal budget is deep in debt by hundreds of billions.

So, given today's operational budget. RAAF could only afford to fly 30-40 F-35s a year.

Conclusion: The RAAF will fly a less capable aircraft than what was replaced. It will fly fewer of them. The replacement will be less reliable. There will be a decrease in useful combat capability.

The Prime Minister and the Defence Minister have been poorly advised. They are trying to buy an aircraft with no fly-before-you-by justification. Fly-before-you-buy does not work with under-developed, under-tested, non-finished, aircraft that are closer to prototype than final product.

The Defence Minister made several misleading statements today. Only one of many examples, he stated that "operational" aircraft were at places like Yuma. This is not true. Those aircraft are in no way close to operational trim. To date, no F-35 has passed a test to declare initial operating capability. That is still years off.

It is best to start a federal investigation now to find out how this happened. Waiting, will not improve the situation.

---

UPDATE: Adding a comment from one of our readers that was part of another post:



Johnno

Roughly 10% of the 12.4 bil is for facilities upgrades at Williamtown (NSW) and Tindal (NT). Both bases were last upgraded for the Hornet in the late 1980's and currently wouldn't meet security requirement to support the F-35. In fact Amberley (QLD) is the only base in Australia currently certified to handle stealth technologies (F-18F base).

Australian politicians are having their moment of glory right now but they haven't actually ordered 58 F-35's, they haven't actually ordered the 12 that were 'approved' 3 years back. At the moment Australia has 2 F-3 5 on contract. The Aust government has previously stated that the aircraft will be purchased via the US FMS system so the aircraft will be purchased in annual increments in the same way as US production is approved.

The next step presumably will be to turn the 12 aircraft that have hung fire for the past 3 years into a firm order. What happens to those 12 will hopefully inform the government in regard to later purchases. In-short a few steps to go yet.

Interesting thing reported in the PM's statement was that Australia seems to be making a play for the regional maintenance depot for the F-35, Wonder if anyone has told Japan, Korea or Singapore yet?

7:02 a.m., Wednesday April 23



---



-Time's Battleland - 5 Part series on F-35 procurement - 2013 
-Summary of Air Power Australia F-35 points
-Aviation Week (ARES blog) F-35 posts (2007 to present)
-U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) F-35 reports
-F-35 JSF: Cold War Anachronism Without a Mission
-History of F-35 Production Cuts
-Looking at the three Japan contenders (maneuverability)
-How the Canadian DND misleads the public about the F-35
-Value of STOVL F-35B over-hyped
-Cuckoo in the nest--U.S. DOD DOT&E F-35 report is out
-6 Feb 2012 Letter from SASC to DOD boss Panetta questioning the decision to lift probation on the F-35B STOVL.
-USAFs F-35 procurement plan is not believable
-December 2011 Australia/Canada Brief
-F-35 Key Performance Perimeters (KPP) and Feb 2012 CRS report
-F-35 DOD Select Acquisition Report (SAR) FY2012
-Release of F-35 2012 test report card shows continued waste on a dud program
-Australian Defence answers serious F-35 project concerns with "so what?"
-Land of the Lost (production cut history update March 2013)
-Outgoing LM F-35 program boss admits to flawed weight assumptions (March 2013)
-A look at the F-35 program's astro-turfing
-F-35 and F-16 cost per flying hour
-Is this aircraft worth over $51B of USMC tac-air funding?
-Combat radius and altitude, A model
-F-35A, noise abatement and airfields and the USAF
-Deceptive marketing practice: F-35 blocks
-The concurrency fraud
-The dung beetle's "it's known" lie
-F-35's air-to-air ability limited
-F-35 Blocks--2006 and today



---

ASPI misleads Australian public over the troubled F-35

Amazing.

ANDREW DAVIES: I think it overmatches anything that China or Russia have at the moment, and are likely to have in the near future. I think the F-35 is clearly the best aircraft on the world market at the moment.

Even more amazing than that fact-free faith-based statement? The Australian public pays for that kind of Defence-friendly thinking.



---

F-35 Reading List

-Time's Battleland - 5 Part series on F-35 procurement - 2013 
-Summary of Air Power Australia F-35 points
-Aviation Week (ARES blog) F-35 posts (2007 to present)
-U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) F-35 reports
-F-35 JSF: Cold War Anachronism Without a Mission
-History of F-35 Production Cuts
-Looking at the three Japan contenders (maneuverability)
-How the Canadian DND misleads the public about the F-35
-Value of STOVL F-35B over-hyped
-Cuckoo in the nest--U.S. DOD DOT&E F-35 report is out
-6 Feb 2012 Letter from SASC to DOD boss Panetta questioning the decision to lift probation on the F-35B STOVL.
-USAFs F-35 procurement plan is not believable
-December 2011 Australia/Canada Brief
-F-35 Key Performance Perimeters (KPP) and Feb 2012 CRS report
-F-35 DOD Select Acquisition Report (SAR) FY2012
-Release of F-35 2012 test report card shows continued waste on a dud program
-Australian Defence answers serious F-35 project concerns with "so what?"
-Land of the Lost (production cut history update March 2013)
-Outgoing LM F-35 program boss admits to flawed weight assumptions (March 2013)
-A look at the F-35 program's astro-turfing
-F-35 and F-16 cost per flying hour
-Is this aircraft worth over $51B of USMC tac-air funding?
-Combat radius and altitude, A model
-F-35A, noise abatement and airfields and the USAF
-Deceptive marketing practice: F-35 blocks
-The concurrency fraud
-The dung beetle's "it's known" lie
-F-35's air-to-air ability limited
-F-35 Blocks--2006 and today



---



Australian Defence Reading List

-New Defence White Paper fails to address Australia's core security needs
-2009 Defence White Paper Fantasy
-Analysing "The ADF Air Combat Capability- On the Record"
-Find out who is responsible for the Air Warfare Destroyer mess
-Analysis of Defence Materiel Organisation Major Projects Management and What Needs to be Fixed
-New DMO Boss warns the staff that business as usual is over
-How dangerous is the Defence Material Organisation to our Defence Industry?
-Australia's Failing Defence Structure and Management Methodology
-More on the dud-jamming gear Defence wants to buy
-ADF cost per flying hour
-I will wipe out bullying vows new Defence chief (Houston 2005)
-Vacancy
-Put Vol 2 Report of DLA Piper Review into the light of day
-Rory and Jim
-Parasitism as an Abstraction for Organizational Dysfunctions
-Hobart-class "Air Warfare Destroyer" to be fielded with obsolete radar guidance technology
-The Decay Of Critical Military Thinking And Writing-With Particular Reference To The RAAF
-Newspaper guy gets it right about sub project.... big time
-The great M-1 tank myth

Def-Min- If F-35 costs blow out, Australia can leave the program.

Australian Defence Minister Johnston was on a radio show to explain F-35 progress. (transcript below).

Not much of what he said is true. Either he is being poorly advised, or he is engaging in misleading the nation. As an aside, his history on Defence topics could be summed up by, "if it is expensive, it must be good.". Fact free analysis. For example, he wants the P-8A and Triton surveillance aircraft but both are immature and expensive. The entrenched Defence bureaucracy has a large history of getting it wrong, leaving a very small population of tax payers, to fund multi-billion dollar mistakes.

Again and again. The Australian public is stuck on the wrong end of an abusive relationship.

Johnston claims that the F-35 is "fifth generation" and by this alone it will defeat anything. Not true.

He claims that 4000 F-35's will be built. No proof.

He states that costs are coming down on the program. Fairy dust. Since the F-35 development is so immature and troubled, there are a forest of billion-dollar fixes waiting.

He claims that there are 19 million lines of software code for the F-35 and this is .... wait for it... an advantage.

He states all of the industry/workshare talking points...

From about the year 2002 when Australia foolishly signed up for the program.

“It will affordable because already there are 3,000 aircraft on the order books.”
—27 June 2002, Air Marshal Houston, Defence press announcement, Australia joins the F-35 program—

The billions in Australian work-share Johnston has claimed have turned into a loss leader. This from 2010:

O'Donnell cited one family-owned business, Production Parts Pty in Australia, which made "a substantial investment because they expected production volumes to be twice what they are today." Production Parts itself, he added, has enough other business to keep going, but others are not so well off.

Within 2 years, Production Parts went out of business. Why? Lack of F-35 orders. Why? Because no one wanted to buy lots of mistake jets.

Here is what we were told in 2003 about the F-35s' future success.


(click image to make larger)

That is a lot of lost money because of hundreds of jet orders that didn't happen.

Johnston states that if there are cost blow outs, that Australia can leave the program. I suggest that we are already there:

“It’s about $37 million for the CTOL aircraft, which is the air force variant.”
- Colonel Dwyer Dennis, U.S. JSF Program Office brief to Australian journalists, 2002-

". . . US$40 million dollars . . "
-Senate Estimates/Media Air Commodore John Harvey, AM Angus Houston, Mr Mick Roche, USDM, 2003-

" . . US$45 million in 2002 dollars . ."
-JSCFADT/Senate Estimates, Air Commodore John Harvey, Mr Mick Roche, USDM, 2003/2004-

". . average unit recurring flyaway cost of the JSF will be around US$48 million, in 2002 dollars . . "
-Senate Estimates/Press Club Briefing, Air Commodore John Harvey, 2006

". . the JSF Price (for Australia) - US$55 million average for our aircraft . . in 2006 dollars . ."
-Senate Estimates/Media AVM John Harvey ACM Angus Houston, Nov. 2006-

---

Johnston's radio show transcript below.

TRANSCRIPT

CHRIS UHLMANN: The plan to buy these jets has been in the pipeline for more than a decade and supported by Coalition and Labor Governments.

The man who will usher in the next phase is David Johnston, the Federal Defence Minister.

David Johnston, why does Australia need these jets?

DAVID JOHNSTON: Well, fifth-generation technology means that the aircraft have a specific sense of capability that puts them clearly above anything else in terms of air combat capability or other jet fighters, to use the common parlance.

Now, the aircraft has a whole host of technological advances that any potential adversary that we might face in the next 30 to 40 years I don't think has any opportunity to match, particularly in the medium term.

So 19 million lines of computing power on each aircraft. A Collins Class submarine has six million lines of code. So we're talking about a highly advanced technological stealth weapon that can sense an adversary at a long, long range off and provide Australia with cutting-edge capability in terms of national defence.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And what you talk about at this stage in some cases is experimental. So when will these planes be combat ready?

DAVID JOHNSTON: Well, they're very, very close. Now 14 have been deployed to the Marines in Yuma in Arizona. There's 93 aircraft currently flying and they've done more than 14,000 hours. They've successfully fired a number of ranges of weapons.

They're landing on helicopter dock ships at the moment. So that's the STOVL (short take-off/vertical landing) version and the United Kingdom is getting the STOVL version. So the aircraft - we're getting the A version, which is the standard take-off/landing hard strip version - the aircraft is well advanced.

But it's a totally different and new concept that is concurrently being developed with its deployment into service. Now, this has not happened before. And I think given the technical risks surrounding such a complex program, I think it is actually going very, very well.

CHRIS UHLMANN: There are technical risks. There are also cost risks. You're billing this cost at $12.4 billion. Is it possible that cost might rise, particularly if other countries don't take up their orders for planes?

DAVID JOHNSTON: Well, low rate of initial production six, which contains our aircraft and low-rate LRIP (low-rate initial production) seven has seen a 4 per cent reduction in costs so that the cost schedule equation in terms of a graph is headed in the right direction from Australia's point of view.

And I'm very optimistic that we are seeing as these aircraft develop - and bear in mind we're looking to see probably around 4,000 of them manufactured for the 11 countries that are participating in the program - I'm looking to see the price come down over time.

Now we will place an order hopefully this year for a further eight but we will have three combat-ready squadrons by 2023 and one training squadron stood up. We'll have our first squadron standing up by 2020 and I expect the costs to be continuing to head in the right direction from an Australian perspective.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Well, you talked about 19 million lines of software code. That's extraordinarily sophisticated and, as I said, experimental. What happens if the cost does blow out? Who pays for delays or mistakes: the contractor or Australia?

DAVID JOHNSTON: Well, the situation is this: if Australia decides that the costs have blown out to such an extent, we are not bound to continue. We are committed to the program. Every indicator at the moment indicates that the costs are headed in the right direction for us so I'm not anticipating any drama, but should there be a major turnaround in cost then, you know, the option is available for us to leave the program.

Now, I don't want to do that because this aircraft is simply the best thing happening in air combat at the moment. I think, given the 11 countries that are committed to it, all of whom are our friends, I think the costs will continue to come down.

CHRIS UHLMANN: What about skills and technology transfer? Of course, this plane is being built in the United States at the moment, but what are the benefits for Australian defence industry?

DAVID JOHNSTON: Well, currently there are more than 30 companies in Australia that are benefiting from the Joint Strike Fighter program. Now, most of those companies are in Victoria. There is more than $330 million worth of work currently on the table.

I anticipate within the next little while, maybe the next three to four years, there'll be more than $1.5 billion worth of work for Australian skills and technical manufacturers. We already manufacture the tailplane and a whole host of other accessories for the aircraft.

Now, there is a total up for grabs of more than $7.5 billion. I expect Australian companies to be getting a very significant slice of that action and I will certainly be working with Lockheed Martin and the United States government to see that this commitment rewards Australian industry who have had a bit of a rough time of it lately, defence industry. And we want to see a significant slice of the action coming to those companies.

Now, I want to say that I think this announcement gives them greater confidence, gives them a bit of a fillip as to the good work that they've done so far. And we want to see them continue to win more and more of this work.

CHRIS UHLMANN: The Defence Minister David Johnston.

---


F-35 Reading List

-Time's Battleland - 5 Part series on F-35 procurement - 2013 
-Summary of Air Power Australia F-35 points
-Aviation Week (ARES blog) F-35 posts (2007 to present)
-U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) F-35 reports
-F-35 JSF: Cold War Anachronism Without a Mission
-History of F-35 Production Cuts
-Looking at the three Japan contenders (maneuverability)
-How the Canadian DND misleads the public about the F-35
-Value of STOVL F-35B over-hyped
-Cuckoo in the nest--U.S. DOD DOT&E F-35 report is out
-6 Feb 2012 Letter from SASC to DOD boss Panetta questioning the decision to lift probation on the F-35B STOVL.
-USAFs F-35 procurement plan is not believable
-December 2011 Australia/Canada Brief
-F-35 Key Performance Perimeters (KPP) and Feb 2012 CRS report
-F-35 DOD Select Acquisition Report (SAR) FY2012
-Release of F-35 2012 test report card shows continued waste on a dud program
-Australian Defence answers serious F-35 project concerns with "so what?"
-Land of the Lost (production cut history update March 2013)
-Outgoing LM F-35 program boss admits to flawed weight assumptions (March 2013)
-A look at the F-35 program's astro-turfing
-F-35 and F-16 cost per flying hour
-Is this aircraft worth over $51B of USMC tac-air funding?
-Combat radius and altitude, A model
-F-35A, noise abatement and airfields and the USAF
-Deceptive marketing practice: F-35 blocks
-The concurrency fraud
-The dung beetle's "it's known" lie
-F-35's air-to-air ability limited
-F-35 Blocks--2006 and today



---



Australian Defence Reading List

-New Defence White Paper fails to address Australia's core security needs
-2009 Defence White Paper Fantasy
-Analysing "The ADF Air Combat Capability- On the Record"
-Find out who is responsible for the Air Warfare Destroyer mess
-Analysis of Defence Materiel Organisation Major Projects Management and What Needs to be Fixed
-New DMO Boss warns the staff that business as usual is over
-How dangerous is the Defence Material Organisation to our Defence Industry?
-Australia's Failing Defence Structure and Management Methodology
-More on the dud-jamming gear Defence wants to buy
-ADF cost per flying hour
-I will wipe out bullying vows new Defence chief (Houston 2005)
-Vacancy
-Put Vol 2 Report of DLA Piper Review into the light of day
-Rory and Jim
-Parasitism as an Abstraction for Organizational Dysfunctions
-Hobart-class "Air Warfare Destroyer" to be fielded with obsolete radar guidance technology
-The Decay Of Critical Military Thinking And Writing-With Particular Reference To The RAAF
-Newspaper guy gets it right about sub project.... big time
-The great M-1 tank myth


---

Monday, April 21, 2014

F-22 radius


(click image to make larger)


(click image to make larger)

Routing factor and not punching off the tanks...would be different...

But hey, don't we have tankers?