"Can't turn can't climb, can't run" - JSF F-35 is a dud

[Dry Rot]

Anyone else seen the latest report?

Govt should be defending Joint Strike Fighters: Opposition
Wednesday September 24, 2008, 4:34 pm

The Federal Opposition has demanded the Government release its air combat review to clarify whether the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is the best jet for the Australian Air Force.

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has given no commitment to going ahead with buying the JSF aircraft.

He says he will only sign off on the deal if he is sure the jets are going to be on budget, on time and with all the capability promised by the makers.

The United States think tank, the RAND Corporation, says the Joint Strike Fighter cannot compete in close combat with Russian-made Flanker jets.

But the Opposition's defence spokesman, David Johnston, says the strike fighter will dominate the region and has called on the minister to defend the jets.

"By sitting on the report he has fuelled the ongoing consideration of this particular aircraft," he said.

"Now the JSF is a very, very good aircraft for Australia and there's a whole host of people who have said that.

"To compare it with the Russian Sukhois and Migs, the flankers as they're called, is really not comparing apples with apples."

Earlier, Mr Fitzgibbon said "Australia remains a very enthusiastic member of the JSF development team".

But he added: "Why would we sign on the bottom line before we know what is the cost, what is the schedule for delivery and before we are absolutely sure that the JSF will deliver all the capability that has been promised.

"This is a $16 billion, up to a $16 billion investment on behalf of the taxpayer and we need to ensure that we get it right but to answer your question more directly our superiority in air combat capability is the frontline of Australia's defences and we need to ensure we get this absolutely right."

The RAND Corporation's experts compared jets in a war game and the ABC obtained the results.

The report says the F-35 has inferior acceleration, climb, turn capacity and a lower top speed than Russian and Chinese fighters.

http://au.biz.yahoo.com/080924/31/1ypjv.html

 

[Play by Numbers]

Well sounds like a sensible and reasonable position to make. I'm neither particularily enamoured by the labour or liberal parties but it's good to see a defence minister actually showing some form of sense.

Brendan Nelson must be one of the worst defence ministers in recent Australian history, it would be nice to see a toning down on the influence of party politics on the Governments miliatary decision making process. In this case make a review and listen to the experts. Still I'm not holding my breath but one can only hope this indicates the begining of a positive trend of making informed decisions.

 

[medusala]

Hasnt the govt already said they will proceed?

 

[Richo83]

Well sounds like a sensible and reasonable position to make. I'm neither particularily enamoured by the labour or liberal parties but it's good to see a defence minister actually showing some form of sense.

Brendan Nelson must be one of the worst defence ministers in recent Australian history, it would be nice to see a toning down on the influence of party politics on the Governments miliatary decision making process. In this case make a review and listen to the experts. Still I'm not holding my breath but one can only hope this indicates the begining of a positive trend of making informed decisions.

It almost, dare I say it, seems smart by our defense minister? Actually figure out if they are worth buying before buying? Previous policy seemed to be buy first ask questions later. Look what happened with that Seasprites and Collins class subs.

 

[patsmith]

It almost, dare I say it, seems smart by our defense minister? Actually figure out if they are worth buying before buying? Previous policy seemed to be buy first ask questions later. Look what happened with that Seasprites and Collins class subs.

Exactly right. When you're talking $16bn, they should make sure they are getting enough bang for the bucks.

Whether we actually need these things is another issue entirely.

 

[Richo83]

Exactly right. When you're talking $16bn, they should make sure they are getting enough bang for the bucks.

Whether we actually need these things is another issue entirely.

Yes, well I don't know if we do need them or not, I'm sure there are people who know more than me but if we're going to spend money, spend it well. Especially in defense, so much money gets thrown around there its just not funny.

 

[likka]

Are these the same duds that Nelson purchased unilaterally from Peacock against the recommendations of the Air Force?

 

[Belnakor]

the JSF is a complete disaster, and the super hornet is useless too.

The air force recommended the JSF initially?

 

[1jasonoz]

the JSF is a complete disaster, and the super hornet is useless too.

The air force recommended the JSF initially?

No the next generation fighter was being chosen by a Department of defence committee called Air6000 or something like that. As part of that process they where evaulating aircraft from around the world and the then Defence Minister and Howard after being wined and dined by the F35 makers announced without consulation with the committe that the F35 would be our new aircraft. Terrible decision for a second rate aircraft!

 

[Juddism]

thank the good Dr. Nelson for this mess...he signed on the dotted line before he even knew what he was signing up for.

 

[Belnakor]

No the next generation fighter was being chosen by a Department of defence committee called Air6000 or something like that. As part of that process they where evaulating aircraft from around the world and the then Defence Minister and Howard after being wined and dined by the F35 makers announced without consulation with the committe that the F35 would be our new aircraft. Terrible decision for a second rate aircraft!

sounds like complete bullshit to me. Source?

 

[dan warna]

sounds like complete bullshit to me. Source?

hill, nelson and reith were three of the most incompetent morons to be let lose with defence dollars.

the department will be picking through the mess those three idiots left for decades.

every time one of those three idiots went to america, they came back with another lemon the american corporates dumped on them. I still can't believe we paid the 'new' price for second hand tanks, some of which were 20 years old.

fitzgibbon already chopped the useless superseadud contract that Reith got us into, and he definitely seems on the side of the soldier, sailor and airman.

Nelson and Hill i think were just naive fools. (nelson because history subsequently showed that he was the only one who didn't realise he was a patsy to wear the labor honeymoon period and that the liberal party would never follow him to an election). Reith was just lining his pockets for his subsequent directorships and 'consultancies'.

 

[Schism]

So we tell the US we want the F-22, or they can get ****ed and we'll go hang out with China. Or we just build nukes like everyone else.

 

[morgoth]

Yanks are too obsessed with technology and have forgotten the fundamental issue, the friggen plane needs to fly well.

Still they said the same thing about the apache when it was built and it has turned out OK.

 

[morgoth]

hill, nelson and reith were three of the most incompetent morons to be let lose with defence dollars.

the department will be picking through the mess those three idiots left for decades.

every time one of those three idiots went to america, they came back with another lemon the american corporates dumped on them. I still can't believe we paid the 'new' price for second hand tanks, some of which were 20 years old.

fitzgibbon already chopped the useless superseadud contract that Reith got us into, and he definitely seems on the side of the soldier, sailor and airman.

Nelson and Hill i think were just naive fools. (nelson because history subsequently showed that he was the only one who didn't realise he was a patsy to wear the labor honeymoon period and that the liberal party would never follow him to an election). Reith was just lining his pockets for his subsequent directorships and 'consultancies'.

You know anyone in the army? My bro did 20 years and he rates Beazley as the worst by a long way. It is why I always used to laugh when he went on about his time as defence mininster when talking up his credentials for PM.

 

[Schism]

You know anyone in the army? My bro did 20 years and he rates Beazley as the worst by a long way. It is why I always used to laugh when he went on about his time as defence mininster when talking up his credentials for PM.

80's/90's was a s**t time to be in the army until ET. They didn't go anywhere or do anything. There was no particular reason to get a large chunk of the funding pie.Diggers hate that s**t.In the end it means less time at the range and so on. More time sitting around doing nothing, and doing it with s**t equipment.

 

[Copernicus]

Exactly right. When you're talking $16bn, they should make sure they are getting enough bang for the bucks.

Whether we actually need these things is another issue entirely.

What are the current capabilities of the airforce? I thought we were still relying on outdated F-111s by and large. Must be time for an update, surely?

Aside from that I know bugger all about planes. Seems like they'd better make sure these things are going to be useful in the air before they buy them, anyway.

 

[dan warna]

You know anyone in the army? My bro did 20 years and he rates Beazley as the worst by a long way. It is why I always used to laugh when he went on about his time as defence mininster when talking up his credentials for PM.

beazley made a lot of mistakes by the 3 liberal stooges were far far worse.

a lasting legacy of the beazley era was the ASLAVs, Steyr Rifle, improved body armor, which the army still use, and are far more effective than the liberals pissing money down the drain with the m113 upgrade.

as for your brother, the defence forces are generally conservative voters on average, but that doesn't belay the incompetence of hill and Nelson, and the corruption of reith.

frankly Buckets Beazley as bad as he was>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>nelson, who lets face was an idiot, > Hill who lets face was dumber than nelson, and >> Reith who was out and out corrupt.

 

[Schism]

beazley made a lot of mistakes by the 3 liberal stooges were far far worse.

a lasting legacy of the beazley era was the ASLAVs, Steyr Rifle, improved body armor, which the army still use, and are far more effective than the liberals pissing money down the drain with the m113 upgrade.

as for your brother, the defence forces are generally conservative voters on average, but that doesn't belay the incompetence of hill and Nelson, and the corruption of reith.

frankly Buckets Beazley as bad as he was>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>nelson, who lets face was an idiot, > Hill who lets face was dumber than nelson, and >> Reith who was out and out corrupt.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think the austeyr was the result of Colt not allowing Australia to manufacture the M16 and variants over here. We have to be able to make our own rifles and the steyr was next cab off the rank.

 

[RUNVS]

Im sick of Australia buying sub standard military hardware from other nations.

 

[dan warna]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think the austeyr was the result of Colt not allowing Australia to manufacture the M16 and variants over here. We have to be able to make our own rifles and the steyr was next cab off the rank.

i think the M16 was on the way out at the thinking at the time, the US was looking to replace the M16, the steyr was considered an awesome weapon in comparison, lighter, waterproof, hardier, better survivability and reliability of weapon.

the old soldiers didn't like it because they had to change their drills, but others really enjoyed the much lighter weight, and effectiveness of hte weapon.

 

[Schism]

i think the M16 was on the way out at the thinking at the time, the US was looking to replace the M16, the steyr was considered an awesome weapon in comparison, lighter, waterproof, hardier, better survivability and reliability of weapon.

the old soldiers didn't like it because they had to change their drills, but others really enjoyed the much lighter weight, and effectiveness of hte weapon.

The US army still uses the M16,apart from SF units which use the M4...

I'm not arguing with you about the good points of the Steyr (you forgot the bit about them rusting into dust anywhere NEAR the sea at first). I just remember being told when i was in, that Colt wouldn't allow ADI to manufacture rifles on license, so we told them to stick it and went with the Steyr. Obviously whatever rifle we used it had to be 5.56 NATO

 

[dan warna]

The US army still uses the M16,apart from SF units which use the M4...

I'm not arguing with you about the good points of the Steyr (you forgot the bit about them rusting into dust anywhere NEAR the sea at first). I just remember being told when i was in, that Colt wouldn't allow ADI to manufacture rifles on license, so we told them to stick it and went with the Steyr. Obviously whatever rifle we used it had to be 5.56 NATO

the US tried to develop a new rifle but basically the m16 was cheap and effective, and the new rifle priced itself out, i forget the name of the weapon.

as for license production, at the time the labor party (with some success and some epic failures) were trying to develop capacity in Aus.

(epic failure would have to be getting violated badly by IBM on the government contract for PC buying in the 80s)

 

[Schism]

the US tried to develop a new rifle but basically the m16 was cheap and effective, and the new rifle priced itself out, i forget the name of the weapon.

as for license production, at the time the labor party (with some success and some epic failures) were trying to develop capacity in Aus.

(epic failure would have to be getting violated badly by IBM on the government contract for PC buying in the 80s)

Yep well the M16 works so why go through the pain of trying something new, and end up with the problems the brits had with the SA80 or whatever it was called. Absolute dud of a weapon that was at first.

In the end, everything in any army is made by the cheapest bidder, it's a surprise anything works at all

 

[Chops_a_must]

sounds like complete bullshit to me. Source?

Was on 4 corners last year.

Very comprehensive.

Caused a s**t storm.