danrhRafale ? :p
Rafale and Typhoon (Typhoon especially) didn’t even need actual technical problems, dithering governments were enough to stretch thier developments 🙂
Daniel
danrhThis article dosn’t contain much in the way of solid information about the F-35 but enough it seems to have turned ELP into a Super Bug fan. 😉
Seems to me we heard very similar issues about the F-22.
Sauron
Quite right, here is the Departments rebuff of the story
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER IS NOT ‘FLAWED’
Defence strongly disagrees with media reporting today that the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program is ‘flawed’ and should be abandoned. This reporting, following on from a newspaper article today, misrepresents the true status of the JSF program.
The original media report draws on excerpts from two risk assessments in 2005 by Australia’s Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), which identified possible risks with aspects of the JSF program at that time. Contrary to media reporting that the DSTO assessments showed the JSF program to be flawed, these assessments are a good example of best practice project management to identify risk and to take early steps to reduce or eliminate it.
In relation to the JSF cockpit display, an alternative technology has been identified as having reached a stage of maturity where it can now be incorporated – resulting in only one element of the display system needing change. This means that the cockpit display issue identified by DSTO in 2005 has been overcome and is no longer of concern.
In terms of the risk report relating to computing and software, there is no doubt the JSF will be heavily reliant on massive computing power and a lot of software – which is exactly why the JSF will be more capable than any other fighter aircraft.
As a result of DSTO’s risk assessments in 2005, the following actions have been taken:
§ A DSTO specialist has been posted to the US for fulltime monitoring of JSF computing and software development;
§ Lockheed Martin is providing excellent support with information on computing and software development; and
§ DSTO is acquiring specialised computer hardware in order for Australia to undertake our own further assessments of performance in the JSF program.
Lockheed Martin itself has risk mitigation strategies in place to provide additional computing capacity if required.
One of the key benefits Australia derives from being a partner in the JSF project is obtaining detailed inside knowledge on the development of the aircraft and the consequent ability to assess any potential issues first hand. This enables Defence to accurately understand the maturity of the JSF’s development and its potential as a highly capable military platform. Defence has full confidence that the stealthy, fifth-generation, multi-role JSF will mature on time to provide Australia’s future air combat capability in the most effective way.
By the time the Australian Government decides whether to acquire the JSF, this aircraft will have been subject to more detailed technical analysis than any other Defence project in Australia’s history. This ongoing detailed technical analysis is appropriate to the importance and level of investment in the project.
Media contact:
Defence Media Liaison (02) 6265 3343 or 0408 498 664
danrhhttp://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19570919-601,00.html
Stealth fighter project ‘flawed’
Michael McKinnon and Cameron Stewart
June 24, 2006
AUSTRALIA’S biggest-ever defence project, the $16 billion Joint Strike Fighter, has potential flaws that could reduce the world’s newest warplane to just an “average aircraft”, according to internal Defence Department documents.The documents reveal the JSF is beset with serious software problems and a cockpit display system so bad it had to be almost completely redesigned.
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson, a staunch defender of the troubled JSF program, will travel to the US at the weekend for talks with the plane’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin.
But despite the latest setbacks with the project, Dr Nelson still supports plans to spend $16billion to buy up to 100 of the yet-to-be-built JSFs to replace the ageing F-111 strike bomber and F/A-18 fighter jets from 2012.
Dr Nelson described the JSF program as not only the most expensive, but also the most challenging, defence project in Australian history.
“We are very committed to the JSF as it will deliver all the capabilities we need and want,” he said.
Dr Nelson agreed that the transfer of information from the US to the project partners, such as details of the plane’s stealth technology, was a significant issue and he vowed to walk away from the project unless guarantees were given.
“I will be meeting with US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld next week and this issue will be discussed,” he said.
Despite the risks raised in the Defence Science and Technology Organisation report, he said, he remained confident the JSF was the best choice for the Royal Australian Air Force.
The $256billion US-led JSF construction program has been dogged with cost blowouts and production delays, raising doubts about the value of the deal and the ability of Lockheed Martin to deliver the new fighter on time.
Now, Australian scientists from the DSTO have identified “major risks” to the plane’s performance in its complex software, advanced cockpit displays and central computer system. A DSTO report from December, obtained under Freedom of Information laws, warns that a “technical risk assessment” by DSTO found “major risks” inherent in the aircraft’s cockpit display system.
“Late or substandard software development within the display system results in poor mission system integration,” DSTO says.
“Realisation of this risk may result in loss of functionality, poor system reliability, or poor man-machine interface which reduces the pilot’s ability to perform.”
It describes the integration of technology for the plane’s cockpit as being only “at the laboratory breadboard stage”.
Sources told The Weekend Australian last night that the cockpit problems were so severe the system had been completely redesigned.
Another major problem identified by Defence scientists is the central computer system — the same issue that led to the Collins-class submarines initially being labelled as “dud subs”.
DSTO complains of difficulty assessing the scale of the JSF’s software problems because of a lack of information from the US.
“Software is a key enabler ofthe integrated mission systems, which transform a kinematically average aircraft into a highly capable weapon system,” DSTO says.
“The lack of technical information prevents DSTO from conducting a thorough analysis of the integrated performance of the (cental computer system).
“The lack of information is due to a number of factors including the novel acquisition approach, US International Trade in Arms Regulations, and what would appear to be proprietary restrictions.”
The first JSF test plane was built early this year and will have its first flight later in the year. But the partnership between the US and its allies over the plane has been fraught.
Australia and Britain — which also plans to buy the plane — have complained to the US about Washington’s reluctance to share the JSF’s stealth technology, warning they would pull out of the deal if that technology were not made available.
Britain has since signed a deal with Washington to share the stealth technology, but Australia has yet to do so.
Opposition defence spokesman Robert McClelland warned yesterday that the JSF’s problems, and possible delays in its delivery, could leave Australia with a dangerous gap in air capability.
“Billion-dollar bungles like the Government’s mismanagement of the Super Seasprite helicopter project could really pale in comparison to this unprecedented $16 billion project — big enough to account for almost the entire annual Defence budget,” Mr McClelland said.
“If Labor win Government we will closely examine the option of acquiring F-22 Raptors, at least in the initial procurement phase, to ensure Australia does not forfeit regional air superiority between retirement of the F-111s in 2012 and delivery of replacement JSFs in 2015 at the earliest and more likely 2017.”
The Howard Government has paid $155 million to join in the design of the JSF, with a final decision on the purchase of the plane due in 2008.
Cost overruns have lifted the average fly-away cost of the plane from $45 million to more than $60 million per plane.
»
danrhThey had Mig 25s and Su-22s and mig 21s and Tu-22M bombers they also had 3 il-76s but the pilots fled and now they are in iranian airforce they also had mig 29s about 38 of them they also had Su-25 bombers ill give you a few pics of there fighters but they also had Mi-24s but to find out more info you should go on acig.org
MiG-21 various versions including the bis
MiG-23 including MFs and ground attack BMs
MiG-25
MiG-29
Su-7
Su-22
Su-25
Tu-22 Blinders (not Tu-22M Backfires)
Mirage F-1EQ (they leased some Super Etenards druing the 80’s pending the arrival of these aircraft. It was a SuE that launched the Exocets that hit the USS Stark)
Daniel
danrhThis thread is now getting silly, GarryB is not going to change his anti-Americanism, and this makes further discussion somewhat repetitive!
LOL! If you are going to call for the end of a pointless discussion you can’t then use you post to get in the final word for your own point of view. Doesn’t work like that. You just pour oil not water on the flames.
Daniel
danrhReading that the Navys’ Sea Sprites may be cancelled altogether and the program written off makes one wonder again as to why such stupid decisions are made.
Buying old airframes (you can argue the point all you like… 20 to 30 yr old airframes are just that!) and then trying to intigrate a whole new weapons system into a limited (11 airframes) amount of helicopters,
You know that could almost be a perfect description of the AP-3C program which IIRC finished early, under budget and produced some of the best MP aircraft in the world today. Not saying the Seasprite program hasn’t been handled badly but relifeing and upgrading is not always bad. Whats your thoughs on a F-111 workover or some of the proposals for the B-52 fleet?
Also read with interest that funding for certification of the F-35s external wing tanks (which the RAAF need) has been cancelled!?!?.
Oh the joys of ordering something which still hasn’t reached operational capability……. :diablo:
IIRC the seem to recall similar criticisms having been made of the F-111 purchase in the 60s but after 30+ years of service I think we all know that one was the right decision.
And who says the F-111 doesn’t play a role in Australia’s defence??
Its one thing being able to defend ones self…. another is to strike back when hit…… I think they call it “Force projection” ???(Yet another reason as to why we shouldn’t buy one type of aircraft….. especially a small single engine one!)
Well if the opposition is such that the Pigs can go in unescorted then a few Hornets and a tanker can do the same job. If on the other hand the opposition is such that an escort is required then the limiting factor is once again Hornets.
Daniel
danrhAlso, given the extra capacity of the MRH-90 compared to the S-70, the Army may not need to one for one its aircraft. I hope this isn’t the plan though. While smaller numbers of a more capable aircraft can be good economic policy we also need a minimum number of airframes to be able to cover all of the area’s. This is the same reason I don’t think a small buy of F-22As for the RAAF instead of a larger number of F-35s is a good idea. It does you not good if your aircraft are the best there is if they are not able to be brought to bear because they are on the other side of the continent.
Daniel
danrhSince when a nuke is related to defense? In NK case, nukes are for blackmailing western world in order to obtain food, fuel, recognition, something than a rotten regime can’t supply to its own people.
Um the nuclear powers have argued for decades that the only reason they have nukes is as a defensive measure because the other guy has them. Honestly if you are going to argue with Garry try not to hand the win to him on a platter. :rolleyes:
I never thought that anti-Americanism could go so far.
1. US did’nt take part in the battle of Britain simply because they were not in war with Germany at that moment;
2. even in thses conditions, US did help UK: P 40s, fuel, food, strategic metals, destroyers;
3. How many NZ pilots fought in RAF ranks? Because I can tell you that over 200 Amercian pilots volonteered in 3 “Eagle” squadrons and were fighting against the Germans under RAF colors before Pearl Harbors:
4. Do you dare to compare the US human losses in WW II in Europe to the NZ ones?????????
Oh come on. This is ridiculous people. The US and the Commonwealth fought TOGETHER against the common enemies of the Axis powers. Attempting to demean the contribution of one nation or the other has jack all to do with the topic here and is a sure fire way to shut down anything even close to reasonable discussion. Perhaps a mod should shut this thread down for a couple of days. I doubt we’ll be missing anything worth reading.
Daniel
danrhYou have forgotten the Army’s Blackhawks, Huey, Kiowa, etc.
Um the question was what does the RAN operate.
Daniel
danrh$44 million for each NH-90?
How about 10 Mi-17s or 3 S-70s for the same amount?
How many times does one have say that total project cost divided by number of airframes does not equal individual aircraft flyaway cost. Are we to go back to quoting a 250+million cost for the F-22A
Daniel
danrhChannel Nine also reported
Well there’s your problem 🙂
Daniel
danrhhttp://www.minister.defence.gov.au/NelsonMintpl.cfm?CurrentId=5738
19 Jun 2006
MIN96/06MRH 90 TO REPLACE SEA KING AND BLACK HAWK HELICOPTERS
I am pleased to announce that Government has approved a $ 2 billion acquisition of thirty-four MRH 90 helicopters to replace Navy’s Sea King and Army’s Black Hawk helicopters.
The selection of the MRH 90 complements the Government’s decision in 2004 to acquire an initial twelve MRH 90 helicopters as Army’s additional troop lift helicopter. Delivery of the first twelve is scheduled from December 2007 through to December 2009.
The 34 additional MRH 90s will be assembled in Brisbane. When delivered, the MRH 90s will be based at RAAF base Townsville, Holsworthy Barracks in Sydney and HMAS Albatross in Nowra. A contingent will also be based at a joint training facility at Oakey in Queensland.
The new twin-engine troop lift helicopters will provide opportunities for joint fleet management. These benefits include greater operational flexibility and efficiency through common operational, training and logistic systems and a capability to rotate personnel, aircraft, spare parts and role-specific equipment between troop lift, special operations and maritime support commitments.
The MRH 90 is an extremely capable helicopter featuring a modern damage tolerant design, a large cabin volume with ramp and enhanced levels of marinisation.
The Sea Kings will be retired in 2010, followed by the Black Hawks which will be progressively replaced between 2011 and 2015.
As these MRH 90 aircraft will be assembled in Australia this acquisition of at least 34 aircraft will provide significant opportunities for Australian industry and the Australian Defence Force (ADF) will gain an operating capability within a relatively short time-frame.
The emphasis of the Australian industry package, worth $1.2 billion, is on the development and sustainment of critical aircraft mission system capability. The long term viability of the Australian MRH 90 assembly line will be maximized, ensuring greater development of the skill base required to support the MRH 90 into the future through a strategy aimed at promoting Australian industry as part of the Eurocopter global supply chain.
danrhSorry, but none of those MBT are modern. The majority of them are mid 70 design. The true is:
When it comes to land forces all Latin America armies are outdated.
Unless a batch of Leopard II, M-1A1, Leclerc, Chalenger II or T-90 had arrived in the last few days, the current situation on all latin american armies is that they´re obsolet.
Chile is buying (and already has taken delivery of some IIRC) Leo 2s. Anyway just becuase thier MBT forces may be little on the older side doesn’t automatically relegate a force to total obsolecence. The Australian Army is still operating Leo 1s (first M1A1 AIM to arrive later this year) but its not exactly a third rate Army (small yes but not necessarily outdated). Similarly Latin American army’s have a wide variety of AFVs in service inclding for indigenous production types and there are other classes to be considered such as artillery, personal weapons etc etc. Outside of the major theatres (Cnetral Europe, Korea, Middle East) power is not measure by ones MBT force.
Daniel
danrhThe reason I wouldn’t call these second hand was because I saw first hand the level of work these received when we bought them.
Kinda like the re-lifeing a few helicopters recieved 🙂
Daniel
danrhDo you actually know what gunboat diplomacy is? I’m not talking about fighting and winning a war against the USA.
Um yes I do understand the basic concept of gunboat diplomacy. I delpoy a military force into or adjacent to your territory as a promise/threat of more come if you don’t do what I want. Crude but sometimes effective. A couple of dozen Flankers won’t stop the US deploying its usual instrument of gunboat diplomacy, the CVSG. Sorry.
I just say that the US probably will not send any ships into Venezuelan waters to put pressure on the government or support a coup (as they have done dozens of times in Latin America) if there are 24 Brahmos equipped Su-30s just a few miles away.
Okay well that is your belief and you’re entitled to it. I certainly won’t be fighting you for it 🙂 Funnily enough when China acts up the USN still sends a CVSG to sail around over there. Where were Brahmos/Yakhont or Moskit mentioned anyway?
Daniel
Sign In
