@Aussie Digger, thank you for your unique POV. I guess we all have opinions. Good international citizen that jumps on every bandwagon the US comes up with.. hmm. Countries buy weapons based on threat perception, if Australia knows that China will be fielding a large number of flankers in the next 5-10 years, then any solutions for that period has to reflect some consideration of that perception.

Where were we when Bosnia happened? Happily at home and our relationship with the US didn’t suffer because we stayed away. Where was the US when we were leading the East Timor mission? Not contributing very much, that’s for sure, but we didn’t think less of them for it. I don’t remember China contributing much either, despite being a member of the UN Security Council and giving it’s assent for that mission to go ahead…

We have been involved in quite a few missions with the US that’s for sure. We have also stayed away from plenty too. So have plenty of others.

Does Australia participate strongly in UN international missions and strongly support the entire UN concept? Yes.

Does Australia actively pursuse international treaties and alliances and abide by these as well as International law? Yes.

Does Australia provide the majority of assistance to the Pacific Island nations in times of need? Yes.

Did Australia agree to the Kyoto Climate agreement? Yes.

Does Australia comply with International Maritime Organisation conventions? Yes.

Does Australia comply with International Diplomatic conventions? Yes.

Is Australia the 14th largest provider of foreign aid ain the world? Yes.

I find it a bit difficult to swallow that you’d categorise our “good international citizen status” based on our participation in Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan, despite the fact of course that it is a UN mission, approved by the UN Security Council, of which China is obviously a part…

As to the threat perception, I discussed that at length previously. Do you honestly think that with the available Government revenue Australia has access to and the force structure that we maintain (a force of less than 55,000 in total) that we actually perceive any sort of threat to Australia from a foreign power?

From the mid 80’s to now Australia’s force structure has dropped from 72,000 down to below 55,000. Since that time we have operated less surface combatants, less operational submarines, fighters, transport aircraft, tanks, artillery, air defence systems and so on. The quality of our platforms may have improved, but our overall concurrent defence capability has lessened.

Does that sound like a Country who feels greatly threatened? Moreover the presence of Flankers by themselves are not a capability. They are not a threat. A detailed threat assessment includes the aircraft. It also includes their weapon systems. Their logistic systems, their training systems. Their expeditionary support capability. Their enabling capabilities (ISR, communications, deployable support etc) their doctrine and so on. As the old saying goes, amateurs focus on platforms, professionals focus on logistics.

Tell me again what Kopp focusses on?

A Flanker isn’t much of a threat if it can only perform one sortie before it’s logistical support is either destroyed or exhausted…

@redgriffin I’d say what Flex used to say, he does a lot more technical analysis than most people in this forum. Between, SOC is also apparently in the panel of Carlo Kopp’s organization. The chart I was pointing to for your analysis of the ASRAAM did not come out of Mr. Kopp’s fantasies. I’d say that Mr. Kopp may have an exaggerated threat perception, but this does not mean he invents his own technical data. There is a tendency among internet fan boys, random readers and arm chair generals to paint people they don’t like by whatever color they choose. We must not fall into the trap of sharing their perceptions but instead look to analyze with an open mind and an investigative spirit. Based on this, we may choose to ignore the more xenophobic elements of Mr. Kopp’s work, and still hold on to the more technically correct points. Anyways, that’s what I think. Sorry if that wasn’t helpful.

Kopp’s “technical analysis” is derived from whatever open sourced literature or pamphlets he can get his hands on. He has no access to classified intelligence information nor any “inside” knowledge of classified weapon system capabilities of either Australian or foreign military services.

The closest he has ever come to serving in a military force was time spent as a research fellow at the Australian Defence Force Academy and even then he was kicked out of that before his due time…

His opinions are speculative based on OS literature as I said before and the fact that his work in the defence field is never submitted for independant peer review, despite his extensive academic career and presumed familiarity with the importance of such endeavours, should be rather telling…

Between, Australia, with its F-18s decided on a similar strategy when the went for the ASRAAM against a perceived threat from Chinese FLANKERs.

Australia chose ASRAAM after evaluating it against AiM-9X and Python IV. Whilst we required a new modern missile to maximize our WVR air to air capability in combination with JHMCS relaive to modern threats and replace our older AIM-9M, I very much doubt Flankers had much to do with it.

More like the limited BVR weapons capability we had at that time, given we had only just begun to receive AIM-120A and our Sparrows were life expired…

Plus the ASRAAM’s ‘speed off the rail’ and demonstrable capability to provide a near 360 degree engagement capability around the aircraft, offers some very useful tactical options…

What have LM done instead? They gave up the 0.001sqm figure and instead only designed the F-35 for some 0.01sqm thus saving some cost, how much $10-15mil per aircraft? 10-15% saving was worth giving up something allegedly as crucial and important for survivalability as VLO? On an aircraft that is intended to battle double digit SAM systems with radars incomparably more powerful than airborne radars? What sense does it make? Right, none!!

or
– LM have recognized that designing the aircraft to insanely low RCS levels simply is not worth it.. Most probably because maintaining such low levels is not practical – every single protruding rivet or unfit seal would bounce the RCS values back to 0.0x levels, anyway.

Call me crazy but I think that the stealth concept as such has only been partially successful and found its practical boundaries which resulted in the F-35 design.

The second part of your comment seems the more reasonable to me. The F-22 is the stealthiest thing in-service at present that actually has vertical tails, I think most people would agree with that general statement.

The F-35 could have met that level of LO or perhaps improved upon it I am sure, but attempting to do so may have resulted in another 187 aircraft project…

If the LO level is 10-15% below F-22 but 80-90% above every NON-LO aircraft then that seems a pretty good tradeoff to me, especially if it is selling for $60m per aircraft and will allow the planned thousands of aircraft to be purchased.

F-35 is also planned to employ a greater use of standoff and anti-radiation weapons than any F-22 variant to help offset it’s slightly lower level of capability. It doesn’t rely upon them totally like a legacy aircraft but it can definitely make good use of them…

Don’t know if you’ve seen the latest costs, revealed at Ares by Amy Butler, but they break down for LRIP 4 production like this:

F-35A – $116.4m. (Minus engine).

F-35B – $109.4m. (Minus engine).

F-35C – $142.9m. (Minus engine).

These prices should be compared to LRIP 1.

F-35A – $221.2m.

F-35B – $161.7m.

F-35C – $160.7m.

L-M has maintained it can get full rate production prices down to $60m each, including the engine cost.

No wonder it has so much interest before development has even finished…

hahaha……like carlo kopp:rolleyes:

Not many pay for his defence writings and ADF certainly never has…

😎

No, i just referring to the fact that our current fleet is being used for it and op slipper and alot of other things, any excuse for additional ADF capability really. I’m sick of buying my own gear:o

Tell me about it. Just had to buy my own torch for work, for my occasional night shift. 2010 and a Government agency can’t even provide me a friggin torch…

I especially like the ‘piecemeal fleets of our neighbours’- like to see him stop 750000 ‘piecemeal soldiers’:(

Well, there is quite a bit of water between us and them. Hope they can’t swim all that well…

I remember a bou making a hard landing and being lifted out by a…. chinook!

I am concerned we are only ordering 7, I thought we would have been after a few more.

Also could see an add on to the P-8A order

The UAV order was increased under the White Paper 2009, to 8+8 so with 16 platforms compared to only 18 now, each of which have greater range and capability (in their role) than the AP-3C, I don’t exactly see the great “loss” that ASPI was referring to…

Also the Army is keeping ALL it’s CH-47D’s in service until ALL the CH-47F’s have entered service. Personally I believe that at least some of the CH-47D’s will then be remanufactured into F models to satisfy Army’s long standing requirement for a fleet of at least 12x Chinook aircraft…

Would that track record include F104 sales…? 😉

Easy points aside, what track record would that be?

P38
P80
F94
F104

Hhmm…massive track record there…not.

Maybe that explains why their marketing dept. uses the method i outlined; as you kindly acknowledged.

Those, plus you can add the F-16 and F-22A. I am aware that the F-16 was developed by General Dynamics. I am also aware that GD sold it’s aircraft business to Lockheed Corporation in 1993, which subsequently became Lockheed Martin.

Seeing as though others have included other aircraft types, let us add the F-117 Nighthawk to that list as well, though of course it wasn’t a fighter…

I am also aware that F-16 was designed and built in Fort Worth Texas. Guess what other aircraft is being designed and built there? Go on…

Cripes you’ve got some mighty big rose tinted specs on there aussie.

Woud you like to buy a fighter i’ve just designed? It’s the best thing ever i promise.
It’s got the full suite of gizmos and whatnots and they are much better gizmos and whatnots than the gizmos and whatnots the others you could get have.
Honest.
It’ll be real cheap compared to the others as well; I can’t tell you how much it’ll cost but i promise it’ll be cheap.
Honest.

Now can i have that job in LM marketing please (pretty please?) :D:p

If you had L-M’s track record of building fighters, then maybe you would sell a few in this method…

Sure, if you think things like high AoA capability, structural integrity or weapons release at supersonic speeds are something that the early blocks could do without in the worst case, well than it is really business as usual.

They sure can. All of that and plenty more will come in time, though the structural integrity can only be proven through load testing and flying. Not sure how you are meant to conduct either activity without airframes…

Would it suit you better if these test aircraft were all called SDD airframes and not LRIP, yet did exactly the same thing as is planned now? Seems like you are more interested in semantics. These LRIP aircraft will be flying test flights and training activities until the block upgrades are released anyway. It is not the case that users WILL be operating LRIP aircraft as if they were fully cleared, if that is not the case. To think they would…

As I pointed out above, a LARGE portion of the F-35 operating envelope has already been cleared and as these aircraft are unlikely to have the software to do the things you think are so important in the infancy of a flight test program anyway, the ‘steady as she goes’ method of clearing capabilities will be used irrespective of whether they are designated SDD or LRIP airframes.

Your current attitude is symptomatic of the current crop of ‘internet experts’ who raise a hue and cry over any tiny piece of apparently bad news and overlook (most often intentionally) the bigger picture.

L-M has a pretty decent track record of delivering combat aircraft. Their two most recent fighter aircraft are particularly outstanding. They had more than their share of development issues as does virtually EVERY modern fighter, an Szu-35 tester even crashed last year, but very little concern that caused amongst the Internet community, something that has NOT happened to F-35 (a very respectable achievement, considering the technical challenge of 3 differing variants they have set for themselves but do we ever see any praise? Of course not) but they also had the benefit of NOT having to endure the ‘outrage’ that relatively minor flaws in the overall scheme of things seems to engender, so long as it’s within the F-35 program and enabled by immediate and easy access to insight limited open sourced data, available on the web.

One further comment. I’d hate to be the next modern fighter designer if this sort of criticism actually matters. It’s only going to get worse…

Maybe we’ll get to the point where there is so MUCH diverse criticism that nothing EVER gets achieved. What a wonderful outcome that’d be…