In fact, the original “in-service date” had to be before 2010, so that the F-111s could be retired prematurely, exactly opposite to the strategic directives of the Government in the Defence 2000 White Paper.

@Aussienscale:

If you think you have found flaws or errors of fact in the Analyses, Tech Reports or other papers on the APA website, please feel free to let us know. If what you present in your argumentation proves correct, will be glad to make the necessary amendment/s and attribute its/their origins to your good self.

You obviously appreciate that on a Reference Website, accuracy and technical correctness are paramount.

FYI – the website is being used by many individuals and organisations for that very purpose.

Now, you can either post the links to the relevant document on the APA website that you believe are in error or are factualy incorrect, along with your arguments, onto this forum or send me a PM and I will get back to you as soon as practicable.

Thanking you in advance for your efforts and feel free to go for it.

Anything that improves the content on the website is welcome.

..

Do you have an effect on the content of APA ? Unless you do, I would not even bother, as I have stated before, throw away comments cheap jibes and not answering direct questions seems to be fine on here if you are bagging the F35 program. But any hint of supporting the program leads to one person leading the charge with the lap dog’s following with simular tripe, and no effort to quantify whay they are saying, I am neutral in my current opinion on the program, and was merely pointing out that there is selevtive use of information on both sides in response to a previous post, the reply I got back totally supports my view that on here if you put forward even a hint of support for the program, you are wrong, and no one even considers that the “anti” (for lack of a better word) group would not dare to use misleading information, selective information etc in analysis, only the devil machine of LM marketing would dare do such a thing. My jibe at APA is pretty simple, they have a biased view due to financial interest at the begining of the whole debate within Australia, that has now been lost and replaced by a dire need to try and prove the establishment wrong after what appears to be a major fall from grace for Peter and Carlo, that is how it is coming across to me and many others, but hey, like I said I am neutral on the subject, feel free to educate me, I am a factual person ?
Sorry for late reply, have been away for work again

The DOT&E is about as official and reputable as they come.

I don’t recall suggesting that it was.

Fine, but some of us care to know, want to know, or in some cases need to know, as soon as the information appears.

Nothing to hide at this end. I have no great interest in the F-35 per se. But I have just finished rereading Bill Gunston’s ‘Early Supersonic Fighters of the West’ and found it a salutary reminder of the teething troubles and occasional redesigns that this generation of warplanes suffered. I think it not unreasonable that the first stealth fighter intended for large-scale manufacture (more than a few hundred) and service with a number of air arms should suffer its own share of problems.

Some of my original post was not directly at you, I should have made that a bit clearer, but thanks for the reply, it is the best I have had on here, someone finally reading a post and not reading into it 🙂

As the saying goes, ‘Google is your friend’. The document is part of the 2011 DOT&E annual report, which leaked a few days ago in advance of official publication.

But I think that organisations such as Project On Government Oversight (one of the sources who have distributed the report) have a reputation to maintain, and that the released text will match this version.

I am perfectly capable of using Google to find information, was just pointing out the obvious, there is so much conjecture on here that if someone is going to point something out to me I would prefer official/reputable sources (BTW Wiki etc is not) will it match ? wont it match ? dont know, dont care. I will read the official report and go from there.

But once again, I have noticed when challenged the subject matter it turned, and people still dont answer questions but fire back with one liners, I am starting to think some on here have something to hide ?

Looking at APA’s woes, this is exactly what they want. (Range above all)
Yes, i know it won’t happen, that’s what the smiley was for.

You had me worried there for a bit 🙂 Still getting to know peoples sense of humor and posting styles

aussienscale – One tends to guess “signatures” (1) because the issue is classified (2) because many of the other aspects of the design – structure, aerodynamics, subsystems, display avionics – are covered openly and (3) because almost every other LO program has had issues with LO technology, whether in terms of performance, manufacturability or repairability.

I’d call it an educated guess.

F3 – “adding improved pilot orientation”

You mean, throwing away the HUD in favor of an HMD that doesn’t work?

“and maybe even the UCAS-D automatic landing software”

Which of course no other aircraft can use, because the testing on an F/A-18 was a fluke.

I totally understand what you are getting at, but none the less, be it a hunch, an educated guess, or industry knowledge, it is still guessing is it not ?
I have seen many on this forum question people of their intent, professional background and call them on it. However the same people who call for this do not offer any credentials in return ? So for me it is a case of put up or shut up ? You and others on here such as Horde, Amiga, ELP etc do not offer any credentials in return, so in light of that I am more inclined to take into account someone who has direct experience than someone who just has a handle on a forum ?
Not intending to be a smart **** in this reply, just calling it ?

So as not to be seen as one of the faceless 🙂

My name is Glenn, I live in Ballina, Northern NSW Australia
I currently work as an Area Sales Manager for an international alcohol company, my previous defence experience is however:
8 Years Royal Australian Navy – Communications
2 Years Defence Security Branch (DSB) – Working for the Director of Security Navy/Provost Marshall Navy – Numerous roles
1 Year Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet – Assistant Departmental Security Officer (ASSECO)
2 Years Department of Defence – Communications Specialist – Several roles in several departments including Defence Signals Directorate (DSD)
If you would like this to be verified, your Webmaster is more than welcome to contact me 🙂

So this is not me saying I am an expert in the F35, the project, Signals Management (Stealth) etc, but what it does is show understanding of these things from a military background. You can also see from many of my previous positions I have seen, read and been involved in many things over the years so I have a pretty good understanding of how most things work

The jury may still be out on that.

Did the QLR not allude to a big issue in a classified area?

Whats the bets its radar signature related?

I have been reading this thread with much interest and seeing both sides exchange blows, but to take a quote from the QLR regarding an issue in a “classified area” and turning that into signature issues is just plain crazy, it could be, it could also be many many other “classified areas” of the program. This is coming across as the anti F35 just making stuff up to suit their agenda, I prefer to make my mind up out of facts 🙂 and it takes away credibility from that side of the discussion

Simply doesn’t meet Milspec and, since there is no COTS or commercial specification, the MIL Spec rules!!! :p 😀

To know more, take a look at the requirements for tailhook design in MIL-A-81717C.

All pretty straightforward and logical …. as well as tried and proven over many designs and carrier suitable aircraft.

Could you please provide a link to this ? Have looked on sites such as “Every Spec” etc and it does not come up ?

Also do you have any reference to the tailhook specs for the JSF ?

Cheers

but that’s not how most slippery airplanes look.

I don’t pretend to be an expert, but not sure what you mean by this statement ? Could you please expand on this one for me ? I was not aware that airframes had to “look” a certain way to work ? Would have thought engineering etc would have a bigger input than looks ?

Cheers