Hopsalot provides a good example of the kind of counter-productive criticism of APA that I was referring to earlier. Nobody disputes the facts in question re: APA, F-111s, and vested interests, or any of the other ‘facts’ regarding APA that are often brought up, e.g. that they once said some nice things about Super Hornet. The difficulty is that APA’s critics seem to think that these facts constitute arguments of themselves — reasons to dismiss all that APA has to say on the subject of e.g. the F-35. And this just doesn’t follow.

There are several objectionable features of this line of reasoning. Beyond the fact that it is obviously ad hominem, one can’t help but notice that APA is implicitly being denied a right that each of us would surely reserve for ourselves — the right to have been in error, and to extend and revise our positions in light of new information and new developments. Sure, APA once advocated a rather bizarre course for the RAF re: F-16s and Typhoons: so what? Who among us would survive similar scrutiny?

More problematic I think is this apparent notion that ‘discovering’ that APA has (or had) a particular agenda somehow invalidates the arguments that they make. This is simply nonsense; each of us has a particular agenda, a series of pre-existing beliefs through which new information is interpreted and which are necessarily involved in the statements that we make. It is not agendas that are the problem, but hidden agendas — and APA’s is hardly hidden, and not even particularly relevant at the current stage of the game.

The Super Hornet provides a good example. Seen from a certain perspective the aircraft is a disaster, a retrograde development that is uncompetitive with all of its contemporaries. From another perspective it’s a superb aircraft, an excellent solution to the particular set of circumstances that obtained and one of the most successful programs of the modern era. What’s important when someone says that the Super Hornet is a wonderful aircraft or a terrible aircraft is knowing what they mean by this and why. In this example, the context usually makes it clear.

On a related note, it often seems to me that when there is a debate here on a particular topic, what is at issue is often not the technical characteristics of the platform in question, but rather these broader issues of context, vision, and ‘agenda’. For example, in the thread about Gripen vs. F-35 for Denmark, inflammatory statements aside (e.g. “Gripen couldn’t penetrate its way out of a paper bag”) there is comparatively little disagreement as to the merits and demerits of the respective platforms; rather what is at issue is precisely those broader issues of national vision which shape the weight — or lack thereof — that one gives to particular technical or quantitative factors. Some people might see my bringing up issues of NATO policy as off-topic or unnecessarily controversial, but in fact I think they strike at the very heart of the debate, and that without this broader context one is forever chasing ghosts.

So, I wound up rambling on a bit here, but to summarise my position: I think that APA is a valuable contributor to public discussion on these matters which are of interest to all of us, and I think this is true regardless of whether one agrees with the specific arguments they have made or not — and indeed in many cases I do not. I further think that those who apparently cannot let go of certain facts, e.g. that APA stood to gain from the souped-up F-111 project, and prefer this line of argument to actually engaging with the substantive issues raised, do not help their own cause, and that this is particularly true when that criticism is expressed in hyperbolic terms, e.g. as in hopsalot’s post.

But then I’m just an Arts major so what do I know. :p

In the Australian context the significance of the F-111 was in its range, not its specific modus operandi. It represented a class of aircraft that is no longer extant in the world today.

I agree with a lot of what you say there, but I personally believe it does not apply to APA as their opinion changes depending on their objective. This gives them very little credibility. I dont dismiss their facts, many are pretty spot on, but many are pretty dubious as well, but it is the manner they use these facts in misleading ways that harms their cred.

Example: They do all they can to rubbish the JSF program and the plane itself, now not a bad thing if it is rounded, rational debate, but these guys change their arguement to suit their objective. Their objective is to cause as much grief for the DOD, RAAF and Government as they can becuase the JSF decision crushed their dreams, but here is the cruncher 🙂

Peter and Carlo actually originaly supported the JSF and put it forward as a part of their proposal, the intention was to replace the F/A-18 with the F22, upgrade the F111 to operate out to the 2020’s+ to then be replaced with the JSF to supplement the F22 🙂

Cheers

Rii – Leave Aussie/Gf/???, the Sybil of Antipodean JSF enthusiasts, alone. He’s obviously correct. Only people who are initiated into the dark necromancy that is Signals Management are qualified to judge these matters, and a foolish insistence on independent government review is detrimental to national, I might even say global security.

Still not sure who you think I am Bill ? You have made this mistake once before and embarrased yourself. I am sure your Google Fu is strong enough for you to figure I am not who you think I am ? I am more than happy to chat off line with you to go through who I am and what I have done to save you further embarrasment ?

Signals Management is a term that gets used, it was used during my time in the Defence Communications world, I have also seen it refered to in the Sub world as well, the correct terminology is Signature Management.

This reply just goes to show you for the belligerent troll you are. It must have been months ago I used that term in a post where I refered to “Stealth” as Signals Management, it was a error on my part quoting terminology that was used in my career.

I am not against independant review in Government, and particulary in Defence, but it has to be non biased, I am sure you would be aware of many other groups who have well rounded analysis on many subjects, The Kokoda Foundation comes to mind, but when it comes to APA……

And yet again you also make the mistake of thinking that I am a blind “Fanboi” of the JSF and the project, I am not and have many issues with the program and how it has been handled.

Cheers

“The APA wanted to ether do the F-111 work or get paid for “coming up with the idea”, hence their hatred of the F-35 (they don’t get any money).”

If you’re going to demean somebody’s motives from the cover of a pseudonym, at least try to be logical. If APA were in it for the money they’d be pushing Typhoon or Rafale – unless you think LockMart would cut them a fat check the day the first RAAF F-22 gets delivered.

Either you are trolling or you have no idea what you are talking about ? I am inclined to go with both.

You know very well, at least you should with your portrayed knowledge, that Peter and Carlo stood to make their money from the F111 upgrade and maint proposal and the company they set up to do it.

As most then know, they did not get their option taken up and the Aus Gov went with the F35. They have had a vendetta against the program ever since, their analysis is one sided, segmented and created in a vacuum in order to rubbish the JSF. The rules they apply to do this never apply to the opposing forces, most of their statements are deliberately misleading and I take offence to the amount of time and money they have wasted in their continual harrasment of the Senate in Australia

But please continue to defend them, I find it entertaining 🙂

Er, just so that I understand, when people “quote” an external article, they are in fact giving their own “professional expertise opinion on the subject”… but when you state that “it is crap like this” and “based on crap”, you are asserting a universal truth?:confused:

For the record, I stopped reading the APA years ago and I’m no fan of their agenda driven publications. I’m only having a go at you because you linked to a 2009 article and then start rebutting people who had the courtesy of even taking notice.

Fair call 🙂 It is a 2009 article but recently updated, but point taken

Cheers

aussienscale,

If you think the APA “analysis” is garbage, why on Earth do you link to it?

Don’t you have anything better to contribute?

I don’t think ! I know it is garbage, the reason to link it is to point out that in Peter and Karlo’s desperation to carry on with their rhetoric about how the F35 is crap in their eyes anything else other than the F22, apart from their upgrade of the F111 which of course will make a 50yo aircraft compete with
5th gen airframes.

So you are so knowlegable, you defend their analysis ? It is crap like this that so many quote as their professional expertise opinion on the subject ! and yet now their experts have now admitted in their analysis that it is based on crap !

So if you want to argue the point go ahead, lets pick it apart and go point to point on every paragraph in the report and watch it fall apart ?

I wait with baited breath 🙂

Perhaps, but most navies that have retained the FFG-7 have upgraded them into ships that are far more capable than when delivered.

http://www.thalesgroup.com/Countries/Australia/Documents/FFG_Upgrade/

(SM-2 has since been acquired.)

And the RAN is keeping the FFG’s for how much longer though ? It was always a short term gap fill

This is a silly arguement, you can shoot off reply after reply after reply and make an arguement on anything, especially when you isolate your point of a simple X Vs Y arguement, as has been pointed out this is not how it works, not a single thing is this whole thread works in isolation, so trying to put forward that it does is a moot point because in real life it does not happen

well, the problem was that the wire was smacked down against the deck by the wheels passing over it and it didn’t have the time to rise back up for the hook to catch it. They modified the damper, but it can’t rise the wire back up, they modified the hook design, it may help catching the wire lower, but only trials with real conditions will show how efficient that fix was

That was part of the problem, it was a combination of several factors all of which we have mentioned over the last few posts.

Plus if needed they can modify the leaf springs and heights on the deck as well 🙂 One again, I believe, very simple tweeking to get it right

Cheers