Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Wishful thinking will not give Australia credible air power capability

This is an interesting read. Unfortunately it highlights a severe problem of wishful thinking when discussing the alleged go-to-war ability of the F-35.

This belief system that the F-35 is useful or even affordable is backed by a farrago of spin and sophistry that can best be explained here.


Anonymous said...

The only way that the F-35 is a credible threat is as a Faith Based Charity intent on destroying beliefs and budgets.


Anonymous said...

Dr Stephens is a lovely chap and great historian.

Not sure that qualifies him to comment on anything technical, though.

Wonder why he does?

Anonymous said...

You would have to wonder how some people can claim to be academics, when they toally ignore the wealth of information available, and come up with such statements?

Anonymous said...

Do a search of the Parliamentary Hansard to see what Dr Stephens provided as evidence, along with so many others who should know better.


Anonymous said...

Add Gumley, Houston etc

Bonza said...

Well Dr Stephens, unlike many analysts who profess themselves to be air combat "experts" has ACTUAL air combat experience, flying Canberra's on operational missions in Vietnam and ended up being a Squadron Commander at the rank of Wing Commander within RAAF, prior to retirement.

As to his ability to comment on "technical matters" I didn't see anything technical in his comments there at all. Not one comment on wing-loading, TWR or any other such "vital" point when it comes to air combat strategy...

Anonymous said...

Well as an academic he has failed.Hey I went to UNI, and if I submitted such unsubstaniated crap, I would fail. The Canberra was a great aircraft, and unequaled in it's time .
The F35 is not.

Bonza said...

It was an interview, not an academic paper, so yes, if you submitted something like that you should fail.

Try reading some of his writings some time. They're a bit more polished and "academic" standard.

Anonymous said...

There are two other interviews in that series which offer somewhat different perspectives on the F-35 program:

Carlo Kopp (Monash) -

Andrew Davies (ASPI) -

Anonymous said...

I read extensively, and I can pick academic dishonesty any time Bonza.
See, the problem with yourself is that like Stephens you only read one side.Try reading both sides who offer opinions, and actual researchesd academic publications.
I do, and I then make up my own mind. The essnece of academic debate.
You demonise those who disagree.

Anonymous said...

Sorry about the spelling

Anonymous said...

So, Mr Bonza, matters such as ISR, aircraft capabilities, hypersonics, and that daddy of them all, VLF radar, are not technical matters. Really?

As said many times before, people like you and Dr Stephens should stick to what you know about and leave the technical stuff to the experts.

Anonymous said...

Gary Fairlie of the DMO a signals management expert, indeed!!

Horde said...

Bonza: Understand you are an enraptured advocate of what you describe as HOBS BVR missiles being "uber" superior to any fighter aircraft - "first look, first shoot, first kill", and all of that.

DIED is a tad more involved than that ( e.g. What do you do if your missile doesn't match your detection range?, etc.), but what are your conclusions on the following:

Between your uber views on missiles like AMRAAM and uber fighter's like the F-22A, Su-35S and the T-50 PAK-FA, which have the advantage in the following engagement metrics- the missile or the uber fighter:

1. Sustained Energy?
2. Turn Radius?
3. Turn Rate?
4. Instantaneous Energy?

Also, would you agree that an over-the-shoulder HOBS missile shot is likely a last ditch defensive measure?

What does such a profile do to the missile's energy state, range and end game manoeuvring capability?

Once you have done the numbers, let's discuss.