Friday, May 11, 2012

RAAF boss practices deception; or just doesn't know

The top RAAF boss makes some statements that lack credibility.

He states that the Growler upgrade for 12 of our 24 Super Hornets is a good idea, when in fact, such an effort will be a waste of money.

He states this about the F-35:

Air Marshal Brown said the fifth-generation JSF would meet Australia's needs for many decades, providing control of the air across the entire spectrum of conflict.

No evidence. The fifth-generation meme is just valueless. Worse, Brown tries to imply that just because an F-22 will clear the table of all threats, that the same can be done with the F-35.

The F-35 is not just a smaller F-22.

The F-35--by defects in its design--will not be combat effective for Australia's (or anyone else's) needs.

In an effort to save money for the ADF, I can think of one star-ranked officer that isn't up for the job and needs to find a different line of work. A star-ranked officer spreading disinformation, or just being badly informed (pick one) doesn't add any value to the defence of the nation.

Additional reading (PDF files):

Review of the Defence Annual Report 2010-2011


--Submission 3--THE EVOLVING THREAT ENVIRONMENT Reference Threat Capabilities versus the Joint Strike Fighter (Materialised Predictions from APA Founders’ Threat Assessments dating back to Circa 1998)

--Submission 5--F-35 JSF Air Combat Capability Information for Defence Sub-Committee Members

--Submission 6--From Mr. Erik Peacock, To the secretariat, Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Review of the Defence Annual Report 2010-2011

--Submission 7--Answers to the 07 February 2012 Defence Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Simulation assumptions, issues and visualisation, REPSIM Pty Ltd

--Submission 9--There is Nothing Normal nor Usual let alone Standard about the JSF . . .

--Submission 10--RE: APA Submission No 4 to the JSCFADT Hearings into the JSF - Thana Marketing, KPIs and the JSF Program




Always Perplexed said...

Everybody should read the submisions.Makes the likes of the
F35 supporters and their sycophants look a little green around the gills regarding the misinformation given by Defence and DMO to the Joint sittings, and roundly seen as grist to their mill.
Why do you not look at the facts?
Await your inciteful comments Bonza/Aussie Digger.

Anonymous said...

Read through the submissions, some wild and whacky assertions of "facts" with no direct sources!

Knucklehead said...

"In making this submission the Committee should know that AVM Osley is a highly respected and very competent Strike-Navigator with extensive experience on the F-111 flying bombing sorties. He is not a Fighter-Pilot and clearly lacks essential knowledge of the complexities of future air combat."

I especially like this extract from submission 11.

Penned by Chris Mills (aka, super-Blunt)

Pot, kettle.

Woof! Woof!

Perplexed said...

Nothing like inciteful, well researched comments from the usual suspects.
And personal attacks as well.
What intelligence.
Again the inability to be able to actually comprehend what is staring them in the face.

If they are not correct suggest you contact the Committee and suggst they start proceedings for contempt.

Of course you won't.

Osley may be well respected, however he has not been honest as shown.
This a pattern that has been evident in these in these hearings for many years.

There has been a total disrespect for the the process.

Anonymous said...

Repsim are being ignored fine enough without needing for "contempt" proceedings. The quality of their work assures this.

Perplexed said...

You obviously have not read the submissions at all.
Which says something, which you probably do not understand.

Still Perplexed said...

How is this from the usual crowd, ie Aussie Digger and sycophants.
They are unable to read the Submissions or are totally dishonest and intellectually bankrupt?

From the kidddies site, cowards castle MK2.

"Originally Posted by south
Currently flicking very quickly the APA/Repsim "Resubmit" to Parliament after getting smacked down which you can find on the ELP website (fun times).

Loving the Chris Mills Mirage warries and implying that because Australian Fighter Pilots haven't flown a Mig29 that they are hardly in a position to participate in Man in the loop simulation... I think that he may be more delusional than Goon.

I love how they continually reference the "Probably not" quote. Unfortunately for Mike Price, it seems he has an issue with basic reading comprehension.

The "probably not" comment is clearly relating to the limited F-35 capabilities available in software Blocks I and 2 and is referenced by the acknowledgement of the delays in the software build for the intended INITIAL operating capability...

Pure hilarity. REPSIM are doing more damage to themselves than RAAF ever could...

I wondered when the official complaints APA continually makes about Defence personnel would come out into the open. Guess even they've come to the same conclusion the rest of us realised about ten years ago, that their quiet little white ant email campaign isn't achieving anything..."

Totally out of context, misquoted, but what would you expect from those with a lack of integrity.
What intellectual and engaging debate.
I look forward to more.

Understood said...

Repsim need to go get real transonic acceleration data, real EM and Ps data, real RCS figures across the EM spectrum, real weapon ranges and PK data (for both the F-35 and any adversary). They then need to go to a current fighter squadron and try to gain an understanding of tactics and environmental limitations.

Glossy brochures from Sukhoi, well-meaning estimates from APA and retired daytime-WVR pilots don't count. They need to talk to intel agencies, F-35 test data and current weapons instructors.

Only then can any simulation provide a hint of truth.

Garbage in - garbage out.

Perplexed said...

Understood, you are correct, garbage.
Why do you not read the submisisions before making a fool of yourself.
You did not read them.

Understood said...

Thanks Perplexed, I read the submissions.

Perplexed said...

I think Horde you have answered your own question.
Illiterate,uneducated,intellectual pygmies unable to undertake any critical analysis by themselves. Unfortunately a sad indictement on the Australia Education System.

I guess when you read the TV ratings, and see the most popular shows, my point is proved.

However if you follow the gurus and intelletual giants(Aussie Digger et al) from the kiddies site what can you expect.They have not read the Submissions as evidenced by the patheteic replys, as it obvious they do not get the point.

For the sycophants, it is called dishonsesty by Defence and LM.

Anonymous said...

I think ADF and LM have said all that is needed to be said on the 16/3 and 20/3

Amazingly Perplexed said...

Exactly, the Dishonesty as highlighted by the further submisions highlights same.
Thanks anon.Good observation

Understood said...

Hi Horde,

"What makes you think that REPSIM and APA haven't done all you suggest and some?"

Biggest issue is the lack of references in the submissions to current intel assessments of adversary threat systems, F-35 test reports on acceleration, EM diagrams and RCS splats, and weapons instructor input into tactical assumptions. The second giveaway is the lack of classification headers and footers. which would be required if real-world data was used.

Despite Perplexed's offhanded dismissal of my reading ability, I'll comment on a few particular issues I have with the submissions. I'll only comment on 'tactical' aspects of the submission, I do not have a professional history in project management.


No qualification or reference is made for the profiles used for range performance quotes. Are they Hi-Hi, Hi-Lo-Hi, Hi-Lo-Supersonic-Hi? Are the profiles the same between quoted figures for each variant?

The most important piece of 'evidence' presented is a graph comparing the straight and level acceleration of several platforms at 30,000'. The graph is poorly referenced to the source graph itself and of the presented data (ie, which test reports are these from, which flight manuals). The graph specifies that 50% fuel, 2 radar missiles and 2 heaters is the reference loadout. Is the graph supposed to be representative of fuel tanks on legacy fighters of not? Some of the fighters seem to come from LM data, which reports? As best as I can read the graph, the F-35 data is from another source, being a 'SME analyst estimates'. What are the qualifications of this analyst and what data and assumptions are they using (there are test reports out there for this information, estimates aren't required).

In any case, this data is inconsistent with open-source test pilot comments.
“I can’t even explain the adrenaline rush you get when you light the afterburner on that thing,” Smith said. “The acceleration is much better than an F-16.”
-LTCOL Eric Smith, F-35 Test Pilot

Some tactical context to consider as well, no fighter will be accelerating in AB for the times on that graph starting from 50% fuel!


This submission seems to contain only a few introductory descriptions of various systems from open sourced reporting. These are followed by some assertions of the F-35 and Super Hornet's alleged inferiority.

e.g. "Why is Defence even considering the strategically obsolete F-35 and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet given that both aircraft will be easily tracked by Nebo M and thus engaged by fighters or SAMs?"

No evidence is presented as to why the F-35 and F/A-18 are obsolete against these systems. A few lines talk about various 'L-Band' radars and 'long range IR systems' but no comparison is made between these systems measured detection performance and the measured RCS/heat-signature of the F-35 in those frequency bands. (This is true as well of submission 7).


Loss-Exchange-Ratio is no doubt an important measure. I've already discussed my opinion on garbage-in, garbage-out. This is of course compounded the mass engagements trying to be simulated here.

I suggest you wind back to a 1v1 engagement to do a direct comparison and minimize the variables. What are the comparison of Radar/IRST detection range, ESM detection range, weapon RMax, weapon Rne, A-Pole, F-Pole, PK? What are the limitations of sensors against target maneuvers? What are the limitations of weapons against target maneuver? Are these values correct according to current official intel?

I feel no need to submit anything, a whole bunch of fighter pilots and those who spend all day getting paid to know this stuff have got this one.

Perplexed said...

Understood, you have missed the whole point,which is understandable,taking into account the lack of any intellectual input.
Nothing to do with what you expouse.
Leave you to work that out yourself, if you can.
Try the words"lying" and "dishonsety" to give you a head start.
Playing with semantics does not cut it.

Anonymous said...

you guys are clueless
it's a typo, the STOVL weight is 0.3% per year

sub 11 from repsim is a funny one with all the 3:1 stuff..

"Mr Liberson: Our current assessment that we speak of is: greater than six to one relative loss exchange ratio against in four versus eight engagement scenarios—four blue at 35s versus eight advanced red threats in the 2015 to 2020 time frame.

ACTING CHAIR: What are those advanced threats?

Mr Liberson: I cannot get into the specifics of those advanced threats. Those have become classified.

ACTING CHAIR: How is you saying 'We analysed this threat' secret?

Mr Burbage: To turn it around, do you think that all the first-tier air forces in the world would look at that analysis against an inferior threat? I do not think so. That is not why they are buying the airplane.

Mr Liberson: And it is very important to note that our constructed simulations that Mr Burbage talks about without the pilot in the loop are the lowest number that we talk about—the greater than six to one. When we include the pilot in the loop activities, they even do better when we include all of that in our partner—

Mr Burbage: We actually have a fifth-gen airplane flying today. The F22 has been in many exercises. We have one of the pilots here who flew it and they can tell you that in any real-world event it is much better than the simulations forecast. We have F35 flying today; it has not been put into that scenario yet, but we have very high quality information on the capability of the sensors and the capability of the airplane, and we have represented the airplane fairly and appropriately in these large-scale campaign models that we are using. But it is not just us—it is our air force; it is your air force; it is all the other participating nations that do this; it is our navy and our marine corps that do these exercises. It is not Lockheed in a closet genning up some sort of result.

Perplexed said...

There you are anon, clueless.
Once you mention 5th Generation and LM in the same sentence.
It is called lying.
However you already know that.

Anonymous said...

Too many words for you to retain for comprehension?

Try this

Horde said 3% and tried to make a case
it's a typo, the STOVL weight is 0.3% per year .. the QLR confirms this

sub 11 from repsim is a funny one with all the 24 vs 24 3:1 stuff..

it's 4 vs 8 and 6:1

"Mr Liberson: Our current assessment that we speak of is: greater than six to one relative loss exchange ratio against in four versus eight engagement scenarios—four blue at 35s versus eight advanced red threats in the 2015 to 2020 time frame.

Anonymous said...

try reading the transcripts

Understood said...


I think if you're parking your argument with the assertion that CAF lied because he's calling the F-35 "fifth gen", and that a blogger says that he knows more about Growler capabilities than EW specialists, it is you who are missing the point.

Those arguments are semantics, and meaningless ones at that.

Anonymous said...

poor horde, he was refering to the QLR chart and doc,

page 16 weight management the QLR said..
STOVL 3% from CDR to IOC or 0.33% per year

CTOL and CV 2.5% or 0.28% PA to IOC
(but CTOL isn't an issue as there is still a large range it can go over)..

it seems like a typo

"Mr Burbage: Weight is most critical on the short take-off, vertical-landing jet. That is the one that has the toughest requirement for taking off from and landing on small ships. You saw in the movie that we did that, this year. We predict the weight on that airplane to grow at about three per cent per year throughout the rest of the test program and it could grow some more throughout its life if more capability that has substantial weight goes on the airplane. If you look at the STOVL jet and you look at our weight charts, which you are more than welcome to see, we have now gone two years without any weight increase on the STOVL jet, and that is while accommodating engineering changes to the doors, which we have replaced with heavier doors, and other changes that were made to the airplane. We manage the weight very tightly on that airplane—for good reasons, because it needs to be. The other two airplanes are not as sensitive to weight. We are actually probably several thousand pounds away from the first compromise of the performance requirements of those two airplanes. We do, however, manage the weight very tightly on all three airplanes. The metric that we look at is when the weight growth curve levels off, that means your design has stabilised. You are no longer making lots of changes to the design. All three airplanes are now in that level-off phase. The best one is the STOVL where you can go back and see that we have not increased any weight at all in a full two years.

Senator FAWCETT: So having reached that steady state, you are saying you are some thousands of pounds away from—

Mr Burbage: On the non-STOVL jets.

Senator FAWCETT: So the conventional take-off and landing—

Mr Burbage: The key performance requirements that are weight-dependent have large margins still ahead of them. On the STOVL the key performance parameters are much tighter to the weight, because it is more physics than aerodynamics."

jack said...

any reasonable person can see that he didn't mean 3% per year

If you still have an issue, ask the committee to get clarification from him

John Keating said...

Looking forward for Perplexed to expouse an inciteful rebuttal!

A true indictement of the Australia Education System!

Really dude, do a spellcheck before "expousing" yourself on everyone!..... so to speak.....

Perplexed said...

John Keating I have vision problem so get stuffed.

Perplexed said...

What a reaction, it would appear that the information is a little to much for the pack and usual sycophants.
Osley, Burbage et el have misled the enquiry, and treated it with contempt.
I also notice that all the "experts" remain anonymous and dedicated to their fantasy.
The fact that there has been no proper critical analysis of the information by the pack proves my point, as is the fact that the pack has totally missed the aim of the submissions.
If you need any further help please get someone to explain it to you.
What more could we expect, a typical lack of intellect and an indictment on the Australian Education System .
If the submissions are incorrect then you should immediately ask for contempt proceedings and or hurry and present your own rebuttals at once.
Look forward to reading them and your point by point appraisals.

Anonymous said...

"The fact that there has been no proper critical analysis of the information by the pack proves my point, as is the fact that the pack has totally missed the aim of the submissions.
If you need any further help please get someone to explain it to you."

Maybe you could share some incite?

Still Perplexed said...

What intellectual input. Amazing.
I rest my case.

John Keating said...

But you haven't made a case Perplexed.

You have jumped up and down repeating "you didn't read the submissions", "you're missing the point", and "get someone to explain it for you" (but apparently you won't/can't aid in that department".

All the while you've pointed out a "lack of intelligence" in other posters and lamented the "Australian Education System" when ironically you make consistent spelling mistakes (ie, not a few typos due to a vision issue).

Understood made a start above on highlighting the lack of content in the submission which no-one has challenged besides "oh, all those holes are just semantics, they are all liars!" (cue head in sand, fingers in ears and Perplexed screaming 'LALALALALA, you're all stupid".)

Amazingly Perplexed said...

John Keating, you fall right into what I have been talking about.
If you do not understand then ask someone intelligent who can help you.
There has been no intellectual input into, either discussing the submissions or critically analysing them. Which makes you look pretty stupid, does it not.
Suggest you actually read them and let me know what they are about.
Please do not quote from the hearings like the others have done.
There is a point and you do not get it, however that is understandable.
Personal attacks recieved.


Anonymous said...

I think he's been drinking?

John Keating said...

"There has been no intellectual input into, either discussing the submissions or critically analysing them. Which makes you look pretty stupid, does it not."

May 14, 7:04pm, check it out.

Still Per[lexed said...

More personal attacks, what next.
The intellectual debate is no longer addressed, if it ever existed.
Please have someone explain this to you, if you do not understand.

Anonymous said...

Latest jackjack quote from the kiddies site.
"Does anyone know if the committee will ask ADF for a response to the latest submissions that apa/repsim put in , or will they get a free shot and go unanswered/unchallenged? "
Short answer?