Unregulated Greed; a sad state of the human psyche...

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4

Cyrus 10/15/2008 9:41:55 AM

Just this one last thing tho just out of curiosity. Your statement of Having just spent some time with actual people on JSF you wouldn't be one of the guys the APA have been having ago at would you maybe a mate of or related too?

I've been on this site for five years and I believe that GF has been calling the APA guy's morons ever since I came here, that being a long time before he got back into the DOD. As such even if he did have some mates in APA's firing line now it hasn't affected his uniformly low view of them.

I'd also note that for a very long time he was sceptical about the F-35, particularily WRT to the procurement process. It's nice to see that people come around to my way of thinking (I've thought it was the bees knees since day one) when they get into the detail :-).

I apologise I shouldn't of typed that I'm usually better person than that I'm certain the DOD & ADf is doing the best it can with what its given.

I'm just getting tired of getting told how wonderful it will all be and then after finding out it was a complete kockup.

Maybe I'm just seeing F-35 in aussie markings and thinking F-104G in Luftwaffe markings and its making me not see the good add that to my firm belief in murphy's law I cant help but think that a mix of aircraft would be better than just F-35 on its own.

that still is the plan isnt it to have the F-35 replace F-18 and F-111 or have i got that wrong?

Quote Reply

Cyrus 10/15/2008 10:01:07 AM

I'm just seeing F-35 in aussie markings and thinking F-104G in Luftwaffe markings

That was not an attempt on my part to say that anyone on the ADF or DOD is being bribed to buy the JSF

It was referring to being stuck with a aircraft thats not all the company promised it to be.

But you say its good your in better position than I to say so then I believe you

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 10/15/2008 3:30:15 PM

I'm just seeing F-35 in aussie markings and thinking F-104G in Luftwaffe markings

That was not an attempt on my part to say that anyone on the ADF or DOD is being bribed to buy the JSF

It was referring to being stuck with a aircraft thats not all the company promised it to be.

But you say its good your in better position than I to say so then I believe you

At the najor capital equipment level it would be pretty spectatcular if any single australian with influence could be bribed and then be in a position to influence a sale. The checks and balances are very very strong.

thats not to say that the procurement process can be fixed. I think here are some major ways to move forward, but I don't believe that the mortimer review is the answer by a long shot.

similarly, as has been pointed out. I've dealt with the muppets in APA "pre Govt employment" over 10 years ago initially, and in the intervening years. I have a poor opinion of them through association and direct contact. I have an even lower opinion now that I've been fortunately in a position to get access to other information through work and/or through people actually involved in events.

my main grief was dependance on a single platform for our principle fixed wing combat platform, those personal concerns are assuaged by the turn of events and decisions which actually reflect my oft stated reasons as to why 2 types are better than 1. From that perspective we'll have platform and partial cross capability overlap for 30 years - so I'm a happy camper.

Irrespective of my own personal limited appreciation of what is needed how why where and in big picture terms, I have a whole lot more confidence that he people directly involved in platform selection certainly have a whole lot more relevant, current and approp information as to how and why we select platforms. The idiots who pretend to be experts and strut publicly around or saturate the media with opinion (like APA and Jensen) don't even have the relevant clearances to see the important detail in the platforms performance.

They're "wannabes" as such its important from my perspective that they be exposed as clowns wherever and whenever the opportunity arises as those who do have involvement at a direct level are unable to respond effectively due to Govt restrictions on giving out compelling information.. That may seem ridiculous, but there is a restriction on responses, and in a perfect world the JSF team would be able to smack these morons around and show how ignorant they are.

Quote Reply

Volkodav 10/16/2008 3:22:48 AM

My feelings exactly, especially if the two types have complimentry capabilities with an significant overlap in some areas.

A Mirage 111, F-4E, F-111C force moving onto F-15C, F-4E, F-111C then F-15C, F-16C, F-111 then F-15C, F-16C, F15E then F-22A, F-16C, F-15E and finally F-22A, F-35A or F-35C.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain 10/16/2008 8:36:25 AM

My feelings exactly, especially if the two types have complimentry capabilities with an significant overlap in some areas.

I agree and don't get why it has taken various Australian governments so long to realise that you don't have to replace all of a type at once. The Sings and others have run multiple generations for decades and they just don't run into the block obsolescence problems that we do. It is also a good risk mitigation strategy in case of a fleet wide grounding and allows for easier incremental upgrades to the fleet. Apart from the facts that I think the Coalition should have announced an interim purchase from the day they signed onto the F-35 buy in order to introduce some competitive pressures into the process and that I think we should have gotten the F-15E instead of the SH, I'm grateful for Nelson finally doing the right thing when he became Defmin.

Quote Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan Capitalism per se didn't fail 10/16/2008 6:13:23 PM

Because the essence of capitalism involves a level playing field in addition to government intervention. Not all regulations are purely for the purpose of a government flexing its muscles, companies/individuals in dominant positions in their respective fields or the same parties not in dominant positions but with the right connections push the government to intervene on their behalf either by helping them or hobbling their competition. At that point, capitalism ceases to exist and nepotism and even communism take hold.

Lobbyists, kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 10/26/2008 4:36:33 PM

I added this to T5C the other day but omitted to post it here. oops.

?Clubbed like baby seals? controversy ? the back story

As I originally observed, all we had to do was wait a few days and the full story would begin to come out. My call was spot on. Since the RAND presentation has now come into the public spotlight ? it?s been posted on Stephen Trimble?s blog, ?The DEW Line? (Trimble is a respected, award-winning aerospace journalist for Flight International) ? people can now read it and make up their own minds regarding what the The West Australian claimed was a demonstration based on ?highly-classified simulated dogfights? that proved the JSF had been ?comprehensively beaten ? [by] Russian-built Sukhoi fighters?.[21] It also means I can fill in more of the back story as an illustration of why I don?t believe in jumping at the first chance to believe something controversial appearing in the general press.

The August 2008 Pacific Vision conference at Hickam AFB, Hawaii was indeed a top secret simulation, but it was really focused on logistics issues, not a full-fledged wargame with combat missions being flown. In fact, as Maj. Gen. Davis (USAF) noted, it ?did not even address air-to-air combat effectiveness.?[22] The only time air combat effectiveness was addressed at the conference was in an unclassified (but ?For Official Use Only / Sensitive?) RAND briefing entitled ?Air Combat Past, Present and Future? presented by two RAND analysts, John Stillion and Scott Perdue. Despite the title ? and as RAND?s Director Andrew Hoehn has affirmed ? it was not an ?attempt[ed] detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat?, much less an assessment of the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, per se.[23] If it had been, it would have been performed and presented by a different organization within RAND.

The presenters are from an ?East Coast RAND? office that focuses mainly on strategic and policy issues; detailed aircraft performance assessments are conducted by a ?West Coast RAND? office whose members actually have clearances that would permit them access to actual performance data of the F-35, as well as competitor and threat aircraft like the various Sukhoi fighters. These specialists not only had no participation in the preparation of the material that was presented, but they didn?t know about it until everyone else started hearing about it afterwards. So much for the ?proof? that the F-35 had been ?comprehensively beaten? by Sukhoi fighters. The actual aim of the presentation was to provide a Gedankenspiel ? through a reductio ad absurdum approach (with Pk?s of 1.00 and zero for Blue and Red, respectively) ? to question the future validity of certain assumptions regarding (their) concept of the primary requirements for achieving and maintaining air superiority in the Pacific region. Their assessments (to the degree they are valid) have an obvious bearing on airbasing and logistics in the area ? the subject of the Pacific Vision wargame.

The main presentation ended with slide 54. The only place the F-35 is mentioned is in the side excursion on slide 52. So where did the ?clubbing baby seals? results come from? It is my understanding that during the Q&A, two of the backup slides were shown: numbers 78 and 79. Here, in a nutshell, is the ?proof? that the JSF had been ?comprehensively beaten ? [by] Russian-built Sukhoi fighters?. However, it?s not a RAND analysis, but rather comes from Dr. Carlo Kopp?s and Mr. Peter Goon?s Air Power Australia (APA) think tank. (Other material and data in the pitch also come courtesy of the APA.) I am told the RAND authors have cordial relations with and are much enamored with Kopp?s and Goon?s work; these two gentlemen are avid proponents of the view that Australia must have the F-22 ? and only the F-22 ? and that its F-111s should be retained until they are available. They have published an extensive corpus of analysis to ?prove? that all other alternatives would have a ?disastrous impact? on the viability of Australian airpower.[24] The ?assessment? that Sukhois would ?club F-35s like baby seals? was a verbal aside (obviously made in jest) by one of the presenters. A catchy phrase like that made relative to an issue of great contention in Australia was of course irresistible to the press (which apparently was not about to risk losing such a good headline by responsible fact-checking).

As far as a proper analysis goes, this is not a very good one inasmuch as it appears to have been written expressly to come to the given conclusion. Although it does make some valid points, there are so many flaws in the assumptions, analytical approach and even data, that it is surprising that RAND approved it for release in the first place. The basic scenario, with six F-22s providing air defense for all of Taiwan against three regiments of Sukhoi fighters is both arbitrary and ridiculous. There?s no reason that no more than 24 F-22s could be based at Guam, and even if the closer-in bases were unavailable, there is an open question of where the U.S. Navy is with its floating bases ? not to mention the RoCAF. As for the Red side, why three regiments? Why not two ? or four? This assumption is fundamental to the outcome, and I have the sneaking suspicion that several force ratios were examined until 12:1 gave "just the right result." And just what is realistic about a 14-AAM loadout? As for problems with the data, take a look at the radar detection range chart for Russian search radars on slide 18. Please note that on the far right, the detection ranges are leveling out to a non-zero minimum. This means that even if a target aircraft?s radar signature was as small as an atom ? or even an electron ? it would still be detectable at something like 10 nmi. The detection ranges, by the way, are uncritically based on Russian companies? claims concerning their products. Overall, as far as the quality of this assessment goes, if I were to give it a grade, I?d give it no better than a ?D? on its own merits (for its ability to effectively convey the insights it was supposed to portray). Askari Mark (Talk) 21:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that analysis. Kopp and Goon also want the Royal Australian Air Force to be structured to defend the Australian mainland from attacks by Chinese and Indian Backfire bombers. Of course, neither country has Backfires and Australia has always had a good relationship with India and has a rapidly improving relationship with China, but who cares about that? While they're good at getting into the media, my understanding is that they're regarded as being a bad joke by the RAAF and there's no evidence to suggest that they've had any impact on Australian defence policy, despite years of spamming parliamentary inquiries with bloated submissions. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Mark, thanks. So where do we go from here? Despite our efforts to develop a more neutral version of the controversy section (removal having failed), the proponents have not been that receptive to including complete point-by-point counter arguments. I'm not sure anything less than complete mea culpa from ABC, et al, will be seen as valid (if that!). If Australian popular media is half as bad as its US counterpart, we shouldn't hold our breath.

Another question: Why are Kopp and Goon soon keen to get the ADF to buy the F-22? Will they be getting a commision or something from LM on each export F-22 sold?? It just seems odd that they are pushing the F-22 so hard when it isn't likely to be exported at all, and it's not a full strike fighter as currently offered. Seems to me that the changes necessary to give the F-22 full strike capability - avionics, sensors, etc. - will make it even more costly than it already is, and there probably wouldn't be any other export orders for an F/A-22 to help bring the costs back down. Are the questions even worth the effort to answer?? - BillCJ (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You?re welcome, gentlemen. I thought it important in this instance to capture an example of the ?real world? behind press reports and political posturing. It underscores the wisdom of Wikipedia?s insistence on NPOV, since we often are not in a position where we can feel comfortable we have the ?Truth? ? and the weight of reporting is not a reliable indicator where controversy promulgated by the press or politicians is concerned. Of course, even where we actually can be 99% sure of the Truth, it?s difficult to find suitable sources to document it per WP:V; although I?m quite confident I?ve got my facts straight above, that doesn?t change the fact that it?s WP:OR for Wikipedia?s purposes.

Bill asks the key question, though. The challenge lies in reconciling WP:Notability with WP:Undue. The easiest thing would be to write a separate article on fighter acquisition controversies in Australia; I can readily assure you there?s no dearth of sources for that! As for this article, developing even a basic context for understanding the issues would be undue weight ? and probably take more space than a general discussion of the controversies of cost and schedule. And the ?Pacific Vision? controversy isn?t the only critique out there. In any case, as Arnouft has rightly pointed out, this article presently does not address those issues, and it certainly should (in an NPOV way) ? after all, what recent major weapon program has never had controversies over these (or performance)? I think the way forward is to give a fair, balanced, NPOV coverage of these issues; it?s the lack of this that attracts sensationalist press coverage as a remedy.

As for Kopp?s motivations, I don?t know the man personally. I assume he just seriously wants what he believes is best for his country. Oddly, I have heard a story about commissions, but I find it hard to credit; in fact, I find it preposterous. I don?t know Australian law, but I would figure that if he were shilling for LM (or anyone else) for personal gain, then he?d have to register himself as a lobbyist. The fact that he presses so strongly for the F-22, yet trashes the F-35 seems to me to clear him of the charge. Anyhow, that?s more an issue for the F-22 Raptor article. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that an article should be created on the Australian combat aircraft procurement program or similar. I'd make a start on it, but I'm busy preparing to go on holiday! Kopp seems to be driven by his view that RAAF needs air dominance aircraft to counter the threat of advanced Russian aircraft operated by China and India and regards this as being more important than ground attack capabilities. Why he's focusing on aircraft which Australia simply can't buy (the F-22) and which would be almost impossible to develop (upgraded F-111s) is beyond me. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for such a sharp guy, it?s hard to understand his devotion to his monotonic theme. Perhaps he feels he has sufficient influence that if he remains vocal enough for long enough then the Aussie ?powers that be? will see the light and flat out demand the F-22 ? or else what? And why no ?Plan B?? ?Tis a mystery. An article on the Aussie controversies would be interesting. I?ve long thought it would be really neat to be able to present how these real-world controversies arise, are handled, and then resolved, but it?s a challenge to do in Wikipedia inasmuch as it leans toward OR on the one side and a 50,000-foot overview on the other. Anyhow, it?s not something I?m likely to be free to work on this year. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)l]

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 10/26/2008 6:42:03 PM

For fallout

I immediately think of the intelligentsia and the leftists favourite academic, Noam Chomsky after listening to this.

Quote Reply

HERALD1357 10/26/2008 7:42:32 PM

A lot of these problems now occuring with the global financial and economic system is in part due to too many (affluent) people placing greed and the never ending thirst for fatter profits over prudent investing and regulated and steady asset and profit building. The worst now is that us, as in the humbled taxpayers are now going to pay not just with money in order to bail out these scum but many may also indirectly lose their job/life savings and what happens, how do we fix it? Just pump more money into these areas...and what do you think will happen?

Not sure if anyone heard about how much money Richard Fuld (head of the firm) took home from the now failed Lehman Brothers investment firm over the last 8 years? $300m USD since 2000!!! Believe it or not he admitted that during the time he was pleading with congress and the federal treasury for a bail out he also requested another multi-million bonus!

Not sure about you guys but to be honest this stuff makes me incredibly angry and sick...these pr(cks take home more money in one bonus than the majority of the world's workers take home in a lifetime of hard work and yet the state generally on the whole leaves them alone, if not encourages them to speculate more investments, etc.

Capitalism hey, what a disgusting, disgraceful part of human history...oh how I would love for real socialism/communism to take a firm hold in Australia and around the world. You never know, we might actually then start addressing some real issues such as climate change, global poverty and hunger, gender inbalance in the workforce (and pay), universal healthcare and education.

One can dream during this fast turning financial nightmare.

FO

Incorrect, FO. The heart of this disaster was US Governement Sponsored Enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) making loans not based ion sound business practices. The loans were made to achieve a social engineering objective-a private home for every American possible.

the problem was that when this social; program was rammed through as part of the GSE charters, our Congress, as it usually does, failed to insure against the No Income No Jobs No Assets [NINJA] moptgages issued to the tine of about 3 trillion dollars. Those "subprime" loans are where the defaults started. why that led to our current crisis is because those mortgages we5re bundlwe3d and used as "giovernment backed collateral" for loans against Hedge funds and commercial banks.

Well no value is no value. Once the real estate equity was revealed to be ":zero", the noin-government backed mortgage backed securities loan collateral was worthless. It wouldn't matter if the regulations and the greed was not in place. The US collapse would come. Market forces would see to that.

Thus the root cause of this global panic is the US social engineering experiment.

Capitalism did not fail us, It was the refusal by our Congress [loans need collateral worth] to follow sound capitalist principles that did.

Herald

Quote Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan partisan stuff aside 10/27/2008 6:20:35 PM

I wouldn't say I have a "theory" but have a fuzzy idea as to a bigger problem that might be behind the financial crisis. It isn't capitalism (in its purest, textbook form), it is beyond human greed or international politics or US partisanship. What I do need to know is what are the specific names of the equations that are used for modern financial performance projections and especially derivatives trading.

Quote Reply

HERALD1357 10/27/2008 8:49:29 PM

And who controls that information?...........that is a good point. Thought of it and dismissed it as kook aide conspiracy stuff because I thought it was distributed knowledge among the trading community, but had not realized that chicanery was mechanically possible that way if the process wasn't transparent..

Herald

Quote Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan 10/27/2008 10:17:04 PM

Herald

I'm not one to sully my reputation on this board with baseless, kool-aid induced conspiracy theories from far right field. No, the angle I am coming from is a massive lack of control over something we thought we could control.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 10/28/2008 5:09:34 AM

can we agree to disagree and get back to the hypocrisy of australian politics?

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain Nan 10/28/2008 9:54:28 AM

Herald

I'm not an expert in financial forcasting but I know enough about economics that I can tell you any sort of economic projection is basically weather guessing. Forecasters deal with a massively complex system which can be impacted by a very large array of variables and nobody can reasonably predict which is going to impact when and how. In fact if we could predict that then there would be no need for derivatives, as they are risk management vehicles when they are used properly.

All that forecasters can reasonably hope to do is to identify trends with a range of risks around them based on the best information available. Sometimes that information isn't available or isn't considered properly (for whatever reason, workload, over-optimism ... whatever) and the projections are wrong. Combine that with other circumstances like the poor US policy settings wrtaffordable mortgages for the poor and things can go kerplunk.

Se La Vie

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4

	News As History - November 24, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us