Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Joel Fitzgibbon sticks with joint fighters
Volkodav    9/25/2008 4:56:45 AM
Lex Hall | September 25, 2008 Thw Australian AUSTRALIA remains committed to the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft despite reports the warplane has performed poorly in exercises against aircraft used by China and Russia. Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon told ABC TV's Lateline program last night the JSF was still the right aircraft to ensure Australia's military superiority. Despite the poor results of the recent Pacific Vision Wargames exercise in Hawaii, Mr Fitzgibbon said he was convinced the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was the right aircraft for Australia. The air force has ordered 100 of the futuristic jets at a cost of $16 billion. "There's no doubt in my mind that if the JSF team deliver all the capability they have been promising, then the JSF will be just the right aircraft for Australia, and will deliver all the capability we need to maintain air combat superiority," he said. "The questions are, will it be delivered, and if so, when will it be delivered and at what cost." Mr Fitzgibbon said data from recent wargames, comparing the JSF with fighter jets used by China and Russia, had been "misrepresented". "It wasn't an exercise about one platform against another," the minister said. "It was an exercise about other matters that I can't really discuss ... but it was unfair to interpret that exercise as one which sought to compare one aircraft against another." Mr Fitzgibbon said he was yet to get the assessment of RAAF personnel and Defence officials who attended the exercise. He said he had had two briefings from Defence, the first of which he "wasn't particularly impressed with", saying that it had left a number of questions unanswered. Mr Fitzgibbon would not be drawn on the nature of the questions, except to say they had been raised by the media. He said he would not be rushed into purchasing the JSF. "What if it doesn't deliver initially all the capability, what if it delivers it very late and what if the costs escalate considerably? "The Opposition ... wants me to run out and sign up to the JSF, six months at least before I have to, and before I've had guarantees on these unanswered questions," he said. Mr Fitzgibbon said a decision would be made at the end of the coming white paper process. Meanwhile, he said he had not even seen a "quick assessment report" into the role that Australian troops in Afghanistan may have had in the death of an Afghan governor. "We don't really know what happened," he said. "There are a number of investigations under way ... and it's very important we get to the exact facts, and work out exactly what happened so we can ensure that in future we do better at avoiding unintended casualties."
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
gf0012-aust       9/25/2008 10:04:22 PM

Recently the ABC and SMH have seen fit to interview various claimants of "strategic or defence analyst" capability who have professed to have inside information on exercises run by RAND.  RAND have submiited the following:

STATEMENT REGARDING MEDIA COVERAGE
OF F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER


Andrew Hoehn, Director of RAND Project Air Force, made the following statement today:

?Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft.?


 
Quote    Reply

Enterpriser       9/25/2008 10:34:03 PM



Recently the ABC and SMH have seen fit to interview various claimants of "strategic or defence analyst" capability who have professed to have inside information on exercises run by RAND.  RAND have submiited the following:



STATEMENT REGARDING MEDIA COVERAGE

OF F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER





Andrew Hoehn, Director of RAND Project Air Force, made the following statement today:



?Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft.?






Bastard APA crowds.......... I thought that they were saying that the RAND report was separate the war game and was an F-35 analysis more generally. I could have really used that info when speaking to the ABC's story people yesterday.
Brett.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/25/2008 10:42:47 PM
 I could have really used that info when speaking to the ABC's story people yesterday.


Brett.



you still can
 
- what papers did they claim to have?  (I can assure you that they got none out of the Exercise)
- why didn't they do a background or topic check before quoting Jensen?
- why didn't they ask Jensen what software was used?  If the did, they would have found out that software he claims was used is NOT used for air combat analysis (he can bleat as much as he likes, but the software used sims other issues - NOT air combat analysis)
 
Even if he claimed that the software used "was used" as such, it's restricted in content - and no one in their right mind would speak about it in open source as bits of it are covered under restriction and clearqance cavetas.
 
in other words. the ABC got "had" and their source is an unmitigated liar.
 
so much for forensic research prior to screening.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/25/2008 10:44:44 PM
ferkin keyboard - cavetas = caveats.
 
I wait with breathless anticipation the rubbish that Jensen and APA pump out next.
 


 
Quote    Reply

Enterpriser       9/25/2008 11:09:59 PM


 I could have really used that info when speaking to the ABC's story people yesterday.






Brett.









you still can

 

- what papers did they claim to have?  (I can assure you that they got none out of the Exercise)

- why didn't they do a background or topic check before quoting Jensen?


- why didn't they ask Jensen what software was used?  If the did, they would have found out that software he claims was used is NOT used for air combat analysis (he can bleat as much as he likes, but the software used sims other issues - NOT air combat analysis)


 

Even if he claimed that the software used "was used" as such, it's restricted in content - and no one in their right mind would speak about it in open source as bits of it are covered under restriction and clearqance cavetas.

 

in other words. the ABC got "had" and their source is an unmitigated liar.


 

so much for forensic research prior to screening.


 

 

 



Don't panic. went through a rundown of stuff like that with the lateline people. They asked me for my number so they can call me in the future about defence stories. They did, however, admit to asking about the financial interest stuff and it looks like Abraham was right.
 
Brett.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/25/2008 11:22:35 PM



 They did, however, admit to asking about the financial interest stuff and it looks like Abraham was right.

 

Brett.


It's been common knowledge for over 4 years.  Some of us have been associated (unfortunately) with some of these punters before - and the ABC (amongst others) have clearly been told.
 
shoddy and shonky work.
 

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/29/2008 7:45:59 AM
It will be interesting to see how his "tone" stays now that his Chief of Staff has taken self imposed "gardening leave"
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

Arty Farty       9/30/2008 1:50:17 AM
 
IMO it actually makes a case for F-35 for Australia. All things being near equal, it then comes down to a numbers game - number that's been quoted has been ~60 F-22s vs ~100 F-35s.
 
The USAF on the other hand might need more F-22s and more WESTPAC bases. Guess that's how the 'clubbing baby seals' got out.

 
Quote    Reply

Arty Farty       9/30/2008 1:52:46 AM
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/1/2008 6:48:47 PM
From T5C.
 
Lockmart distributed these to some of the aussie mil-def journos
 
http://i346.photobucket.com/albums/p402/Magoodotcom/F35_patch_seal.jpg" /> 

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics