"US Developing Separate JSF for Foreign Partners"
Export versions of the F-35 (except maybe for UK) are likely to be less capable than US versions--impact on whether partners will purchase? Canada?
After years of claiming that all partner countries of the Joint Strike Fighter would receive identical aircraft, the Pentagon has for the first time implicitly acknowledged that it is developing a different, and less-capable, aircraft than the United States for its foreign partners.More on Canada and the F-35 here.
The prospect of receiving less-capable aircraft may dissuade some JSF partner countries, which have not firmly committed to procuring the aircraft, from doing so. The crucial issue in this respect will be the precise technical definition of the “export” JSF, and which features and capabilities it will lose compared to the baseline US version.
On Nov. 15, in a low-key contract announcement, the Pentagon said it was awarding Lockheed Martin Aeronautics a $134,188,724 contract modification “to continue the design, development, verification, and test of Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Partner Version Air System development under the JSF Delta System Development and Demonstration Effort (Delta SDD).”
Neither the Pentagon, the JSF Program Office nor the two main contractors, Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems, have made any previous mention of the “Delta SDD” aircraft, nor of any export-specific changes to the baseline JSF design.
The Nov. 15 release explains that the purpose of this “Delta SDD” contract is to “to develop a version of the JSF Air System that meets U.S. National Disclosure Policy, but remains common to the U.S. Air System, where possible.”
This raises the question of exactly how this degraded “Delta SDD” version will differ from the standard US version, and which capabilities and features will be removed to comply with US national disclosure policy. Given that the JSF’s high-tech features, including stealth, and the capabilities of its electronic systems are the prime reasons which attracted foreign partners in the first place, it remains to be seen whether they will remain as committed to a degraded, less capable yet more expensive aircraft.
When they signed the MoUs to join the JSF Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development (PSFD) phase in late 2006 and early 2007, several partner countries were particularly insistent that their signature did not commit them to buy the JSF[emphasis added]. This was the case of Australia, Britain, Canada and Norway, which together account for 383 of 722 JSF aircraft earmarked for foreign partners.
The same four countries are also financing 7.5% of the program’s first (and current) System Development and Demonstration Phase, and may balk at the program’s ballooning costs.
In April 2007, the Pentagon revealed that the total cost of the JSF had increased to $299.8 billion for 2,458 aircraft, or $121.97 million per aircraft. This is far in excess of the prices mentioned by Lockheed Martin, the program’s prime contractor, which are generally in the $60-$70 million range [emphasis added]...
The problem is that sharing technological data with JSF partner nations is severely constrained by the strict export controls contained in the US International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) legislation.
This led to a major row between the US and UK governments in early 2006, and other JSF partners, including Australia, Norway, the Netherlands, Italy and Denmark have also raised the problem with the Pentagon. US Senator Joseph Lieberman said, during March 14, 2006 hearings on JSF by the Senate’s Armed Services Committee, that “very interestingly, [from] the representatives of the U.K., Italy and Australia, I hear a strong, unified voice of concern, complaint, even grievance, about the question of technology transfer.”
The British government tried in vain to obtain a waiver from the ITAR to ensure access to the software codes and other data that they will need to maintain and upgrade their JSFs, but this option was dropped because of “insurmountable” opposition in Congress.
The issue appears to have been solved with Britain, the only JSF Tier I partner, by a bilateral Memorandum of Understanding, signed at the end of 2006 for the JSF’s second phase. This document, which has not been made public, includes a highly classified supplement that details assurances given by the US to the British government, and which deals with the issues of operational sovereignty, incoming UK Defence Procurement Minister Baroness Taylor of Bolton told the Commons Defence Committee during Nov. 21 hearings.
No similar arrangements have been concluded with any of the other JSF partners, although several, including Australia and Norway, have publicly stated that they would demand unfettered access to all of the system’s technology as a condition of their purchase of the JSF[emphasis added].
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 3:58 p.m.
15 Comments:
Hi, Mark.
First-time commenter here!
I think this is a modest non-story because the U.S. is banking on the F-35 being the "next F-16" in terms of export sales. Given the F-35's exceptional expense, it is very likely that some potential customers will balk at completing their purchases once it comes time to actually write the checks for the downpayment.
Result: No sale.
Also, given the complexity of the aircraft, any last minute attempt to then cut costs by deleting a few of the most expensive items of equipment (in an attempt to save a few million dollars per plane) will probably lead to an unacceptably large degradation of tactical performance. The resulting aircraft/systems package, though cheaper, will likely not meet the allies' tactical needs.
Again, no sale.
Since part of the aircraft's affordability for the U.S. (and well-moneyed allies) is based on splitting up the developement costs in a production run of several thousand units, it only makes sense for the U.S. DoD to have a contingency plan to reduce unit costs without compromising MAJOR performance parameters...and thusly insuring that allies (who MIGHT be, in the future, somewhat cash-strapped) will complete their previously-planned purchases. To avoid crippling compromises, this will take time to plan and test...so they had better start work now.
Now, nobody (including the U.S.) can force allies to buy an airplane they can't afford and/or which won't meet their needs. America isn't the Soviet Union and America's allies aren't the Soviet's Eastern European vassals.
Canada, Britain, Australia, etc. won't buy ANY F-35s if the planes purchsed don't have ALL the capability they're paying $100+ million per machine to get. If all they'll get is a Generation 4.5 fighter instead of a Generation 5 fighter, they'll just buy upgraded Typhoons...and the Americans will have to pay billions more for fewer aircraft. That wouldn't make sense just to be able to say "My F-35 is better than my allies' F-35s!"
BTW guys, really like your blog.
-Jay Crawford
Besides Jay's very informative comment, I suspect that another big part of the problem here is American security concerns for all this cutting-edge technology.
I don't think this concern is for any of the Anglophone Allies, but one or two other Allies who have an unfortunate track record of poor security and tech information leaks to unfriendly powers.
For example, Japan, one of the Ally F-35 partners, has had some military technicians (who worked on some very cutting-edge US-supplied military kit) fall for North Korean or Chinese "honeypot" female espionage agents. This has caused the leakage of some extremely important high-tech info.
The US-Japan alliance is considered of extreme importance by both countries. If the US were to say in effect, 'sorry only the Anglophone countries are getting the deluxe model, you can only have the economy model', that would cause extreme offense in Japan's saving/loosing face and honor society.
There's also one or two non-Anglo European Allies who have had very serious past security problems. (I believe the website Strategy Page, at strategypage.com, has some past articles on this. Also, some other blogs, whose names escape me at the moment. Try Googling.)
If this security issue isn't successfully resolved, but ignored, we'd end up in effect just paying the Russian and Chinese R&D costs for their own next-generation aircraft.
With so much riding on the F-35 for the US and so many Allies, my guess is that a solution will HAVE to be found and WILL be found to this problem. We'd all lose far too much otherwise.
Jay, with the F-16 exports, at least foreign buyers knew they weren't getting the same capabilities as the domestic version right up front.
My issue with this isn't that the U.S. is making its own version of the F-35 more capable, it's that they've asked for foreign development dollars up front, and then said they wouldn't deliver the same plane.
Unless Canada and the other foreign partners were aware of this up front, and we just don't know about it...
But in the final analysis, the F-16 comparison only goes so far, since those development costs were borne entirely by the U.S., unless I'm mistaken.
G'Day Mark
I regard the F-35 as a grossly overpriced, limited (generation 5)technology aircraft, unsuitable for Australia's defence needs. The limited aspect stealth, short range, no supercruise are just a few reasons why not? (I will ignore the ever increasing price)
My research indicates that Australia has actually no intent of requiring full technology sharing in any proposed F-35 purchase (or any technology sharing at all).
I find little or no value in stealth technology for Australia's air capabilities needs(read up on JORN). Australia has a far greater need for forward deployable fighters and long range fast jets (upgraded F-111).
It has practical defence needs that far exceed the need for high tech toys.
This nation has had a change of Government and hopefully some common sense will prevail.
Hi, Damian.
Right now, we're guessing about the impact of a program developement which may not have ANY real effect on the F-35s bought by Canada or any of the other Tier 2 or Tier 3 partners.
I AGREE that if the ratified multinational cost-sharing treaty (on developement on the F-35) said that each nation, regardless of its actual share of the costs, would have equal access to all technologies and equipment, then that is how things should be; each signatory should, therefore, have the right to possess and use any and all technology secrets from the program, regardless of whether they can actually afford to buy/install it in their own aircraft. This, however, would be disasterous for the program's security as it would spread the top secret details far and wide among many nations...and tens of thousands of additional "security risk" personnel WHO DON'T NEED TO KNOW because they're not building the plane.
By this token, it is possible that Singapore and Israel would benefit most since, for the cost of only $35 million each in the project, these countries would gain access to the resulting design information after less than a quarter of Canada's investment.
If, however, the F-35 development treaty doesn't state such an unfair premise, your point about Canada (and other nations) buying into the F-35s developement must be construed as a "share" plan. It is then accurate if we say: "2% (for instance) contribution to developement costs is equally distibuted across all the technology developement efforts and therefore equals a 2% ownership of each of those technologies". If we then take that reasoning to its logical conclusion, we know then that Canada is owed 2% of all technology. Logically this means that Canada should receive 2% of the design of the AESA radar, 2% of the airframe design, 2% of Piotr Ufimstev's/Lockheed's angle of reflection calculations, etc. All this of course wouldn't be sufficient to build an F-35 competitor...but it might be sufficient to hang like a trophy on the wall of some anti-Canada/anti-American PQ or NDP politicians so they can justify their belief that the CF-35 is a bad plane, that Canada doesn't need advanced aircraft for "peacekeeping", that all procurement must have complete domestic offsets and...oh, yeah...two legs bad/four legs good.
(Please forgive my Animal Farm political cynicism; I have as little confidence in the political ideologies of PQ and NDP as I do in the political ideology of the Democratic Party down here!)
The only alternative to a "From each according to his ability, to each, according to his need" ("engineering commune") view and an "Everyone bought a share according to their ability to pay" ("engineering co-operative") view is to have kept records allocating each nation's money to development of specific parts of the aircraft. According to this "collaborative" view, Canada might own the brakes, attitude control thrusters, weapons bay doors, and port-side fuel tanks.
All three concepts seem silly to me.
Rather, I think we will see "market forces" be the guarantor of each nation's interests. Practical, plain-spoken, non-politically-correct military leaders (like Gen. Rick Hillier) won't support the purchase of military centerpieces like the F-35 if these machines can't do the jobs for which they are intended. Given how hugely expensive these projects are, it will be easy for such military leaders to find political allies who will give them decisive support. Results will then be as I said before: No sale.
Again, fewer allied sales make it harder to spread out developement costs; this makes these big-ticket war machines even less affordable to America. Thusly the Pentagon will be harming its own interests if it only allows allied nations to have the "monkey model" export version.
Now one might say "So what about the British complaint with the Pentagon's initial decision to withold important computer source code?" The answer is actually pretty apparent: The U.S. DoD didn't want to share the software technology designed for this aircraft. The deeper question of "Why?" is also apparent if you look at any advanced computer programs: Sharing software code enables others to dupicate it and either modify it, augment it, or defeat it. Even as Microsoft only shares source code with those who legitimately need that code to add compatible services, the Pentagon had to be convinced that the British needed it. (Obviously, with the second-largest stake in the F-35, the British weren't going to build a competing aircraft to undercut the project nor did they have poor security to keep the F-35's secrets.) With its own advanced military software industry, the U.K. could legitimately upgrade the software or, at least, adapt it to better suit British needs and objectives. As the Defense Industry Daily article states, the issue was resolved with bilateral assurances which included issues of "national sovereignty" (probably meaning source code data would be compartmentalized for security and also to protect the U.S. software developer against direct British commercial competition for a set period of time).
Bottom line: The U.K. has a very advanced aviation industry (which RIGHT NOW can PROBABLY contribute more to the F-35 program than any other partner) and a history of alliance that will likely open nearly every door to full technology transfer. HOWEVER, even apart from trust/security, NOT EVERYONE NEEDS (OR CAN EVEN USE) THE FULL RANGE OF THIS TECHNOLOGY. For example, some F-35 partners with less anti-espionage security (Japan?) may not be given all the manufacturing process secrets, while others with restive populations who may politically re-orient the country suddenly (Turkey?), may not get all the sensors. In a program as large as the F-35 project, there may be many partners...and many degrees of "alliance".
Please let me finish this missive with the most obvious answer to the U.S. F-35/Everyone Else's F-35 debate. The U.S. DoD has a persistent history of moving the goal posts and over-complicating projects as, over years, they keep adding to the operational requirements of equipment BEFORE it's even field-tested. As "mission growth" and "gee whiz" factors are added to the system, complexity increases and costs explode. (Anybody remember the MBT-70 or the A-12?) Wanna bet that the U.S. F-35 technology has been growing increasingly complex and the mission parameters have doubled? If there's a big difference in U.S. F-35 from other nation's F-35 aircraft, I'll wager it's not because the Pentagon is an untrustworth ally; it's probably because somebody wants to fit the plane with an anti-missile laser, coffee can opener, Silly String dispencer, HBO, and a Lava Lamp in the back canopy.
Mark, Damian, for any ITAR restrictions on technology transfer, the evidence we have so far seems to indicate it will be on security-sensitive parts that most of the partners will have no real reason to modify or capability to improve. This same technology, however, could compromise ALL the partners' security if it fell into the wrong hands. That said, my belief is that we're seeing USAF, USN, and USMC (who are going to be 65+% of all the buyers) deciding to upgrade their own baseline configurations beyond the original (and affordable) specification.
If I've missed something here, please correct me. Thanks guys.
-Jay Crawford
Hi, Paul.
I'm a big Aardvark (F-111) fan and I totally agree that Australia needs BOMBERS for defense of its continent (just like the militarily-weak U.S. did in the 1930s).
But Australia needs them to survive a mission as well.
As you said, Australian needs include forward-deployable aircraft; here the F-35 can excel. Any version of the F-35 is rough-field/STOL capable when compared to our old favorite, the F-111. Indeed the "C" model also has VTOL (with a limited weapons load.)
With large vulnerable shorelines and open tracts of land, Australia absolutely needs long range attack to keep an enemy at bay. While nothing short of a B-1 comes close to the F-111 in range, the F-35 will certainly have long range compared to any other tactical aircraft except the F-22 (and maybe the Typhoon). With only internal fuel and internal weapons (which, for maritime strike, will require additional developement), strike/return range estimates I've read are over 600NM. If carrying drop tanks for the first several hundred miles, the range is probably much greater. This range is accomplished partly because the fuel-efficient engines and airframe WILL allow supercruise. Indeed, supercruise is part of the reason for building the F-35: With supercruise, 5th Generation fighters travel further than older aircraft on the same amount of fuel over the same time. Perhaps just as critically, supercruising F-35s can strike time-critical targets just as distant as F-111s (flying on zone 2 afterburners) can strike.
However, I daresay, the most important quality to Australia (or anyone else!) is aircraft survivability/weapons delivery and here again is where the F-35 has huge advantages. Stealth (or, more properly, low observability) is not invisibility. What it accomplishes is a huge reduction in an enemy's detection range for your vehicles and an increased chance of evasion (breaking lock-on) for your vehicles once they are detected. F-35s, (while not as "stealthy" as F-22s) WILL be able to get MUCH closer to an enemy's ships and beachheads than F-111s. This is important because it reduces enemy reaction time and forces them to be more defensively focused than offensively focused. Australia's potential enemies are increasingly making use of AWACS (or even just aerostats) and 4th Generation fighters; in the future, they may even have 100+NM range SAMs. If we factor in a potential (Chinese) escort aircraft carrier, F-111 survivability within 250 miles of the enemy platforms becomes problematic. Even with a future Harpoon-equivalent, an enemy's fighters will be a mortal threat to F-111s because the highly observable F-111 could be tracked. By comparison, if an F-35 has a tenth of the radar signature of an F-111 (and indications are that it's VASTLY lower than that), an enemy's detection/engagement initiation range is cut from 250 miles to 80 miles. Also, instead of having an F-111 carrying 4 large 250NM range cruise missiles on the inboard pylons, you could have an F-35 carrying 4 small 80NM range cruise missiles internally. Shorter range means less reaction time for enemy defenses...and more confusion.
However, F-35's low-observability does not rely on the "fog of war" among enemy forces under attack in order to allow the F-35 to escape. Rather, minimal radar signature and an efficient engine (that doesn't need to dump burning fuel into the trail of the aircraft in order to facilitate attack or withdrawal at about Mach 1.3) enable the F-35 to choose a route away from enemy missiles and aircraft.
Furthermore, a "jumped" F-111 is easily tracked on an enemy fighter's radar and IRST; an F-35 could turn into its attacker ('cause it's a real FIGHTER, unlike the F-111 tactical BOMBER), lowering its heat signature and minimizing its radar profile... breaking the lock-on and turning the tables on its pursuer.
Much as I love 'em, let's see an Aardvark do THAT!
I agree that Australia could use some strategic, very long range, unstealthy "missile trucks" for which F-111s are great. But I think modern enemy air defenses necessitate the F-35 for a strong tactical and strategic defense.
By the way, JORN, the Jindalee Operational Radar Network, is a GREAT Over-The-Horizon (OTH) radar with an approximately 2500-3000NM range. It's not a targeting system; it's a surveillance system which can detect stealthy aircraft to some degree...but not even remotely as easily as it can detect non-stealthy aircraft. (It may even have a limited capability to detect air vortices caused by any type of aircraft but again, this is a surveillance capability.) The reason OTH radar capability can be classified as "surveillance" rather than "targeting" is because of its long wavelength radio waves (which make exact target location accurate only to within a several dozen meters or so) and because its transmitter and receiver arrays are literally miles long. As such it is a stationary system which can only be used to guide interception platforms into the target's area.
While an enemy JORN-equivalent OTH radar might seem (or even ACTUALLY be) a formidable tool to detect the presence of stealthy aircraft, it's still only another form of radar, with all of radar's weaknesses. For instance, one F-35 in a flight could trail a several hundred meter-long retractable antenna which would broadcast spoof "returns" to the enemy OTH radar at slightly decreasing intervals thusly "stealing the range gate" and causing the enemy to believe that the F-35s were many miles ahead of their actual position. When enemy fighters then came looking for the false-return signals, they would be ahead of the F-35s, exactly the angle at which the F-35s are least detectable...and then those enemy fighters would be dead meat.
Finally, while the combination of low observability, practical speed, and range will make the F-35 very capable, its greatest advantage over the F-111 is that it has all of this capability as BOTH a fighter and a bomber. Two "givens" are that a good 4th Generation fighter costs about $60 million and yet can't even come close to the F-35 as a survivable attack aircraft; furthermore a new F-111 equivalent will itself cost at least $60 million and still be only a easily-detected attack plane and not a fighter plane. Considering such procurement costs as well as the huge costs of maintaining twice as many aircraft, a mutirole aircraft like the F-35 is a VERY practical solution to Austalia's defense needs and hardly a high-tech toy.
Please don't take my word for it, take the word of people far more competent than I: the good people at the Australian Department of Defense.
Humbly,
Jay Crawford
Oops! Sorry! I mistyped; STOVL F-35 is the F-35B.
Dear Mark, Jay and friends,
Thank you for an interest series of comments and news.
As an Australian myself, I share the scepticism expressed here by at least one other Aussie on the F-35 (and the uninspiring F-18F purchase by the former defence minister Nelson here last year).
Jay's detailed arguments encompassed many thoughts I wasn't aware of and although I wonder about a few of them, it was nonetheless useful to the debate.
I can say with some certainty though that the new defence minister here (Fitzgibbon) is now aware of the issues of the downgraded "partner version" of the F-35 and as Mark points out, the variance between what was promised (the full up U.S jet) and what we're getting if we proceed (the de-rated export version) is a source of growing annoyance and scepticism in this country.
Personally I think both jets should be cancelled and we completely have an open look at our requirements and what can fill these needs best.
I understand the minister also is of that view, with even Russian Sukhoi's being considered, which may be a good thing apart from the added benefit of giving the Yanks a good "elbow in the ribs" just to remind them that we aren't beholden to them and their pushiness isn't making them any friends here .
Two other comments, I'm impressed by the fine work of Dr Carl Kopp the Australian
writer and defence expert with his voluminous F-111 upgrade ideas, which transform the plane into a very impressive beasty!.
I think thats a reasonable and effective way of addressing our strike/reconnaissance needs.
Also, I've been hearing about another Australian genius who has devised a new approach using modular plug in pallets configured for diffent roles for modern aft ramp cargo planes.
C-295, A-400 or the An-70 (which I like with its fuel efficient propfans).
All have modern systems and all is required is to find adaption protocols for hardware and software.
Pallets for ASW, patrol, tanking, firefighting, bomber etc.
Just open the back door and launch the missiles.
Studies show Australia using this approach could in one scenario, create an "anti access" capability by using for example 10x An-70's with about 20x anti shipping cruise missles internally, flown at long range (thousands of kilometres)and so fire of 200 missiles at carrier battle groups etc which should give even the yanks nightmares.
Others could carry pallets with long range air to air missiles, like Meteor or the big Russian types like AA-13, KS-172 etc.
Modern radar or IRST's would be needed, but perhaps fighters could provide that 'in situ' the aircraft fitted as needed in lieu of weather radars or podded underwing.
Most cargo planes today have some underwing pylons linked to their systems.
Fighters would still be needed but its a
simple idea with much merit.
The chap who's worked it all out had applied it for sea and land based means as well, all in a multi platform plug-in
multi role approach based on saturation attack principles.
I don't know what the system is called here or much about the clever dick who worked it out, but I do know its got a lot of interest overseas as as well as here as its so inherently useful and gives even small nations the capability to stop larger ones from attacking.
Well thanks for your time but its seems this fighter issue is becoming more concerning and Australia is increasingly very unhappy indeed.
Probably inevitable really as it stands to reason that if people vote out a bloke like Howard, they're going to reject what he stands for too such as his unworkable defence plans and his masters in the U.S.
Thanks to Mark for this concise and useful discussion on this F-35 issue too.
Most helpful my friend.
Pip pip
MG Driver
Guys, rather than respond immediately, I have waited a few days to calm down...before I vivisect MG Driver's regretable Australian-aircrew-killing foolishness.
Let me be clear as to my motivation: I like Australians and respect Australian servicepersons; therefore, I want the best for Australia. (And since this is a Canadian milblog, it goes without saying that I think EVERY BIT as well of Canada and CF servicepersons!) I'm going after this fallacious idea here simply because it may otherwise create more doubt about the need to modernize the Canadian air force with multi-role aircraft that will be viable for the next quarter century.
When someone then starts talking about equipping Australia's air force with inferior aircraft (and such a person must be flamingly STUPID or ignorant to contend that Sukhois are not inferior in most practical ways to F-18E/Fs and in ALL practical ways to F-35s) and then adds that this "...may be a good thing apart from the added benefit of giving the Yanks a good 'elbow in the ribs'...", it is obvious that his concern for Australian pilots' lives and Australian victory is superceded by anti-Americanism...and petty jealousy.
Get this straight, MG Driver: Australia's Department of Defense (DoD) WORKS FOR THE SAFETY OF AUSTRALIA. The F-35 program will NOT be able to sell aircraft to Australia if those particular aircraft fail to meet Australia's needs better than other particular aircraft. PERIOD.
If your DoD wants the F-35 (or the somewhat less-attack-but-more-fighter-like F-22) it is because they recognize it to be an extraordinary force-multiplier for Australian pilots against ANY other potentially hostile country in the Pacific, most of whom will have Sukhois (and MORE of those Sukhois than Oz would ever be able to afford). Again, PERIOD.
Geographically and demographically, Australia NEEDS force multipliers...and powerful friends who are cooperatively interoperable in certain key areas like 5th Generation advanced force-multiplier aircraft. You may choose to ignore the vast convergences between Australia and the US because of some minor feelings of offense about a perceived slight (or perhaps even some revisionist psuedo-history) but Australia cannot afford such pettiness. Australians live in a dangerous part of the world, on a sparsely-populated and defended continent, influence (or even domination) of which is coveted by the two largest nations on earth, which is why Australia NEEDS allies with similar values...and MUCH larger resources and armed forces. Face it, our commonalities in security and culture are what led America to fight for Australia sixty-six years ago, preventing your absorbtion into the Japanese Empire. And by the way, ALL of the foolish exaggeration about "American Imperialism" that the ignorant (or merely delusional) Left spouts is NOTHING compared to REAL imperialism of the Japanese kind. Remember the "Rape of Nanjing" or Manilla and then understand that, without Americans, you would be be remembering the Rape of Sydney.
I'm an American and I'm frequently embarrased by the insensitivities and ignorances of many Americans...and the insult taken by other nationalities as a result. But I'm also well aware of the insensitivities and ignorances of those same other nationalities...and the fact that very few Americans take ANY insult from them; instead most Americans smile and forget. International misunderstanding cuts both ways and, if you don't understand that, I'll feel embarrased for you...and continue to like Australians!
Now on to the point-by-point:
"I'm impressed by the fine work of Dr Carl Kopp the Australian
writer and defence expert with his voluminous F-111 upgrade ideas, which transform the plane into a very impressive beasty!."
Like I said before, I'm an Aardvark fan and I agree that re-engined, radar-upgraded F-111s (maybe with a radar-absorbing material [RAM] intake cowling?) would prolong their utility for a few years. But Kopp was writing mostly in the 1990s and we are now almost ten years past the time when his ideas were best. Even with the upgrades, F-111s have no useable speed advantage (compared to supercruising F-35s) to reach targets and will be discovered/engaged long before an F-35 force...and possibly jumped by enemy fighters with long-range air-to-air missiles (LR AAMs) during target ingress or egress. The hope that the F-111 force would be able to survive by launching anti-ship missiles (ASMs) from long range then weakens their attack mission by giving the enemy air defenses more time to react. This is why you want to launch ASMs from stealthy aircraft as close as possible OR to launch stealthy (larger and 4x [!] more expensive) ASMs from as far away as possible. Either way, a 3rd Generation F-111 is going to be vastly more vulnerable to a defender's surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) or fighters. This is especially so since, in any aspect except head-on, even an expensively RAM- and avionics-refitted F-111 is a flying "barn door", easily detected by pursuing SAMs and engaged by enemy fighters with LR AAMs well outside the range of Kopp's short-range AAM-equipped F-111s.
Result: Compromised attack and dead RAAF crew.
(And BTW, since MG Driver seems to be so enamored with Russian/non-American weapons, even the very fast 3M55 missile loses much of its advantage as the launch range gets longer. If launched from 150km, it's a big, VERY hot thermal and radar target that still will give 3-4 minutes detectability to its intended victim. What can be detected, can be intercepted by CURRENT US systems and, therefore, by FUTURE Chinese systems. A hundred miles launch range won't protect F-111s in the near future...and if you don't think the Chinese will have AWACs or aerostats if they decide to come gunning for OZ then...! See the above result.)
"Also, I've been hearing about another Australian genius who has devised a new approach using modular plug in pallets configured for diffent roles for modern aft ramp cargo planes C-295, A-400 or the An-70."
Uh, yeah. MG Driver's "Australian genius" has just rediscovered the late 1970s Cruise Missile Carrier Aircraft and crossed it with the palletized modules of the MC-130.
"All have modern systems and all is required is to find adaption protocols for hardware and software."
Suuuuuure, dude. Have you any idea of the difficulty of dropping a missile out of the cavitating turbulence behind an open cargo ramp and stabilizing it in in a 300kph slipstream? It will take a damn sight more than just "adaptation protocols".
"Pallets for ASW, patrol, tanking, firefighting, bomber etc.
Just open the back door and launch the missiles."
Given the HIGHLY integrated nature of modern aircraft electronic systems (especially the external receiver/emitter antenna arrays) ASW, patrol (and probably bomber) pallets would be so lacking in sensor systems as to reduce their individual efficacy to that of a World War II PBY Catalina, only twenty times more expensive. And speaking of expensive...
"Studies show Australia using this approach could in one scenario, create an "anti access" capability by using for example 10x An-70's with about 20x anti shipping cruise missles internally, flown at long range (thousands of kilometres)and so fire of 200 missiles at carrier battle groups etc"
Wait a minute, hehehe! Does MG Driver have ANY idea of how much 200 ASMs with 300+km ranges would cost?!?
Cost will be over $300 million if they're subsonic Tomahawk-like ASMs (which will take twenty minutes to reach their targets but can cruise very low near sea level and use infra-red terminal homing as well as radar homing.)
Cost will be over $600 million (!) if they're supersonic Yakhont (3M55)-type ASMs (which will arrive quickly in about seven minutes but will attract attention by having to fly significantly higher (to avoid creating a "rooster tail" of water because of aerodynamic turbulence) and will still advertise their presence with massive heat and accoustic signatures (sound travels 5x faster in water).
Either way, the missiles won't be sneaking up on anyone (AWACS or aerostat, remember?) and they will be under attack by enemy SAM systems for several minutes before the ASMs even get near their targets. And if fighters are present...well, ten SU-30MKK (four on-station CAP plus Ready Flight plus two) can carry up to 80 AAMs, severely attriting any attack launched from long range. This might not seem to negate much of MG Driver's "200 missile attack" dream but, in practice, those missiles won't be arriving simultaneously when they have to be launched from 300km and given midcourse updates. Indeed, many will miss and need to re-attack, effectively splitting the attack over several minutes.
MG Driver wants to have Australia spend over $600 million on ten AN-70s to be able to launch a salvo of up to 200 missiles costing another $600 million: $1.2 BILLION for what? A SINGLE attack of doubtful utility.
It WILL be a single attack too: Those AN-70s will never make it back to base; they will be nailed by the second half wave of fighters launching during the ASM attack. This is especially so because their palletized weapons and unintegrated (and limited) external sensors will leave them without the situational awareness (SA) of 4th Generation fighters...and even that is NOTHING compared to the SA an F-35 gives its pilot.
All the AN-70 -based "anti-access" capability is sure to give you is dead Australian aircrew (see above).
ASM attacks rely on the shortest possible warning time even more than masses of attacking robots. Such short warning time (by being able to get in really close, launch, and still escape) WITH added surprise is EXACTLY what 5th Generation stealthy aircraft give, along with increased survivability and, therefore, more than one mission. This mission-for-mission/shot-for-shot increased chance of success and survival is also precisely what makes them cost effective. Both the Australian DoD and Canadian DND know this and that is why they want this aircraft if it meets its planned objectives.
But here's MG Driver's money quote:
"...which should give even the yanks nightmares."
Ah, it's all about proving to the "yanks" that you don't need 'em, that you're just as good. Might even be able to beat 'em at sea, mate. Then you'll have their respect!
One can feel the almost-sexual excitement he felt typing that.
Except it's a wrong-headed delusion. America isn't the enemy and never has been.
However it's also mistakenly tragic: Anyone who builds a carrier and escorts like "the yanks" won't be having nightmares. They'll see opportunity to take the steam out Australian defenses by setting a trap for a substantial part of its air force: the lumbering, obvious, nearly blind, and defenseless tranports that must come within fifteen minutes' flight time of an aircraft carrier group to attack but then can't run or hide.
"Others could carry pallets with long range air to air missiles, like Meteor or the big Russian types like AA-13, KS-172 etc.
Modern radar or IRST's would be needed, but perhaps fighters could provide that 'in situ' the aircraft fitted as needed in lieu of weather radars or podded underwing."
And they still wouldn't be able to stand and fight without being equipped with expensive fighters' avionics. Even then all you'd have would be a huge slow version of the Douglas F6 "Missileer"...which the U.S. Navy realized was a dead end in 1964. I'm confident that, your "...other Australian genius" notwithstanding, the DoD realizes the AN-70 "Dead Meat" is also a non-starter.
"The chap who's worked it all out had applied it for sea and land based means as well, all in a multi platform plug-in
multi role approach based on saturation attack principles...I do know its got a lot of interest overseas as as well as here as its so inherently useful and gives even small nations the capability to stop larger ones from attacking."
As I said before, saturation is only one aspect of a successful attack; without surprise and quickness, it is increasingly difficult to win even with saturation. Some people think that this is a new idea. It is NOT and you'll find that no one is going to put the idea into service as a warplane because it continues to be a bad idea if you're facing technologically-advanced enemies.
"...[T]his fighter issue is becoming more concerning and Australia is increasingly very unhappy indeed."
Probably because most reporters (NBC, CBC,BBC come to mind) are dirt-ignorant about war, warriors, national defense, and military technology. That may change when the first Australian pilot sits behind the controls of an F-35, discovers for himself what a marvel it is (as American, British, and soon Canadian pilots have) and then goes out to put to rest all the trash spoken of the plane. (Hey, remember the NDP trashing the C-17?)
"Probably inevitable really as it stands to reason that if people vote out a bloke like Howard, they're going to reject what he stands for too such as his unworkable defence plans..."
Honestly, they'll reject it only out of ignorance unless they want to screw themselves. Unfortunately, such people will most likely recognize this when they realize that their potentially hostile neighbors have more 4th Generation fighter airpower than Australia does...and that for future air superiority, Australia will be dependent upon American intervention on Australia's side.
Australia, like Canada, needs force multipliers if it is to stand on its one militarily. Such is even more important if both want to punch above their weight!
"...[People want] to reject...his masters in the U.S."
Okay, now let me apologize; MG Driver is probably a decent bright guy but stupid anti-Americanism really gets under my skin most when it is going to kill good allied servicepeople.
I have one thing to add, though, about the foolish mindset that causes people to demonize political opponents by linking them to the U.S.:
Go ahead, children. Cripple your armed forces and delude yourselves into thinking that America, your (sometimes silly and sometimes uncomprehending) "common values" ally is an enemy. Then, when you must fight REAL ENEMIES, America will stand with you and buy your victory with our blood and treasure. Then, afterward, look up in the sky and see United States aircraft. If you deluded yourselves into resentment, believing that we were John Howard's masters, imagine how bad you'll feel when we appear to be your masters.
Better yet, get a clue: we're 98% like you. (Hey, that rhymes!) Ditch the B.S. anti-Americanism and let your air force buy the bloody plane if it meets your force-multiplier spec!
Thanks, Mark and Damian, for being good CF allies and neighbors.
-Jay Crawford
I'd forgotten this page until I received a message from Jay today replying rather extremely to my mild comments months ago.
I've forgotten my password etc, but signed up again today, just to address a few points made by Jay toward me.
Jay, I note your apology toward the end of your missive, but perhaps it might have helped if you had of thought things through more properly.
Re-reading my comments, I fear you're 'verballing ' me as I simply didn't say much of what you claim against me.
It was Mr Fitzgibbon the defence minister who proposed a fresh look at the RAAF fighter including Russian types, not me!.
Seems reasonable for a new minister to have a fresh look too.
I simply expressed scepticism on the JSF and F-18F. Is that such a crime?.
The modular idea seems another reasonable one as well.
A few UK thinkers have suggested such an approach as well for the A-400 as a way of lifting the RAF's capability.
There must surely be ways to plug in sensors to aid 'situational awareness' too to maximise saturation and stand off weapons.
Dr Kopp is still active to with F-111 update ideas in this decade (AESA and F-119's for instance). His ideas have been discussed in senate committee's in parliament here.
So I fear you're wrongful in all these areas.
Finally, you and americans must learn to
see other people's sensibilities and different styles of self expression.
My 'elbows' toward Howard, the Yanks and
politicians generally, are an example of
our British derived sense of humour and touch of irony as a form of criticism.
Please stop being so literal and seeing
things that aren't there.
You spent much time accusing me of everything from being delusional to some kind of sexual satisfaction in rubbishing the yanks etc.
This highlights a recurring theme in the very real differences between our societies.
Americans are seen here as highly aggressive, intolerant to any criticism and terribly literally minded.
They overlook the effects they have on other nations and then when people complain, then adopt a 'victim' mentality claming 'anti americanism' and
then arguing ad nauseum, they 'smile and forget' etc yet they themselves are the ones instigating the aggression.
Its transparently self serving and unconvincing to others.
So please, spare us the "we know whats best for Australia and the world" platitudes, few believe it and most Aussies's really don't care about you and the foolishness you pursue.
Anti american feeling here has alwys been strong but recent years have seen it emerge openly as people have had a gutful of the yanks over time.
We're not close and the alliance is just a politicians 'wank' as most here see it.
Australians don't wan't to be like the U.S and really most see the yanks as the cause of the trouble in the world today.
IN WW2, the yanks only came here as they needed a base after Pearl Harbour.
Our researchers having access to the Japanese war files now have found over some years now that the Japanese had no serious plans to invade Australia.
It seems the Navy voiced a vague idea, but the Army quickly quashed the notion in Japan as Australia was too hard to invade.
The sad thing it that too many Aussie's still cling to the decades of thought that the Japanese had invasion plans.
No so, and constant US rubbing our noses in "we saved Australia in WW2" just annoys people as no-one likes big headed boasters.
If Americans really were as close as you claim, then you'd know that we back the underdog and can't stand people 'up themselves'.
Most of your missive is dismissable as it feeds of your own imaginings which I suggest may say more about yourself, insecurities and 'control complex'.
As I say I note your apology but I do think you're 'flying off the handle' here in relation to things that weren't said.
Then as today, my tone to you is calm and measured as I'm not prone to histrionics.
Really Jay, the U.S doesn't really matter to me or most people, as most people are content to live their lives in peace and quiet but it seems the U.S is the main irritant in seeking to push around others and jumping up and down to imaginary threats or self manufactured as a self serving ploy .
Just go home and leave people alone.
Play your silly games for world domination on your computers, but the real word just increasingly resents you.
Just a word of advice old man
Well I must press on
MG
Guys, please forgive my one sidestep into WWII; otherwise, I'm going to respond only to the important parts of what MG Driver wrote to keep the focus on our topic, the viability of the F-35.
Also, I make no apology for my concern for allied aircrew safety or Canadian and Australian victory against their real enemies!
First, MG, let me freely acknowledge my error in supposing that you might agree with Mr. Fitzgibbon's foolishness in announcing that he would consider purchasing Sukhois for Australia...when all of Australia's potential enemies are buying them (and will end up having many more than of them than Australia). I should not have inferred that you would be so technically ignorant as he and as (likely unintentionlly) wasteful of fine Aussie pilots' lives because of how such decisions on his part would end up. That supposition was based on the tone of the rest of your comment...but I still should have couched it with the caveat "If MG Driver believes..."
I stand corrected, sir.
BTW, there certainly is no "crime" in skepticism about the F-18E/F or F-35 purchases. Just please credit the Australian DoD (and our hosts' DND) with competence in their fields when THEY chose the F-18 and F-35; they did so for a reason. If you disagree, then provide good reasons as to why they, your fellow Australians (who are pilots and generals, technicians and tacticians, as well as accountants), are wrong.
And speaking of a paucity of facts:
"The modular idea seems another reasonable one as well...
There must surely be ways to plug in sensors to aid 'situational awareness' too to maximise saturation and stand off weapons."
"...There must surely be a way..."?!?!?! Then NAME IT! Otherwise, this statement is "magical thinking".
Cargo aircraft are not attack planes. They are NOT configured with electromagnetic sensor arrays all over their skins, nor are they wired for all those sensors. And before you say "What about podded systems?", please take a look at the apotheosis of podded systems, the ALQ-99. When that system was fitted to high-performance (compared to an AN-70!) attack planes like the EA-6B and the EF-111, they required EXTENSIVE modifications to those aircraft, aircraft which already offered vastly more situational awareness systems to their crews. If you want to make a cargo lifter nearly that SA and/or electronically defensable, good luck. It'll cost you hugely and your AN-70 will still be obvious to fighters and unable to run or fight effectively. Even if equipped with fighter avionics and AAMs, you're still only going to be left with a psuedo-Missileer, but more dead.
"Dr Kopp is still active to with F-111 update ideas in this decade (AESA and F-119's for instance). His ideas have been discussed in senate committee's in parliament here."
But, as I said, the majority of his ideas date from the 1990s (check the copyrights, MG). Except for AESA and updating his proposed selection for re-engining, LITTLE of it is CONCEPTUALLY new. The greatest difference though is that now the defenses which would oppose the F-111s have become much more effective against ALL non-low observable (stealthy) aircraft. And there's still the issue of launch distance/warning time which is only overcome by stealth and close proximity, neither of which an F-111 can achieve or survive respectively beyond the next few years. So, while I gladly acknowledge the potential of Kopp's super-cruising, longer ranged (than F-35s) F-111 missile trucks, they would likely be spotted by Western AWACs today at maximum launch range; in a decade or so, the Chinese will also be certain to detect them. Even if you wanted to spend the (easily) tens of millions of dollars per aircraft, you will only get another decade of moderate attack/recon use...and it won't be broadly multi-purpose or a real force multiplier.
Oh, and remember AESA is power-hungry, so to install it, you also need major electical generating/circuiting upgrades. At what point does the work to turn a '68 Chevy into a Jaguar become more costly than just buying a new Jaguar?
"So I fear you're wrongful in all these areas."
Only in your factually-challenged dreams, dude.
"My 'elbows' toward Howard, the Yanks and
politicians generally, are an example of
our British derived sense of humour and touch of irony as a form of criticism.
Please stop being so literal and seeing
things that aren't there."
Unless you're going to tell me that you really don't speak English well, there can be no mistaking that YOU said picking an inferior aircraft (like the Sukhoi) would have "the added benefit of giving the Yanks a good 'elbow in the ribs' just to remind them that we aren't beholden to them and their pushiness isn't making them any friends here." Clearly, you value the "'elbow in the ribs' just to remind [us] that [you] aren't beholden to [us]".
I remind you that the subject here is effective aircraft for Australia's defense...NOT POLITICAL THEATRE!
You may think that I'm "terribly literally minded", but unless you don't understand English, your claiming the above to be anything other than political posturing is disingenuous at best.
"So please, spare us the 'we know whats best for Australia and the world' platitudes..."
Aircraft (and everything else) chosen by Austalia's Defense Force MUST benefit Australia. [Obviously, the same goes for Canada!] THE F-35 was CHOSEN BY and FOR AUSTRALIAN professionals to meet a military need. Americans didn't pick it for you, Aussies chose it to meet future (10-25 years) needs...and if it can't legitimately meet Australia's needs, it should be cancelled. Period.
That judgement should be made by Australians familiar with it...not foolish politicians or ignorant amateurs with a "political chip on their shoulder".
Unfortunately, in addition to current events, your historic assertions are also political and furthermore factually-selective:
"IN WW2, the yanks only came here as they needed a base after Pearl Harbour.
Our researchers having access to the Japanese war files now have found over some years now that the Japanese had no serious plans to invade Australia.
It seems the Navy voiced a vague idea, but the Army quickly quashed the notion in Japan as Australia was too hard to invade."
Australia was "too hard to invade" after being cut off from Britain? Hardly. All that would have been required was a lack of American opposition. You forget the aggressive nature of the "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere": Australia had minerals and agriculture which would have been useful to Japan. The invasion did not come because the Imperial Army did not want to divert troops and the Imperial Navy did not regard Australia as being a threat BY ITSELF, NOT because sparsely defended Australia would have been much of a challenge to the army that took the "Gibraltor of the Pacific" Singapore (though I do think that the distances around your continent would have posed a little problem and your generals wouldn't have underestimated the Imperial Army like the British in Singapore did.)
I have to ignore the roughly two/thirds of your comment that attempts to provide an explanation/justifiaction for resentment of Americans. (Though I mentioned anti-Americanism, it was specifically in the context of such feelings causing people to make short-sighted or even stupid decisions...and I don't believe the majority of Australians would let such foolishness cloud their thinking.)
It's not worth my time or the time of the readers of this blog. It reads like the broad-brush stereotypes of the soft-Left even as you attempt to use it to justify an unjustifiable disregard of the best judgement of the RAAF's leaders while ignoring the mortal danger which such prejudice poses to Australia's defenses and the lives of its aircrews.
Besides, at a much more personal level, MY FRIENDS AND I JUST LIKE AUSSIES.
I'd probably even like you over a couple of Fosters, no matter what you say. Sorry.
However, this is a milblog, sir.
I daresay its purpose is not to provide some screeds about whole counties'/peoples' being bad or unpleasant. Rather, it's about military matters relating to national security and those who safeguard it, specifically for Canada.
Though this discussion has been about Australia's F-35, the only reason I am perpetuating it here is because some of the F-35 skepticism will bear on Canada's decision to allow its own military personnel to have the force-multiplier aircraft its own Canadian military leaders think is necessary. If it meets they specifications, I hope they get what they chose.
-Jay Crawford
Mr Crawford,
I hesitate to engage in a 'folie a deux' with you and so I'm ending this exhange today as someone has to end this pointlessness.
Before I go though, I wish to say that I take real offence at your behaviour toward me over the past week.
Let me outline my concerns with you Sir.
I made a positive entry some months ago here proffering some thoughts of my own in good faith and openly supporting others including yourself as being useful to the debate.
Some I disagreed with but I acknowledged the interesting technical information here imparted my others including yourself. I didn't attack you nor was that intent.
Then this week, I discovered your reply in my email. I was dismayed at your open insults, gratuitious sneers and posturing diktats in your entry directed mainly toward me.
That and verballing me, which I felt I had to address.
I saw no reason for your unwarranted behaviour towards me and simply don't understand your maudlin aggression nor your motivations.
I ask you in all earnestness Mr Crawford, why do you persist in this sort of offensive behaviour?.
No I read today, another assault toward me reeking of ad hominem innunendo and open insults.
Is that all you're capable of Sir?.
Is this the level of your debating ability with others in an international
setting?.
Certainly you have technical knowledge which I have found interesting from the outset and still do find informative, but why Sir do you persist in this crudity in your 'style'.
Doubtless I may express views you disagree with and thats to be expected, but is it necessary to openly insult strangers from other nations in the way you do?. What effect do you think thats going to have for people I tell and other reading about you and the nation you represent as a citizen?. Well Mr Crawford?.
I have felt the need to defend myself as a result of your ugly attacks, and its clear it has upset you with the result of another barrage of sneers and insult toward me.
I have tried to be quite lighthearted, with a touch of irony (which you patently don't grasp) as I point out differences and concerns here in Australia toward the U.S and its ways.
I can now see that you are unable to discuss in a civil manner and thus I intend to end this exchange.
To address some examples of your style though Sir;
You adopt an authority driven way, quite martinet in approach, acting more as a self appointed 'defender' of other nations decisions as long as they stay aligned with your narrow outlook and presumably American way.
Your presumption is not only unwanted but also highly patronising.
Are you some kind of unofficial crusader for the pentagon seeking out all dissenting voices as a hobby?.
By what right do you claim to speak for others nations pilots or armed forces Sir?.
Has it ever occured to you Sir that you are unwanted and people in other nations may take offence at some outsider telling them what they should do and to submit to the 'authorities' who know better than the uninformed citizens?.
What overbearing supercilious arrogance!.
In Australia as in other nations (but perhaps not the USA), it is the public that is the focus of society, the function of government and the armed forces to to serve the nation and its people. Not the other way around.
People volunteer to join the armed forces (most of them) to serve the nation as it is civil society that is paramount.
I've heard of a cult of soldier fetishism in the USA that has become manifest over time, used by some as 'examples' for society.
Glorification of the armed forces may be de rigeur in militaristic societies, but in most nations including Australia, it is civil society that comes first and the pilot, sailor or soldier is a servant of the public in their role in defence.
I can only suggest Mr Crawford that you look at your motives and remember that it is the citizenry of other nations that have a voice in their affairs and unwanted self appointed crusaders with their own agenda (brown-nosers to state power) are not wanted as well as being highly patronising.
Related to which, in Australia's case you frequently use capital letters in your entries about Australia's "real enemies" with oblique references to China and I presume India (another large country or perhaps Indonesia or Russia).
So you are telling us who our supposed enemies are now?.
Isn't that for us to decide (if any actually exist).
I hear Americans are obsessed with China and are intent on manufacturing it as a new threat akin to the Soviets in the cold war, but really to correct you Sir,
Australia and China have good and growing relations, they are perhaps our largest trading partner now.
India is also a friend and above all else, we play cricket against India- what more can I say.
Indonesia is a democracy and shows no interest in war or invasion and Russia is so out of the picture its a joke to even think about it.
All these nations we have growing relations with based on trade and goodwill to all .
Certainly no nation is perfect and there are petty disputes, but thats life and its best to recognize that and our limits.
Many here in Australia and elsewhere openly wonder if the USA is capable of normal, respectful civil relations with other nations, as you seem to see imaginary threats everywhere and seek to dominate, bully and insult all and sundry who doesn't comply.
This leads to concerns of empire building and your long history of interference in the internal affairs of other nations and aggression over time.
Americans maybe myopic in this regard, but one can't dent your actions then and now.
Our exchange is a microcosm of this, as you openly insult me repeatedly this week. Most Australians would laugh at your suggestions of our supposed enemies but perhaps its says more about our differences. What you call naive, we call normal civil relations with other nations.
The misanthrop does tend to have a negative view of humanity I find.
In other areas I find you hypocritical Sir, in that you claim to 'smile and forget' regarding people who express anti american views, but then you proceed to repeatedly insult me in the next breath.
Indeed looking over your entries, one can't help but see the slurs dripping off your tongue Mr Crawford so frequently, its like a waterfall!.
You cite my replies as "political theatre", but you then in the next breath, you openly display the same (and rather amateurish attributes).
Questioning my command of English, my facts, and frequent sermonising using diktats as a substitute for argument.
You openly admit in your first entry toward me that it took you a few days to calm down before you replied to my entry in January.
Mr Crawford, are you so emotionally driven, so insecure in yourself and such a zealot that mild comments by someone,
quite supportive (to you included) but who differ from you that you have to launch repeated and vindictive attacks on that person (me)?.
On WW2, I've had an interest in this story of Australia and Japan and a recent article last month before ANZAC day in a national newspaper here and written by a respected historian, made Australians think about what we've been lead to believe in the past.
Then Mr Crawford, you jump up proffering only summary dismissal and superior knowledge by contrast.
The pretence of knowing Australians is again off the mark.
I'm a ordinary Australian and I can see nothing in common between us.
Our nations are apart and diverging moreso after the Howard years saw him ejected and his agenda discredited.
Americans see only myopically for their own purposes.
The truth is Australia is different in our goverment style (westminster, constitutional monarchy), legal system,
sporting interests, culture and sensibililities (eg. irony, humour- where would we be without it? America probably!), our outlook on life and religion (not much of it and nutters not welcome) for example.
The joke here is that Australians and Yanks may at times use the same words, but we speak different languages!.
One senses you Sir seek to glorify American supremicism in the past and today, belittling others peoples efforts and taking credit when its not entirely appropriate.
Historical research hence that threatns your views are then attacked.
Perhaps Sir you should test your metal with the historical record in the files
which historians properly do.
See how you fare.
In all Sir I see in you just an unconvincing poseur'.
Using ineffectual sophistry combined with the ugliness of the bully.
I find you're a hypocrite for the reasons I've cited one gets the sense that this is your natural manner, if the frequency of your style is any guide.
Verballing others ( I could cite other cases of yours but I suspect you're beyond hope), vanity through psychological projection onto others and insincere moral platitudes as means of guilt enforcement onto others as another tool of your inequitious mind .
That combined with bland shouting, sloganeering and unoriginal 'buzzword's to discredit those who disagree with you (soft left, media influenced etc), which may be de rigeur in your mindset, but really is another example of weakmindedness and sloppy thinking.
These are recurring themes in your entries Sir, and I've found it interesting to catalogue them as I read them in your expression.
I now think your 'apology' was insincere and I reject your patronising me through
maudlin cultural affinity.
I'd never share a beer with you Mr Crawford as you Sir are nothing but a thug!.
Good riddance to you and I intent not to read any more of your replies (save your breath and reflect is my advice to you).
I doubt you will, but at least I've said my piece with reason and without shouting and dripping with your ugliness
which is your substitute for discussion.
MG (the best little car ever built).
Wow, EIGHT pages of comment posted to a JSF comment board...and not a single mention of the F-35, just progressively more shrill ad hominim attacks populating about seven of those pages. Oh well: "Sticks and stones (and F-35s!) may break my bones but words will never hurt me" as they say.
Do I need to repeat myself? "This is a milblog, sir". I don't know you, therefore the only things I ever condemned/demeaned are the words you use and your apparent intent. THAT is a far cry from attacking you personally. What I condemn I do so because of my respect for the lives of human beings who may be defending you and your fellow Australians. And again, I make no apology for desiring your country's victory if she ever has to fight.
BTW, when did you decide that you were the subject, MG?
Like I've already said NINE times (how did you not notice this?), let the people who KNOW the specification of Australia's (and Canada's...and Britain's...and Norway's...etc) needs make the decision if the F-35 meets those needs best. They (particularly your fellow Aussies who are ADF leaders) chose the F-35 as most promising and will test it to determine if it meets Australia's needs. Or don't you care about that if their "actual user" decisions differ from the unknowlegeable critcs' sophist amateur opinions: "Glorification of the armed forces may be de rigeur in militaristic societies, but in most nations including Australia, it is civil society that comes first and the pilot, sailor or soldier is a servant of the public in their role in defence."
No kidding? Wow, never thought of that. Hehehehe.
My only real question about your above statement is: Should I take your quote to mean that you consider "your" pilots lives to be more wastefully expendable than I do?
If you're a decently-intentioned human being (as I assume you are) your answer must be NO. So why are you arguing against a 5th Generation aircraft that you know little about? More importantly, why don't you present FACTS, not theory?
I respect someone's different opinion, but when they filter objective fact through a BS ideology prism so that its implications are useless death for their defenders, I WILL call foolishness what it is: foolishness.
(However, if you're able to convince your fellow voters that Oz has no "real enemies", I have an innovative suggestion: MiG-21s! For the cost of four F-35s you can re-equip the RAAF with some slick -21s which will deal with pirates and terrorists just fine.)
As to the seven pages of personal attack, no problem, man. I've observed that those who make long-winded analyses of people they don't know are usually speaking more about themselves. Go on, say what you will about me; I won't hold it against you. Better yet, try to talk JSF facts without ideology. If you do, I'll buy the beer.
-Jay (not the best little car ever built)
P.S. No sockpuppets!
P.P.S. My CF connection? My dad started in WWII as a sergeant pilot in the RCAF.
Hmm. Seems things went a bit off the rails here.
Gents, I'd suggest if you're going to continue discussing this, that you stop referring to the other person, and limit yourselves to referring to the ideas expressed. That may take a little of the heat out of the exchange.
I thank you both for your enthusiastic commentary, though, and encourage you to continue to read and comment here.
Just maybe not back and forth to each other... ;)
Damian,
You're absolutely right: things "went off the rails" when the discussion got into personal invective. To a degree, I contributed to this by seeming to SHOUT though my use of capitalization when I meant to emphasize a point. For my part, I apologize to everyone here.
I CANNOT apologize, though, for my belief that the Air Staffs of various countries should make the decision about the next-generation fighter which best suits their needs. They know those needs and know more about the airplanes' capabilities than we do. For the sake of all of our aircrews, any petty nationalisms (on ANY of our parts) should NOT be substituted for their best professional judgement.
Let the best plane win.
-Jay Crawford
Post a Comment
<< Home