Originally posted by C0bzz

I feel I should make a list of news sources that suck. So far, it's TIMES & ABC.

I guess we may all feel the same, especially since these sources are probably among the few that are actually bothering to address these matters. The bulk of the 'popular' media don't even bother reporting such matters these days. If that is reality, then that's what it is. It would almost appear that any news agency that reports on defense matters might make your list.

ABC Australia posted a report 30 minutes ago which in part says...

"RAND disputes Joint Strike Fighter assessment

The United States think tank, the RAND Corporation, has distanced itself from a document ........

The RAND Corporation document described the Joint Strike Fighter as inferior to modern Russian and Chinese fighters .....

But in a subsequent statement the organisation says RAND did not compare the fighting qualities of particular aircraft.

But Liberal MP Dennis Jensen has dismissed that.

He says a secret RAND briefing document for a war-game last month condemned the Joint Strike Fighter as being "double inferior", but he says now RAND is trying to distance itself from that assessment. "

OK, I know Jensen is, apparently, influenced by certain vested interests, but... he is actually making a direct accusation here (not something that politicians normally do) that there is a "secret briefing document", etc. Like this is not merely innuendo, it's a specific accusation.

So, I'll ask the question.... does anyone think that there is ANY possibility that he is correct? (And as an aside, if nobody thinks there is a conspiracy - could this be the only subject on ATS about which nobody thinks there is a conspiracy ?? )

If not, why would someone continue with such specific accusations (I accept however that it is clearly impossible to established that a 'secret document' doesn't exist).

Let me make this patently clear - I am not endorsing what he's saying (or the fact that the ABC reports it - is that not their job?) - I'd just like to know why he is so adamant about it.

Lastly, does nobody know the extent to which companies such as Boeing, Lockmart, etc operate their businesses on credit and therefore their vulnerability in the current financial climate.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 29/9/08 by The Winged Wombat]

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
So, I'll ask the question.... does anyone think that there is ANY possibility that he is correct? (And as an aside, if nobody thinks there is a conspiracy - could this be the only subject on ATS about which nobody thinks there is a conspiracy ?? )

As a counterpoint, could the crux of the conspiracy be Jensen and his claims, rather than the evil industrial military complex?

If not, why would someone continue with such specific accusations (I accept however that it is clearly impossible to established that a 'secret document' doesn't exist).

How about the old adage that if you tell a lie frequent enough and loud enough those who hear will start believing the lie.
What if Jensen started out with an agenda, got shot down on his effort but in a face saving effort continues on with the allegation.
Makes perfect sense.
To admit error is to lose credibility, to stick to the story insinuates a conspiracy of those opposed to Jensen's slander.

Lastly, does nobody know the extent to which companies such as Boeing, Lockmart, etc operate their businesses on credit and therefore their vulnerability in the current financial climate.

Didn't this become an issue prior to the financial crisis?

Originally posted by bios

Lastly, does nobody know the extent to which companies such as Boeing, Lockmart, etc operate their businesses on credit and therefore their vulnerability in the current financial climate.

Didn't this become an issue prior to the financial crisis?

As far as I've understood the crisis has been all of Sept with more and more heaping on daily. As for when this was released or leaked I recall a week at most.

About an Austrailan F-22 buy
It would be expensive both per plane, and, there would need to be a M&R trail. The F-35 is supposed to replace the entire existing airforce, and allready the Auzzies are reducing their buy of F-35's, due to lack of funds. If they did buy the F-22 the most that they would likely buy is two dozen or so, and you would have to give up twice as many F-35's to free up the money to do so. Is that a good trade?

The F-35 isn't as bad as the naysayers would have you believe. The infamous press comment that "it was clubbed like baby seals" by Sukois in a wargame is unfair. The (classified) wargame in question is reputed to have been a clash over Taiwan bettween US and red China. The Taiwanese, & US air bases were taken out in the first few minutes by a massive launch of 2000 IRBM's at the airbases, and the refuelling tankers were also shot down by long range missles & "leakers". The F-35's & F-22's would have run out of fuel at that point. (Perhaps they should sell VTOL F-35B's to Taiwan and use dispersed basing)

Pierre Sprey designer of the F-16 and the rest of the "fighter mafia" have labeled the F-35 a "dog", they claim that the F-16(early model, he's disowned the later heavier models) is a better "pure" fighter plane. They claim the F-35 can't turn, can't run, and can't fight. The original F-16 of which he is so proud, had less than 40 minutes flight time in the air. Its top speed was only mach 1.6, It WAS NOT equiped with a radar AAM!
AA-11 Archer equipped (old)Mig-29's with helmet mounted sights slaughter F-16's in German visual range dogfighting combat air games(they aquired 'em when Germany was re-unified). The fighter mafia claim the F-35 can't turn, I find this preposterous. The F-35 has the same number of controll surfaces in the airstream as the F-16, but in addition it has 3-axis thrust vectoring! The F-35 is a newer design, its technology is 10 years newer than that of the F-22 even. It undoubtedly has even more dynamic instability than any other fighter in the world. The F-35A is a 9G fighter(more and you tend to kill the pilots even with G-suits) as is the F-16,Mig29,Su27-30-35, Eurofighter,Rafale etz. As for the F-35's speed, there are persistent rumors on the internet that the production variant in inflight testing keeps out-running the F-16 chase planes(they have to use afterburner to keep up) and this, with its landing gear down. Note, that due to performance shortfalls in the B version they uprated the engine power for ALL the versions. Now as to the top speed, Col. Robert Simm at the US embassy in Oslo recently confirmed publicly that the F-35 has a mach 1.05 supercruise capability in a "tactical layout" under "certain flight regimes". In a private correspondence mach 1.8 is ambiguously refered to as "probably at the edge of the aerodynamic placard". Whether accurate or not we can safely deduce that the F-35 will be faster than mach 1.6 in a lighter loadout than the quoted tactical configuration. (which is with 4000lbs of bombs aboard.) Also, the US, through careful computer studies, has found a way to squeeze 6 AMRAAM's in the main bay instead of bombs, though this requires extensive re-design of the internal missle racks, and there is no money for this at present. They ARE working on stealthy(somewhat) external pods & pylons, that when the stores are used, are ejected and little doors close tightly over the holes, for stealth. For the future it is likly that they will be able to swap out a 2000lb bomb, for a rack holding 4 standoff, precision, SDB's. Also consider the effect that unmanned (stealthy?)drones with refuelling pods could have on long range ops. Australia could get the combat range, without the price, of the F-22.
The F-35 IS stealthy, though NOT from the rear. The F-35 is less stealthy than F-22 which is very much less than F-117 (See AW&ST). Remember price is a key performance parameter too. The F-35, is a good plane for the price.

This was a test from a simulation, which means very little, unless they can be relatively certain that their spec's on the Sukhoi, which are most likely far better than the reality, are accurate. There is also a good possiblity that somebody would like to sell a few F-22's to the Aussies.

Originally posted by poet1b
This was a test from a simulation, which means very little, unless they can be relatively certain that their spec's on the Sukhoi, which are most likely far better than the reality, are accurate. There is also a good possiblity that somebody would like to sell a few F-22's to the Aussies.

the test were using downgraded exported su-27's and mig-29's