Talk about being taken to the woodshed and coming out with their mind right!
Well in the words of a famous movie...
ELP had a failure to communicate---I wonder if he spent a night in the box!
First the author of ELP Defens(c)e Blog wrote this...
ELP Defens(c)e Blog is in favor of the F-35?????Well in the short span of one day he's come out with these posts!Now that the latest USAF gathering in Orlando–which in recent years doesn’t
produce much of anything–is over, we can have the week of wild alternatives
for the USAF fighter roadmap. How to fix a force structure in the coming
years of shrinking budgets? Well, we need ideas. And these will be thrown
around mostly for entertainment purposes. And when I state “shrinking
budgets”, I mean real bad stuff. All plans will assume the stupids in D.C.
let F-22 production close.
Plan one.
The F-35 program will be composed of 20 Fighter Groups. Each group will have
one squadron of 24 F-35B STOVL aircraft. They will be procured at 48 per
year for 10 years. This does not count extras for test, training and
development. This will support 10 AEFs and allow for home air defense of the
most basic kind.
A-10s stays as-is. Refurb as much and as many times as needed.
http://ericpalmer.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/more-unsupportable-rubbish/
http://ericpalmer.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/the-ponzi-scheme-that-has-to-deliver-for-australian-industry-or-else-auspol/
I'm not going to say group think or accuse the writer of falling victim to peer pressure but I will say that the turn around is remarkable.
SNAFU is becoming more and more like a paparazzi site these days....
ReplyDeleteone of the most vocal critics of the F-35 program at first comes out with a plan to integrate it into his beloved USAF and then the next day comes out and basically calls it a ponzi scheme and my blog is a paparazzi site because i point that out?
ReplyDeleteyou're an idiot.
For a marine turned nosy civilian, you've got the grant honor to be called an idiot.
ReplyDeleteGuess that all the USMC values went out the windows the day you were discharged. Pity.
I believe ELP's problem can be summed up as one of integrity. Then again that's Bill's too.
ReplyDeleteROFL
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSolomon,
ReplyDeleteI'm the one who made the ELP comment. Not the dickweed who's insulting you. ;-)
-sferrin
sorry Sferrin.
ReplyDeleteapologizes man!
Actually it is quite funny to read Eric's posts. It seems he is very much swayed by the "in" crowd. If a lot of people talk positively about something he joins in. Negativity starts up, that's the way he heads.
ReplyDeleteWitness his back and forth over the F-35 and Super Hornet over the years...
As to Horde, again, he's nothing more than a failed contractor, bitter at the lack of his own success in the field and aiming to bring everyone else down with him.
Forget him. He is a "never was" as far as the Australian defence scene is concerned and has absolutely no relevance whatsoever.
AD,
ReplyDeletetruer words were never spoken!
Well, false assumption would be another of your logical fallacies, Aussie Digger; hope that this Horde guy you referred to would enjoy being mentioned by name.
ReplyDeleteAs for whether JSF will shine or not in foreseeable future, history will tell. In an event of a future conflict over the Flanker-defended Pacific, we all hope to pack the right gear, or not. Splash one.
I got you're back Sol
ReplyDeleteDear 'Anon", I quite frankly couldn't care less what Horde (or Peter Goon) if you prefer "enjoys".
ReplyDeleteHe is as irrelevant to me as he is to Australian Defence.
All he has are patheticly weak criticisms and endless repetition of the same tired, broken record.
I hope you enjoy your delusions. They are all you have.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteA further example of your astonishing ability to misunderstand others as well as reality.
ReplyDeleteIf you had read any of my other comments on this blog, on the previous F-35 related thread in fact, you would have seen that I have argued for significant cuts to the F-35 program. How exactly does this then accord with your accusation of "blind faith"?
Of course your ability to recognise reality has degraded so far by your obsession that it is pointless discussing anything with you.
Please keep churning out your little "air power" scenarios though. Saves me reading the "funny pages" in the daily paper.
Enjoy your continuing descent into irrelevance.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSeems like we both are. Again another glaring example of your problem with reality.
ReplyDeleteI called for the entire cancellation of the F-35C model, the cancellation of the F136 and a 50% or more reduction in F-35B numbers with the resources saved from such action to be pumped into speeding up development of and improving the capability of the remaining -A and -B models and investing in Super Hornet (known cost, stable program) and UCAV development. What option do you propose that is REALISTIC?
That isn't blind faith, nor is it an unrealistic proposition.
You demonstrate again that you have no answers, only worthless criticism and ad hominem to contribute. Any time anyone should disagree with you, you immediately call for the production of CV's in a "CV at 10 paces - appeal to authority" type scenario, all the while boasting of your desire to debate "what is right" rather than "who is right"...
You are a joke.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't world war one any more I'm afraid and pilots don't wrap scarves around their necks, shout tally ho and go off to out-maneuvre one another.
ReplyDeleteYour simplistic analysis of air combat through analysis of one fighter jet v a another shows precisely how misleading your published thoughts on modern warfare truly are.
You know well that modern warfare is a systems event. Your championing of the possibility of Chinese missiles raining down on Kadena airbase shows all too clearly you 'get' that modern warfare is more of a "combined arms event" that is vastly more complicated than you make it seem, but this reality doesn't suit your opinion as far as the West is concerned, because you KNOW that is how the West fights and indeed dominates every battle it has been in over the last 30 years.
And so you perpetuate the myth that "cardinal aspects" of fighter performance are what matters in combat and break an extremely complicated subject down to a "pissing contest" between who has got the "biggest, fastest, mostest".
Nothing could be further from the truth., but you can't or won't recognise that. So you remain irrelevant to modern defence debate.
As to my calls about the F-35 program, they aren't new. I've been saying for years that F-35 program is overly complicated and should be focussed on the CTOL model and STOVL model only and I have date stamped posts to prove this.
The main constant in my opinion however has been about the F-35A. I firmly believe it is the best aircraft for a small air force that is intent upon acquiring a single type to replace a diverse force structure, that can be bought in the timeframe we have to replace our Hornets. Fantasies don't enter into this. In 2017 the only American manned fighter in production will be F-15 (maybe), F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-35. Australia will not be buying anything other than Amercan for it's fighter fleet in the forseeable future, So take your pick. We've only got 3 (at best) choices. If you won't pick one, you are simply being an obstinate fool. I've chosen F-35.
Nothing I have seen develop in the 9 years since this choice was made, has made me change my mind about this.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteBeing stronger, faster, better hasn't mattered since a third person joined a fight you fool. Get over the caveman style thinking that our strategic situation is dictated by who has the lower wing-loading...
ReplyDeleteChrsst, it's no wonder ADF don't give you time of day any longer...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteEvery combat pilot undertakes ground defence training too. Perhaps a pilot's primary role should be land battles?
ReplyDeleteAgain, you take one aspect of training and attempt to mislead others by it. ACM is an essential component of any fighter pilots training, but that does not in any way depict how a modern airforce fights. Follow Red Flag type exercises much? ACM "knife fights" is one of the most minor and irrelevant aspects of the entire exercise...
Interesting that you grudingly admit the primacy of SA in BVR warfare though. Here I was thinking that aerodynamic performance was the only "cardinal aspect" that was important...
I would have thought reliance upon aerodynamic performance and agility would denote "Vietnam era thinking" what with it's reliance on high speed aircraft and large radar arrays as the primary air combat fighter capabilities, but apparently not.
As to WVR I also thought it was the high off-boresite "spear" wedded to a modern HMS that was all that was relevant in modern times? You guys proposed the F-111/ASRAAM combination afterall and pitched this as survivable in a theatre "flooded with Flankers"... The F-111 was never known for it's agility as I understand and I thought your intent was to cover up for this lack with a missile that didn't really care how agile it's launch aircraft was...
Strange how far more agile aircraft like the Super Hornet and JSF are "unsurvivable" in such regimes, but the F-111 was perfectly acceptable...
Afterall didn't one of your comrades write this not too long ago;
"More importantly, dogfighting a competent opponent who uses such missiles imposes much pressure to get the first round off. Whoever shoots first is likely to win. This will in turn increase the need for early acquisition and identification of targets, as well a significant improvement in onboard IR countermeasures (ie jammer) capability will be required."
Doesn't even mention launch aircraft agility or kinematics the way I read it, but you know your own misleading, self-contradicting arguments best I suppose so I will bow to your superior knowledge in this area...
I do wonder exactly which aircraft you think will have better situational awareness than a RAAF F-35A aircraft, operating in a Coalition battlespace though.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTypical and continued pattern of behaviour noted. Avoid the tough questions and take the easy cheap-shot route. Your schtick is old and tired...
ReplyDeleteYou are naive enough to think that F-35 won't be a lethal aircraft at WVR air to air combat.
HMS? Tick. Modern WVR weapon? Tick. 9G agility and excellent acceleration? Tick. Superior situational awareness? Tick.
It may not be the most dangerous WVR fighter in the world, but it will certainly be very capable and it's capability as an all-round fighter, bearing in mind the "systems" nature of warfare will be very difficult for any other aircraft to match, let alone exceed. The F-22 certainly. But very few others.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFLIR/EOTS: optimized for A/G, not A/A.
ReplyDeleteThe wavelength makes big difference: against ground clutter (A/G) vs. against unimpeded sky (A/A).
Aussie Digger,
ReplyDeleteYour list is flimsy at best. Try to understand the basic science behind the technology, not just nodding on LMT's ad & claims.
BUT even if you must, note that Jon Beasley never dares to declare on record that F35 will have enough kinetics to outmaneuver modern opponents (translation: "air superiority fighter").
Which of those technologies are not present on the F-35? I wasn't taking L-M's word for it previously. I was quoting Carlo...
ReplyDeleteSurely he's not incorrect is he?
No, Jon Beesley hasn't stated that F-35 will outmaneuver modern opponents. Then again, I've not seem him asked that question publicly. Perhaps you could go and ask, see what he says?
Interesting that he is an apparently useful source, when something about his opinion seems to suit yours...
How very disingenuous of you, considering the things you've said about him and other F-35 test pilots...
Same old broken record. You may return now to the Ad Hominem. I know you will. It is all you have.