Thanks for the link SFERRIN.
via Spudman over at F-16.net read the whole thing but check out these tidbits...
Here are the transcripts of the proceedings and a few nuggets of gold.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... arings.htm
The transcripts for the LM presentation have not been put up yet, but here is some info from the Defense Department's reply to the APA/RepSIM info:
1. A lot of classified info could not be discussed.
2. 11k pages of data is shared with Partner nations PER MONTH about the JSF.
3. The "fuel leak" from the first Eglin AFG flight was rainwater that has seeped into the panels.
4. The F-35 has been tested up to 9.88G
5. Up to 650 parameters use to ID a potential threat. For comparison's sake, the F-22 has a third of that. Talk about Situational Awareness.
A few more things between the lines in that transcript:
- AIM-120 PK is significantly higher than the 50% when fired by the F-35 during simulations
- F-35 consistently wipes the floor with Su-35's in high detail simulation even with expert pilots on the red team
- The 2 missile (1xIR , 1xRadar) combo touted by APA so often does not work as well as APA "guesses" it does due to F-35's signature reduction measures (IR and Radar)
- Confirmation that even though you know F-35's are in the area (low band radar), you can't engage them which is the whole issue when fighting stealth aircraft
- F-35's MADL automatically routes the datalink between aircraft so as to not fire the beam directly at the enemy when connecting to the aircraft up front
You know they're banging their heads against walls over at Aviation Week...begging mommy to make the mean ole' airplane stop. I have never in my life seen such a concerted effort to kill a US military project in my life. We might be seeing the first signs of industrial espionage by a domestic publication, via Information Warfare to favor foreign competitors over our own domestic production base.
I thought you'd like that :-)
ReplyDeletei love it! i've tried to be patient. i tried to come to a kind of peace but they keep pushing. well us little guys can push too.
ReplyDeletestand by cause i'm gonna ramp it up!
Check the tread, the transcripts of LM's testimony have been posted. (hint: better than 6:1 in a 4 Blue vs 8 advanced Red) :)
ReplyDeleteAnd when the usual suspects start yapping about 'simulations' remind them that they are the functional followons to the TAC Avenger simulations that Lt Gen Glenn A Kent recalled:
ReplyDelete"There was one disturbing aspect of TAC Avenger: In simulations
of combat against Soviet-designed fighters, it showed remarkable killratios, generally on the order of 15 to one or more, which some mightthink unrealistic. I cautioned my people not to advertise a kill ratio of more than 15 to one, lest people doubt the validity of the simulator.
But perhaps I was too hasty. The F-15 has never lost a fight in actual combat, due both to the superior characteristics of the aircraft and the high quality of training given to its pilots."
be nice to the people at aviation weekly Sol, you have to be patient with the intellectually less fortunate among us :), hahahaha, sorry politically incorrect but DILLIGAF.
ReplyDeleteOne thing to keep in mind about these "sims" that were talked about in the AU testimony. They were flown using experienced pilots for both Red and Blue, not just a scripted computer SIM.
ReplyDeleteAir Vice Marshal Osley: "What I would like to say is that the simulation that has been done was actually done using highly trained fighter pilots, acting as Red Air, using to the best of their knowledge, the best capability they could to defeat the F35." The still lost at over a 6:1 ratio in a 4 Blue vs 8 Red engagement.
The Osley quote refers to the MITL lab activity where you get the human factor rolled in. They are useful at confirming engineering designs, especially those dealing with human factors (liveware-software-hardware interaction) aspects of the system, but you get a lot more actionable information in the engineer's hands as to system interactions, cause and effects, timing and sequencing and run inumerable 'what ifs' using code to run sometmes innumerable sims (also alluded to). You need both.
ReplyDeleteand that's why i love you guy! you tie all this together and you don't use a million words and confusing verbage to do it.
ReplyDeleteyou already write alot about the F-35 and the "bad" information that many are putting out. i think i'll start linking to alot more of your posts.
we definitely got to get you at the forefront of this discussion.
Thanks, but it is just unfathomable to me how people will snipe at things about which they have ZERO current or substantial knowledge or understanding. You know the type: they see something they don't 'get' and it just can't be because they don't know anything about it -- it just HAS to be because something is 'wrong'!. I've been thinking about posting an expanded post on the more spectacular 'experts' who've ridden their manifest arrogance all the way down into a smoking hole, but maybe I'll hold off a while to add some F-35 haters to the list.
ReplyDelete