Posted on 06/25/2006 3:30:20 PM PDT by naturalman1975
THE Defence Department retains full confidence in the $16billion Joint Strike Fighter, saying it is still the best choice for the RAAF's future air combat capability.
The Weekend Australian reported on Saturday that the JSF was beset with software problems and a cockpit display so bad it had to be almost completely redesigned.
The issues were found in risk assessments by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation last year that identified a number of development problems that threatened to undermine the performance of the next-generation fighter.
Defence said in a statement yesterday that "contrary to media reporting that the DSTO assessments showed the JSF program to be flawed, these assessments are a good example of best practice project management to identify risk and to take early steps to reduce or eliminate it".
It said the cockpit display system problem found by DSTO last year had been overcome. As a result of the risk assessments, a DSTO specialist had been posted to the US for full-time monitoring of JSF computing and software development.
DSTO was also buying specialised computer hardware in order for Australia to undertake its own assessments of performance milestones in the new fighter program.
The RAAF plans to buy up to 100 JSFs from 2012 to replace the F-111 strike force and eventually the F/A fighters.
Australia is due to sign a memorandum of understanding on participation in the production-development phase of the project by December, witha further investment of $180million.
A key outstanding issue for Defence and the RAAF remains the level of Australian access to computer source codes vital to maintaining and upgrading the plane.
Defence Minister Brendan Nelson will visit Lockheed Martin, the plane's manufacturer, in Fort Worth, Texas, today before flying to Washington for talks with US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Defence said that in terms of computing and software development, the JSF would be heavily reliant on massive computing power, making it more capable than any other fighter aircraft. Being a partner in the JSF project enabled Defence to assess potential issues first-hand.
"By the time the Australian Government decides whether to acquire the JSF, this aircraft will have been subject to more detailed technical analysis than any other defence project in Australia's history," Defence said.
An Australian parliamentary research report on the JSF, published this month, also questioned the wisdom of purchasing the JSF at a time when options for the maintenance of air superiority were changing rapidly.
It pointed to the upgraded US F-15 and the rapid development of unmanned aerial vehicles as options that could also be examined by defence planners.
I still find it hard to believe, after the experience with the F-16, that all this time and money has been spent on yet another single engined plane.
What experience with the F-16? It has been a very safe fighter with a loss rate not much different than the two engine F-15 and F-18.
Remember, two engine aircraft have twice the exposure to things like engine fires, and for pilot induced accidents engines make no difference.
Air Force studies with the Century series fighters showed that loss rates were near identical for single and twin engine fighters doing the same mission.
The USAF F-16 class A mishap rate is historically 3.88 per 100,000 flight hours. The F-15 rate is 2.54 per 100,000 flight hours. Those numbers might seem close, but the F-16 rate is 59% higher. (source Air Force Safety Center)
I read a paper by a Marine who said claimed accurately that the Harrier engine failure rate was 1.88 and lower than the Hornet. Of course what he failed to come to grips with was that 100% of those 1.88 failures per 100,000 flight hours ended in a lost jet.
The F-16 mission includes air-to-air and air-to-ground tasking, whereas the F-15 (except for the E model) is air-to-air only.
It's when you get close to the ground that bad things happen, like running into it. That is the reason the F-16 has a SLIGHTLY higher rate than the F-15. The multi-mission role exposes it to more hazards than the F-15.
The F-16 is a safe airplane as far as fighters go. The number of engines is not significant. The F-18 has a higher rate, but I would not use that for comparison because carrier operations present additional risk factors not related to the number of engines.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.