It offers no real suprises. It highlights once again, the incompetent thinking of Defence.
Since the F-18 arrived years ago, population has increased around RAAF Williamtown. The F-35 is a noisier aircraft. There is no way around that. Of interest, the U.S. Navy is looking at extra ear protection for their already loud aircraft carriers. That tells you something.
The old saw of "don't live around an air base if you can't handle the noise" does have some truth to it. Why would anyone in their right mind develop and buy a house around an air base?
The other part of that though is that some have built assuming long ago that noise patterns would not expand.
They will expand.
And the ADF was concerned last year:
Air force Chief Air Marshal Geoff Brown last week said he was disappointed with decisions by the Port Stephens Council to allow people to build near one of its busiest bases, where they will be blasted with aircraft noise.
"Homeowners that purchase these new developments are acquiring properties that will be exposed to high levels of aircraft noise ... with ... (the) F-35A in the future."
These set of quotes are interesting.
The draft statement said: "Compared to the flying operations of the F/A-18A/B Hornet aircraft, the introduction of the proposed flying operations of the F-35A aircraft will not result in a change of risk to people, property and the environment in relation to aircraft accident and incidents at all RAAF bases except RAAF Base Williamtown."
In Williamtown, the total flying hours of the F-35A will increase by 43% from those of the F/A-18A/B Hornet.
The public has been asked to submit their comments by 19 September for incorporation into the final EIS.
Let us examine those statements.
The mishap assumptions can be classified as weird. A single engine aircraft that will be flown 43 percent more vs the current twin-engine aircraft. Besides the fact of more noise production due to that increase you have an increase of risk from the F-35 motor that has a history of not working right all the time.
No matter what base it is at (it has to deploy up North).
Hopefully when they dump a jet it will go in the swamp or similar unoccupied areas.
Currently, legacy Hornets put in about 13,000 hours per year give or take, at around $12,000 per flight hour.
The F-35 is about 4-5 times the cost per flight hour of the aircraft it replaces. This may improve or not improve but there is still the issue that the jet is years away from being in a real, operational squadron with complete, tested, go-to-war systems. It will consume a lot more fuel than the aircraft it replaces. This means more fuel storage requirements or transport of fuel requirements.
Australia only has enough domestic fuel on hand for about 30 days.
Because of the U.S. DOD milestone-C procurement issues, the F-35 is still a prototype. All of the current trends of mistakes with the program show this.
43 percent more flying with a jet that is 4-5 times more expensive per flying hour.
The ADF budget, with all of the outrageously expensive and defective toys on program record is being eaten alive by operating costs. This will get worse as more faulty, ships and aircraft find their way to "operational" status.
Do the math. Something has to go or they will have to fly 4 to 5 times less F-35s. Given the mistake-jet syndrome and poor project management that is a distinct possibility if it doesn't end up like the Sea-Sprite. That only cost us $1.5B, for no credible combat capability. A bargain compared to this.
As it stands now, the F-35 is a prime candidate for the DMO project of concern list.
In a few days, the first Australian F-35 will roll out at Fort Worth, Texas. It has no, tested, certified, working, combat systems. It has no known reliability.
If used in the Pacific in a future war, it has a very good chance of getting shot down.
Legacy F-18 Hornet flown by RAAF vs the high-risk and faulty F-35:
---
-Time's Battleland - 5 Part series on F-35 procurement - 2013
-Summary of Air Power Australia F-35 points
-Bill Sweetman, Aviation Week and the F-35
-U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) F-35 reports
-F-35 JSF: Cold War Anachronism Without a Mission
-History of F-35 Production Cuts
-Looking at the three Japan contenders (maneuverability)
-How the Canadian DND misleads the public about the F-35
-Value of STOVL F-35B over-hyped
-Cuckoo in the nest--U.S. DOD DOT&E F-35 report is out
-6 Feb 2012 Letter from SASC to DOD boss Panetta questioning the decision to lift probation on the F-35B STOVL.
-USAFs F-35 procurement plan is not believable
-December 2011 Australia/Canada Brief
-F-35 Key Performance Perimeters (KPP) and Feb 2012 CRS report
-F-35 DOD Select Acquisition Report (SAR) FY2012
-Release of F-35 2012 test report card shows continued waste on a dud program
-Australian Defence answers serious F-35 project concerns with "so what?"
-Land of the Lost (production cut history update March 2013)
-Outgoing LM F-35 program boss admits to flawed weight assumptions (March 2013)
-A look at the F-35 program's astro-turfing
-F-35 and F-16 cost per flying hour
-Is this aircraft worth over $51B of USMC tac-air funding?
-Combat radius and altitude, A model
-F-35A, noise abatement and airfields and the USAF
-Deceptive marketing practice: F-35 blocks
-The concurrency fraud
-The dung beetle's "it's known" lie
-F-35's air-to-air ability limited
-F-35 Blocks--2006 and today
-The F-35B design is leaking fuel
No comments:
Post a Comment