F35 - Lemon?

[notmyC150v2]

Interesting viewpoint being expressed here The ADF's Joint Strike Fighter lemon - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3901418.html) suggesting that the F35 is just a big fat expensive (and late) lemon.

I realise that the article is written by a Liberal Parliamentarian and so political point scoring isn't off the cards, but does anyone here agree/disagree and if so why? I am afraid I am a little isolated from the argument but his points, if true, are rather concerning to say the least.

[baswell]

I am sure that once finished, it will be a very capable aircraft.

The question is whether we need that capability.

Look at the number of aircraft the US is buying. That's only useful if China and Russia decide to gang up on them together. What a monumental waste of resources.

[Jabawocky]

If we had an aircraft carrier and a bunch of the naval flavour it would help.

I think the drum are beating it too hard :ugh:

[TBM-Legend]

If you look at the development cycle of other beyond Gen 4 fighters such as the 4+ Typhoon [aka Eurofighter] it has still not reached its full combat configuration with AESA radar etc. It started life before the F-35. The F-35 comments sound like a re-run of the F-111 comments and early comments on our F/A-18 original purchase. That authoritative show "60 Minutes", sh#t canned the Hornet in their first program. It has gone on to be a modern F-4!

I think the yanks will sort out the F-35..

[Connaught]

looking at the fact there are several nations buying the aircraft for their military needs should speak volumes countries like the UK Australia, Canada, Denmark Italy Japan, etc, surely if it was a lemon it wouldn't be bought by so many

the problem most would have is the price tag at 75-80 mill. but looking at the aircraft it is intending to replace, and the fact is is being marketed as an air force as well as naval aircraft. then the price won't be cheap if it is expected to do all these tasks well

[baswell]

I just can't believe that, all said and done, this will actually have worked out cheaper than simply design a normal stealth F/A machine and a separate "Super Harrier" STOVL project for the marines. (non-stealth, of course.)

Or just drop the whole STOVL idea; even the brits don't like it anymore. The only reason they are buying them again is because they (will) exist and will be cheaper than modifying their carriers.

Having a design constraint by that requirement when only a tiny percentage will use it is madness.

Comes back to "replacement mentality" the article mentioned. Don't do something because it is really better, but because you have always done it that way.

[jas24zzk]

I still shake my head at our politicians (useless plicks!) inability to convince the yankee congress to approve us for F-22 export.....at least we'd be combat capable now.

Heck we should maybe have signed up with the sov's and ordered PAK-FA's :rolleyes:

[baswell]

I still shake my head at our politicians (useless plicks!) inability to convince the yankee congress to approve us for F-22 export.....at least we'd be combat capable now.
The yanks and Canadians are flying Hornets in combat as we speak. Buying the F-22 isn't magically going to make the RAAF combat capable. If they are not considered combat capable with what they've got now, they don't deserve any new toys. A bad tradesman blames his tools, after all...

[aroa]

single engine only. Have a look at the article in Flight Global. Canada is worried about the cost and whether they REALLY do need it.. AND as an s/e over the icy boondocks bigger then europe. And the GAFA and Timor region are just as big. And the range is????
2 donks as in the Super Hornet at least gives an option if one fails.
Japan is also expressing reservations about the costs.. and other countries as well, no doubt.
Sure, technologically speaking it will be very 'whizz-bang' and stealthy etc, but then you hang a cannon pod on it... and there goes yr stealth.
Like Canada Oz did NOT fully look at ALL the options.
Being the "good friend" we just opened the wallet. BIG TIME.
There a many issues that are more deserving of the big bucks in Oz than just shovelling billions overseas.
Do we really need 100? Can we afford it?
And just as we are entering the age of remote surveillance and pilotless a/c.

[Flyingblind]

Gents, after warming up the crystal ball I foresee the following:
Top up order of 24 Supers to replace timed out classics,
Dedicated Sqn of Growlers,
12 -14 F35's as per original order to keep Uncle Sam happy and provide a 5th Gen training platform, this would enable the RAAF to transition to eventually morph into an Air Force that operates a force of L/O manned platforms and complementary UAS's.

[jas24zzk]

Quote:
I still shake my head at our politicians (useless plicks!) inability to convince the yankee congress to approve us for F-22 export.....at least we'd be combat capable now.
The yanks and Canadians are flying Hornets in combat as we speak. Buying the F-22 isn't magically going to make the RAAF combat capable. If they are not considered combat capable with what they've got now, they don't deserve any new toys. A bad tradesman blames his tools, after all...

Sorry, was a lil short in explaining my thoughts. The combat capability comment, was only comparing aquisition of the F-22 (or maybe something else) Vs the F-35. Heck we'd even have a whole lot more of them....or more money to spend in other area's for the same unit number.

---------------------------------------
The article mentions an interesting point.
Speed. The author comments on how the JSF is slower than a hornet, and I quote.
The JSF will mark the first time in Australia's air combat history that a fighter jet replacing an older one will have inferior aerodynamic capability.

This is incorrect, as the F/A-18 is some 400kmh slower than the Mirage III-EO it replaced
--------------------------------------

Aroa, I recall in the early 80's when the Mirage replacement process began, Aircraft like the F-16 were ruled out, under the 'never a single engine again' theory. Full circle we have come..

Cheers
Jas

[alidad]

Maybe we should buy the Chinese J-20....afterall it is an updated version of the F 35.........,,:E

[ramble on]

The comment about the Mirage v F/A-18 being an aerodynamic step backwards was not particularly well thought out.

The Mirage maximum speeds were limited to speeds similar to those of the F/A-18 when it had even the smallest of practical usable external loads. The Mirage needed a Rutowski climb profile to get to Mach 2 and didnt have much fuel left to do anything when it got there.


Thread drift - I was just watching an old recently rediscovered 1991-92 Four Corners program about a spate of RAAF crashes in the early 90s - the 707 off ESL and the Tindal F/A-18 accident.

In the period since the program - 20 years, how many classics have returned on a single engine?

I dont want to put a hex on the Hornet guys, but its been a pretty unprecedented period of operation since the loss of the last Hornet - in comparison with any air force, anytime in history.

What has made the difference? What are they doing that is better than previously? Is it just technological advancements that have made this possible - similar to civilian TCAS?

Anyway, well done to those men and women of the RAAF - may you all keep it up!!

And would love to hear from the guys who are lucky enough to be able to share unclassified stories about similarities and differences of operating the classic v. the rhino.

[Dogimed]

Lemon? ..Dont think so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE

[FlareHighLandLong]

A bad tradesman blames his tools, after all...

Are you kidding me? On a modern fighter the pilot is the tool. The capability of the aircraft systems, and how they plug in is of FAR greater significance than the guy pressing buttons. E.g. if the other guy has a better RADAR, finds you first, and gets a missile off the rails before you even know he's in the vicinity - you're going to lose.

Of course the driver needs to be competent to a minimum standard, but this is why getting a networked setup with AWACS and the whole box and dice is so important. Give it a year or two and the Supers will be eating the classics for breakfast, simply because of the technological difference.

The knucks would have a fit if they went to war games every year and their bums kicked by monkeys in F-35s.

[notmyC150v2]

That does look brilliant, but can they still do all of that with a full load of kit and a useful range?

As far as I know there wasn't any thought of putting these on the amphibious helicopter hangers we are buying either so what is the point for us of having the capability?

I hope the nay sayers are proved wrong (as they were with the Pig) but it is looking more and more like a very expensive boondogle.

[baswell]

Are you kidding me? On a modern fighter the pilot is the tool.
I am not talking about the pilots, I am talking about the RAAF. Big difference.

Seriously though, what is the reason that since 1991, the fighters have not been deployed and the choice has been made to rely on other air forces to provide ground support to our troops? Australia was a bug supporter of the libya no fly zone, but didn't take part in it. Why is that?

[flyinkiwi]

From the outside looking in, I ponder whether or not the US has overreached on this project, and on the way managed to suck in a number of their allies a number of whom are expressing or have already expressed doubts about their involvement. It came as a shock to me when Australia announced that they were jumping on the JSF bandwagon. I would have thought with the ever tightening defense budget that they would have opted for a more safer route of buying off the shelf twin engined Gen 4.5 designs (F/A-18E/F, F-15SE, Rafale, Eurofighter) and packed in the latest avionics and weapons systems.

Is Australia likely to be the aggressor in a future conflict? If not, then why does the RAAF need stealth?

[baswell]

Is Australia likely to be the aggressor in a future conflict? If not, then why does the RAAF need stealth?
I guess if there is an invader, it would be good to be able to engage the attack aircraft they send without being detected. And should they manage to land, it would be nice to be able to engage ground targets without their fighters taking ours out.

That said: the whole notion of Australia being invaded by anyone is just laughable. The only ones that would be able to pull it off are not going to be deterred by a hundred F-35s.

I reckon we save the money (and that for the subs) and build ourselves a nice fibre optic broadband network instead! :ok:

[Andy_RR]

I wonder whether these expensive things will ever be worthwhile. As with anything, operational experience beats a theoretical edge and if you can't afford to give your staff the training and experience because the machines are too damned expensive to risk and/or run, then any theoretical advantage they may once have had is easily lost.

Cheap and cheerful with plenty of time in the saddle is my recipe, else go completely unmanned and lose the need to drag around all those heavy life support systems... (like two engines!)

[ozbiggles]

Baswell
Even someone with the bare minimum of knowledge knows that RAAF fighters have deployed in operations since 1991.
If you don't know that basic fact.....well I leave it to others to judge.

[baswell]

Even someone with the bare minimum of knowledge knows that RAAF fighters have deployed in operations since 1991.
Apologies for being misinformed. They also spent 3 months in the Gulf in 2003.

Oh, and defended Diego Garcia from Taliban air attack. :rolleyes:

So why not go wherever Australian troops go?

[ozbiggles]

Are you saying there were no Aussie troops in the MEAO in 2003?
It is not well known just what the Aussie Hornets did in the MEAO in their time there. One day when you find out I think you will be a little embarrassed by your regard for the fighter force contribution. The deployment to Diego was good fodder for a couple of years but they earned their keep in 02/03.
You might also want to consider what may have been prepared to put into play in East Timor if things had gone bad there too. Just because there was no fighters in East Timor doesn't mean they were not primed and ready to strike if required.
In regards to the F35 every fighter development program has had its issues. In fact I think we are probably looking at the last of the manned fighters. Having said that if you don't have the F35 then you are not in the game. The next 20-30 years of air warfare will revolve around 'network centric' concepts and the F22 and F35 are the main players. If you want to have a 2nd tier airforce again then buy something from Europe.
In terms of national defence for what ever may come it is better to be over insured rather than watching enemy bombers pound your country and sending young men in Wirraways to die because you didn't think it was necessary to invest in defence.

[baswell]

ozbiggles, there is no need for personal attacks. I am not the one calling the RAAF fighters not "combat ready", that's something the media has been doing for years. I am merely responding to that.

My questions are:
1) is this true? and if so:
2) why is this? and
3) is an expensive new fighter going to magically fix this?

Of course their absence in the places where Aussie troops have been operating for the past decade lends credibility to the argument.

We have Orions and transports pretty much permanently deployed, showing pollies nor the RAAF are shying away from deploying those assets.

If other nations that have troops in afghanistan are sending their fighters, why not Australia? The experience would be priceless.

[eocvictim]

Forgive my ignorance but I was under the impression that we weren't receiving the STOVL machines. Which begs the question, why buy them at all if being a supersonic STOLV is its party trick?

[Andy_RR]

I see now! The Australian taxpayer is funding our fighter squadrons to drop bombs, shoot things down, cause destruction and generally defend Australian shores from invasion by the Afghan and Middle Eastern hordes...

Did someone say stop the boats? :}

[jas24zzk]

Q. Is there a country involved in the JSF program, that is not part of the manufacturing process?
The reason behind my question, is that IIRC, the media made much hype about the number of australian businesses involved, and the technology access the whole project provided onshore to us.

[ozbiggles]

I'll bite
Which media reports say that the fighter force is not combat ready?

Edit - In regards to the source from the first post on this thread. ask yourself if this guy was complaining about the F35 when his party selected it as the replacement. By his own admission he doesn't know what the F35 is capable of and takes a demeaning attitude to the the experts he is asking the questions of.

[jas24zzk]

I don't think the reference, certainly not mine, related to the current force. More to how long it would take before the JSF's became fully operational.

[Turkeyslapper]

That said: the whole notion of Australia being invaded by anyone is just laughable. The only ones that would be able to pull it off are not going to be deterred by a hundred F-35s


With the costs of this program spiralling upward, how many of these aircraft will we actually be able to afford....one hundred????? Or, are we likely to end up with a permanent force of more SH and less JSF?

[TBM-Legend]

Big Julie will need to double the carbon tax to pay for this:

Pentagon: Trillion-Dollar Jet on Brink of Budgetary Disaster | Danger Room | Wired.com (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/f35-budget-disaster/)

[SgtBundy]

My non-expert view is we are only buying capability simply to remain "compatible" with the USAF and NATO and other users of the F-35 with the networked battlefield concept. That is about the only good thing of this aircraft seeing as we are not getting STOVL and will have crippled stealth. The platform itself has low range for our needs, low weapons loads, the single engine aspect as above, it's expensive, not on time and most likely will be outperformed by current 4th gen aircraft.

On top of that any credible threat will be going the cheap and plentiful route (quantity has a quality of its own). I read of some pacific war simulation that focused on logistics, and showed the US would run out of AA missiles faster then they could realistically down Chinese aircraft, and then would still be vastly outnumbered. How much money do you throw after a better aircraft when dozens of good enough will prevail anyway?

The Rhinos for the most part at least keep us in step with other forces and at a price that is far more in line with our realistic needs. IMHO we need a core multirole force like the Rhinos, but we can augment it far more efficiently with cheap semi-disposable unmanned capability, especially with our coastline and distances. I really don't see what the F-35s give us other than maintaining our girl by the phone relationship with the US.

[aroa]

but.. I have the feeling Ive seen an aeroplane do all that before... like 40 years ago. Hawker 1127 Kestrel... forerunner of the highly succesful Harrier, Sea Harrier and AV-8.
Many billions spent re-inventing the wheel.?? Not being the version we're getting/ will get/ maybe get..eventually.

Todays announcement of 3 x F35 @ $80 mil plus equals 10 more years of the the Trabant, sorry, Holden factory to go.
Perhaps we can stem any invasion by giving them all a taxpayer funded car. Or bomb them with the older models that havent sold.

Seriously...it does look like a very nice aeroplane, and I'm sure it will be all "singing and dancing" techo as per the brochure ...BUT read the fine print, the legal disclaimers.. AND ponder the FINAL COST...if ever we are allowed to know what THAT is.!
Remember, could be coming to you soon by the authors of the Sea Sprite fiasco @1.5 bill$s for nothing !!!!. :mad::mad: An encore ???

US defence industries are like Big Pharma...HUGELY profitable.
To share the load.....tax payers in China 1 billion plus, USof A 300 mill...and little old Oz 20 mill or less..? No contest.
I'm for talking with India who want to build 200 + PAK-TF 50s under licence.
Looks even better, and more capable than the F35 too Be cheaper!:ok:

[TBM-Legend]

Following the US Navy model, meaning Hornet, Super Hornet and the F-35 [A model for us] should work. Another two dozen Super Hornets and by then the F-35 might be a goer to provide the next element..

The concept that has plagued us in many recent purchases [MRH-90] is the one cap fits all approach which is supposed to save money/resources. That is totally flawed as has been shown with this helicopter. Finally Navy bought the helo that they need [MH-60R]. Now if only they had a fleet of Sierras to go with them they would be in good shape. Army could deploy their MRH-90's as required on the big boats for troop lift etc,,,,

[Sunfish]

One of the reasons I left what is now called the Army Reserve many many years ago was the absolute inability of Defence to offer any form of Naval or Air support for us poor grunts.

Oh the Government said they had the gear all right - it was paraded to journalists frequently.

Take the Stinger missile for instance - designed to be carried and used by the average infantryman. But not in Australia! We had stocks - assigned to some sort of air defence unit which we knew would be deployed in a tight ring around Canberra if TSHTF.

Same with almost every other bit of kit - for example anti tank missiles. "No, you can't have some! But in the event of a conflict we will get supplies from America very quickly!" Yeah, sure.

The only people who took close air support seriously was the Fleet Air Arm with their little Skyhawks and look what happened to them. Close air support with a Mirage? you have to be joking!

When I talked to a certain person intimately involved in the Navy a few years ago about its CIWS capability and the lack of Phalanx systems on some ships, I was introduced to the term "Fitted for, but not with". Same as me in the infantry years ago.

When the Airforce got their Chinooks years ago, I remember one of the Airships saying to another: "Now we can move our tarmac vehicles from base to base" - no mention of the Army support role at all.

I was a guest on the HMAS ANZAC a few years ago and discovered that:

(a) It had a list of defects a mile long.

(b) It was decertified for helicopter operations because of perished rubber deck seals.

Then of course there was the HMAS Westralia fire - any competent mariner engineer could have told you that flexible injector lines were a disaster waiting to happen. The Sulzer original parts are double walled Steel, The outer casing has a pressure gauge attached so you know when the inner pipe has cracked, and you still have a working engine. So much for naval engineering.


So much for our "defence" forces today. The current staff are just sacrificial lambs, just like they were in 1939.

The F35? Fits in well with the "Koala" mentality. Jealosly protected and never outside Australia. People will make a career out of it and retire long before we ever see one. Civil servants and officers will gorge themselves on overseas postings, conferences and visits to America to "supervise" our acquisition. Some time around 2030, one will appear at an airshow for us to marvel at.

The press will get to video one dropping a teeny little bomb at Woomera. We will then announce a program to modify the aircraft for "Australian conditions" which will take a further twenty years.

Why the heck we don't buy a reasonably mature airframe with proven capabilities in quantity I don't know.

...Well actually I do know. It was explained to me that even if Indonesia has 500 aircraft and we have only Fifty we will still win because one Australian pilot will kill Four Indonesian aircraft a day. The the Indonesian aircraft will become unserviceable while we can fix ours, so that by day Four we will still have 35 aircraft but Indonesia will only have Three still flying so we have won... or that is what the civil servants say... my brain hurts. All I can think of is all those useless oxygen thieves poncing around the Russell Offices.

[aroa]

Another article on Flight global re the F35.
Talk already of a 6th generation F 18 Super-Dooper Hornet F-XX whatever.
Should we save our bucks to carry on with the Rhinos and Growlers and its upcoming brother?

[jas24zzk]

Aroa,
that smacks of the F-15 silent eagle program.
Its a bit of a take on the F-15E Strike eagle with its conformal tanks, but the SE does it in such a more sexy way...

[Cessna Master Beta]

Why not just buy Russian airframes? Which we will get on time and budget then outfit with western avionics and weapons .

They too have a 5th generation fighter I saw at MAKS airshow this year. Still in development .

[DBTW]

Why not just buy Russian airframes?

How quickly we all forget the Russians lost the Cold War because their kit was over-rated and didn't come up to western standards in battle...where it counts. And they have had less money since then. Their kit is cheap and cheerful, and that is most probably because they find it hard to sell.

Other than the F35, are there actually any other Gen 5 fast jets in production? Th F35 will be fine...in all models...and they will be bought in such large numbers that people here will be embarrassed they ever thought otherwise.

[baswell]

If what makes a plane "Generation 5" being the computer(s)
It's not, it's the stealth bit that makes it 5th gen, you can have all the computers and data links in 4th gen too; they have it now!

So I don't know how the JSF system is supposed to be better and obviously, for it to work, other aircraft need to be equipped too.

The main use for it obviously is that is allows any (not just stealth) fighters to keep their radars off and not present a huge target while still seeing the enemy on their screens, courtesy of an AWACS broadcasting this to them.

Now all we need is a boutique war for it to shine.
How about no war at all, that would be even better!

[notmyC150v2]

Now all we need is a boutique war for it to shine.

I thought the general idea was to have these as a deterrent against such a possibility as in "if you pick on us we have a nasty sting"...

[Andy_RR]

How quickly we all forget the Russians lost the Cold War because their kit was over-rated and didn't come up to western standards in battle...where it counts.

I didn't realise that the cold war was a shooting war, except for perhaps in Afghanistan, where the West's brilliant technological edge is winning the hearts and minds of the Taliban...

:ugh:

[flyinkiwi]

Impressive looking as the JSF is its novel flight capabilities remind me a lot of the Russian Yak variants which exhibit very similar features (directional nozzle, ducted fan with trap doors, etc) somewhat 10-15 years earlier. Just a little too boutique for me. Now there's a suitable label for this thing - Boutique Fighter Plane. Now all we need is a boutique war for it to shine.

Wikipedia the font of all knowledge :} said that Lockheed bought all of the VTOL performance and research data Yakovlev had and used it when designing the X-35. So there is a connection of sorts.

[aroa]

Reckon we got propogandised re Ruski stuff during the cold war.
poorly made, cheap junk etc... But easy to repair ? and rugged for the conditions in the east.
That the wall fell, glasnost and all that, gave the west a bit of a let off, if it had ever come to a real stoush.imho.
Remember WW2...the Russians did most of the fighting and quickly put aircraft on a par and better than the schmick Kraut stuff.
Nowdays the diff between "east and "west" is fading, techo speaking.

[DBTW]

In answer to Andy_RR
I didn't realise that the cold war was a shooting war, except for perhaps in Afghanistan, where the West's brilliant technological edge is winning the hearts and minds of the Taliban...

DBTW already wrote
How quickly we all forget
Good one Andy_RR! You are clearly one who has forgotten:ugh:

There was plenty of shooting/fighting where Russian equipment went up against western equipment during the Cold War. Indeed, there was not a year throughout the period recognised as the Cold War where there was not actually such a shooting/fighting war going on somewhere...as everybody knows:ok:

[Cessna Master Beta]

There was plenty of shooting/fighting where Russian equipment went up against western equipment during the Cold War. Indeed, there was not a year throughout the period recognised as the Cold War where there was not actually such a shooting/fighting war going on somewhere...as everybody knowshttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
I can think of one skirmish. The Vietnam war and the Laos Secret war . But that was won with russian equipment and little air support to boot .

As I said in a previous post on this thread I visited the Moscow air show last year. Russia seems determined to be a major exporter of arms and aviation is leading the way. After watching an aerobatics display (not flyby) by a Sukhoi jet I spoke to a F16 driver (The USAF had a display of F16's , Warthogs and Galaxys). I asked who would win in a fight . His reply was 'They are definitely move maneuverable but we like to think that our weapons are better'.

Personally I think it comes down to how determined the defending force is . In the Iraq war the airforce didn't even want to get off the ground. If an aggressor attacked Russia it would resist down to the last child . Go to any military museum and there are groups of young men being shown around .Weapons are explained in detail with the guys listening to every word. National pride is high and heros are still valued.

The reason why I said russian airframes is that any foe we are likely to face will be using russian tech anyway. We aren't facing off against F35's or Hornets as they already our allies. We could afford a larger airforce and have the advantage of US avionics. Russian equipment is normally cheaper and hardy . Think of the AK47, easy to produce and cheap but brilliant in the field .

Of course this will never happen. As we are allies of the US it would be a slap in the face to buy elsewhere.

Further off field I cant see the US letting their drone be captured in Iran for no reason . They would know China and Russia would be all over it. Reminds me of Operation Mincemeat and the D day landings.... maybe they intended for it to be captured.

My two pence

[DBTW]

Good conversation to be had, Cessna Masta Beta. Whilst I have a sturdily built Russian aeroplane, and I love it, it is (as you say) very basic. The Russians are extremely good at "basic". Having said that, I do not agree they are always top notch. One of the clearest examples of this is the number of air forces equipped with modern Russian kit who never get to fly because of the lack of serviceability. This was certainly the case in the '90s when we trained with some former Eastern Bloc air forces, and it appears to hold true today if you watch the flying rates of some of the near north neighbours. Nice capability on paper is worthless if it is stuck in the hangar on the day.

Further, for some time the Russians have been doing great air shows, but little of what is demonstrated translates into military capability, although the sense of national pride and the willingness of the young you describe is an extremely important factor well worth watching.

Your comment is noted.
The Vietnam war and the Laos Secret war . But that was won with russian equipment and little air support to boot .
Not sure the USAF/USN/USMC/RAAF/RAN (and any other associated allies) would agree with that. In fact I am certain they would say politics and lack of will/commitment lost the war rather than inferior military capability. (Much the same as what is happening in Afghanistan today?)

[jas24zzk]

I agree,
afghanistan, iraq will be lost for the same reasons Vietnam was....political shackles.
Tho we do seem to be winning on the iraqi front. Years of oppression compared to what they have now, they don't seem as keen to suicide bomb the people trying to help them...maybe they looked at what happened with Japan at the end of ww2

[Andy_RR]

In answer to Andy_RR

Good one Andy_RR! You are clearly one who has forgotten:ugh:

There was plenty of shooting/fighting where Russian equipment went up against western equipment during the Cold War.

I guess it's a matter of perspective.

I consider the Korean and Vietnam wars to be more wars of American imperialism than actual Cold War fronts. All I see in the history books is US forces machinery flying around shooting at local stuff. I don't recall Ivan flying about with his red star shooting at things, but maybe I'm wrong here.

Anyway, if the Cold War is over, but the Korean War is still not (it's only a ceasefire), I guess that eliminates it officially from the Cold War fronts as well.

Back to the question, you might have seen a few Korean-flown MiG 15's against Chuck and Abe in their Sabres, but roll the clock forward half a century. Can you spot a conflict where well-trained pilots in modern Russian machinery has been vanquished by Uncle Sam's toys?

edit- OK, so I have done a little bit of Wikipedia research (don't laugh) and it appears to me that the Russians and the Americans were shooting at each other in Korea, at least in an unofficial capacity. However, it doesn't seem to me like the MiG's, nor the Russian pilots gave a bad account of themselves...

[Gnadenburg]

Much of the Russian equipment vanquished in various air battles was export quality. For example, the export MIG 23 had a downgraded radar system and electronic counter measures. I'd guess Fulcrum/Flanker similar.

Yes, some of you need to do your homework.

I have flown with many ex-Mig drivers. They are scathing of Russian tactical doctrine and the initial training they received. One Egyptian said they were all quite happy when condescending Russian instructor pilots were ambushed by the Israelis.

The Arab-Israeli wars are a good look at how Western military technology was used to convincingly dismantle the Soviet military structures and tactics. The end game being 1982 Bekaa Valley

Ambush Over the Desert Israel AF VS Soviet AF (http://www.zahal.org/groups/ambush)

[bigbrother]

Interesting discussion, may I add some thoughts here. Could it be that the various White papers have failed to adress the issue of supportable air defence. I'm not talking about Tankers or such, but bases. We have a very limited number of suitable launch platforms (land or sea) from which to deploy our air defences. The aircraft we seem to be purchasing require long, well developed air bases with enourmous logistical support functions to make it all possible. These bases in turn require enourmous defence and support just to keep a place to land. In a land such as we have, under any serious attack, our launch platforms would be taken out in a matter of let say, 1 hour. Now, fancy hig performance jets are not much use if you don't have somewhere to launch them from. Might I suggest we have missed out here. What we really need is a two fold approach and flexible launch platforms. Long Range strike aircraft to operate from say Southern bases, with tankering to provide a full strike response to any 'threat' that might develop via sea. That is to say a conventional Carrier projection of force into the region. This presumes the threat comes from the North of course, and any battle study will show many have been won by the elemnt of surprise, so we should not discount such a threat coming in from the South. That said.


I suggest that any serious analyst should put forward vertical take-off aircraft capability, with highly mobile defence support networks for spares, armament, crew etc.... These could operate from the vast interior of Australia, undected and without the limitation of having to defend a major airbase set up. Yes you might take out individual elements, but the network of fighters/ground attack aircraft would continue to deploy and be able to harrass any enemy in a gurilla style war. Very difficult to hit an enemy which keeps moving. These aircraft could take off from roads, hard stands etc... or even very short runways (roads hardened to take aircraft weights) such as done in many euro countries. Hmmm is there a lesson there for us/???

This two fold air defence network would ensure that a significant layered defence were in place. Whilst stores such as Amunition, spares etc... could be housed in underground storage facilities through the interior, Fuel would be trucked, flown (Chinook and C130), via a much less tangible network of roads and rail more difficult to interupt. As long as you can place an air defence of any discription 'up', the enemy will resist puting ground troups on the ground to be decimated.

Just a view I hope will generate further polite discussion.

cheers

[Andy_RR]

I'd say the best form of defense for Australia is to be a peaceable, useful and worthwhile neighbour (with a 'u') with a good culture of trade and fairness so our fellow nations in the region have more to lose than to gain by being aggressive.

Our expansive and inhospitable northern inland as well as the distance from everyone else is a good defence system, although of course augmenting it might be a wise thing

On the other hand, being a one-eyed supporter of debt-financed US imperialism is always going to be more expensive and a greater threat to the nation's wellbeing.

[TBM-Legend]

Andy RR:

We tried your method prior to WW2. "Pig Iron" Bob Menzies tried the appeasement path and this is seen by the hordes as a sign of weakness.

If you look at the so-called neutral countries like Switzerland and Sweden they have very significant forces to defend their territory and to make it too costly for any "neighbour" to try them on.

[Andy_RR]

TBM, I don't recall using the word appeasement or any word like it.

I also note the two examples you give have fairly advanced indigenous aerospace design and manufacturing capability. I guess we could sling a few sidewinders under the wing of a GA10 though, if the Indians will let us...

[bigbrother]

to quote Monty Python, "lets not argue about who killed who", this is a thread discussing the F35 and its suitablility as our next strike/fighter, is it not?

[nomorecatering]

I used to fly with a guy who was a ukranian immigrant, who was in the Ukrain Airforce for many years and had 1500hrs on the Mig 29. We had many a discussion of Soviet bloc flighters.

He said that the equipment was fundamentally sound, quite simple and robust, the high unservicability rate due to support services in disaray.

Now what we really need is the F-15SE as our air defence fighter, F-15E for attack role, modernised with the network centric avionics of the F-22/35. Stealth, in this day of assymetric warfare. They use the mk 1 eyeball and a truck bomb so who need stealth these days. The days of NATO v Eastern Bloc are long gone.

Now for the big stick, a squadron of the B1R lancer that has been mooted by Boeing for some time. Huge payload, true intercontinental reach and presence. Its like the big ol double barrel shotgun that sat on the rear window rack of the ute, that was never used in anger but was there for all to see.

It does seem that the F-35 has been more for the defence industry in the US than an actual fighting machine. The gravy train that is following it in the US alone is simply staggering. Billions and Billions of $ for a highly sophisticated (on paper) weapons platform thats invisible to radar. yet the potential enemy uses nothing more sophisticated than a backpack full of TNT and nails.

[TBM-Legend]

Interesting stuff. Remember the USAF are not fielding the F-35 as their only system but rather as part of a system...F-22/F-35 and for years to come F-16/F-15 types. The USN will field F/A-18E/F and F-35C. UCAV to come to both services.

Countries like Australia are stuck with small numbers of aircraft and cannot afford a Hi-Lo mix..

[Andy_RR]

Countries like Australia are stuck with small numbers of aircraft and cannot afford a Hi-Lo mix..

Truth is, neither can America. Have you seen the size of their budget deficit?

If the White House hacked the entire direct defence budget - which is huge, you'd have to agree! - to zero, they'd still have a structural deficit. It makes old Wayne's huffing and puffing about a budget surplus next year amount to a walk in the park!

I wonder if the Yanks have enough cash (credit...?) to finish the job...

[Pass-A-Frozzo]

it's the stealth bit that makes it 5th gen, you can have all the computers and data links in 4th gen too; they have it now!

So I don't know how the JSF system is supposed to be better and obviously,

So to summarize.. you have no :mad: idea what you are talking about.. If you think the stealth bit is the 5th generation bit, then you don't have a clue about the capability.

:ugh:

Technical superiority is a must. It's not 1939 where you can ask the local Holden factory to crank out a few fighters for you. :suspect:

It makes old Wayne's huffing and puffing about a budget surplus next year amount to a walk in the park!The only way Wayne will get a 'technical surplus' is by bringing forward a bunch of spending prior to Jun 30.. screwing contractors and telling them no payments until post 30 Jun 2013. ahh.. a Clayton's Surplus at the expense of everyone else.. Oh! I almost forgot.. he'll tax the :mad: out of anyone he thinks he'll not cop a backlash over.

[Gnadenburg]

The greatest concern in the whole fighter/bomber saga, has been a number of public about faces by RAAF leadership and the courageous decision of a former Defense Minister to bridge the air combat gap with a Super Hornet purchase.

The RAAF publicly pushed the necessity of a 100 JSF fighter fleet to meet Australia's air combat needs. Yet, they were prepared to gamble on the JSF and rely on a fleet of old F111's and legacy Hornets until JSF arrived in numbers. This gamble would have seen Australia languishing with less than half of that "100 aircraft required fleet" by 2017 onwards.

It does make me wonder, if Sunfish was on the money, alluding to defense leaders more interested in finishing their careers in highly paid civilian consultancy positions, with contractors they supported whilst in uniform.

The two scenarios I'd consider in the re-equipment of the RAAF strike and fighter force are-

1) Can the RAAF comfortably defeat an Asian 4th generation threat within the next 10 years?

2) How well will the RAAF slot into a US air campaign?

In meeting the above, the Super Hornet/Growler/Legacy Hornet coupled with advanced stand-off weapons and Wedgetail should be sufficient. Which points toward an extra Super Hornet purchase.

Down the track, this will lend toward a hi-lo mix of Super Hornets/Growlers and a reduced JSF purchase. Which should make up the numbers for a RAAF 100 aircraft fighter fleet.

Moving beyond the 10-15 year mark, and how successful will a JSF and Growler combo be in defeating a local foe and slotting in with American air forces? Pretty good I'd suggest. And the Super Hornet fleet would be looking at replacement with an expected array of unmanned options.

[Trojan1981]

Not sure the USAF/USN/USMC/RAAF/RAN (and any other associated allies) would agree with that. In fact I am certain they would say politics and lack of will/commitment lost the war rather than inferior military capability. (Much the same as what is happening in Afghanistan today?)

DBTW,

While I agree with your assertions that the F-35 will be The best available fighter in production, and the best fit for the RAAF, I don't entirely agree with the above.

During my RMC edgo phase I studied two major land conflicts, one in Korea and the other in Laos. It was only study of course and I am not old enough to remember either conflict but one thing that stood out was the fact that enemy forces with only basic equipment, local knowledge, numbers and determination almost always prevailed. In Laos, even during the largest bombing campaign of the conflict; when B-52s and fast air were smashing advancing forces 24 hours a day, Invading Chinese were still able to construct five kilometers of road a day! Political will eventually evaporated of course, but the war was being lost anyway. What is victory in Afghanistan? Turning around 500+ years of conflict and imposing western ideals? We never had a chance and today's announcement was not really a surprise.

I hope we get a fighter that is good enough to scare our neighbours, as well as being flexible enough to actually deploy in credible numbers to support the rest of the ADF. With the Rhino we're halfway there. Now we just need to be able to move them to the fight. :ok:

[Jabawocky]

With the Rhino we're halfway there. Now we just need to be able to move them to the fight. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

WOT? You mean have a proper Navy and aircraft carriers and the like???

How about F35's that work from boats?:rolleyes: No we never think like that here! :ugh:

DBTW seems to be one of the few who has half an idea how to equip and run a war...........our government does not. :hmm:

[DBTW]

NB: conventional carriers are really expensive to operate, and regardless of what is written elsewhere, there are very few countries in the world rich enough to have them.

In my view the Rhinos could be used to augment a USN CAG. The problem you will find is with the RAAF. Air Force pilots can be quite alarmed (shall we say "scared"?) by moving airfields/decks, and the techniques needed to operate from them, so I am not sure our best are good enough.;) Should they manage to pluck up the courage and do the hard yards to become Carrier Qualified, then that would still mean our force projection capability was available only on the basis the Americans were with us.

I have said elsewhere that I believe the F35 is the future. It will prove to be a brilliant aeroplane with many thousands seeing service across the globe. It reminds me of the day we brought my small squadron of 7 aircraft to the fray over Kosovo. There were never fewer than 200 combat aircraft over hostile territory 24 hours a day for 6 weeks, and that was because 600 F16s (along with many hundreds of other types, including several hundred tankers) had been deployed by the USAF and NATO allies. These F16s were over and above the normal reserves back in the USA and Europe, and the several hundred deployed on operations over Iraq at the same time. The point being that there are thousands of F16s now, and there will be something like twice as many F35s in due course. Worries about cost and performance will all be overcome, and the aeroplanes will be everyones' favourite in its day. Suggestions that the F35 is a lemon sound like the bitter ramblings of a tired old guard who are not yet ready to hand over the baton to the new frontline team.

In the Australian context, I find it incredibly interesting that the Navy is being supplied with aircraft carriers, and we seem to be coming up with strange names and weird excuses as to why they shouldn't be equipped with aircraft. There is nothing surer than the fact that, despite its great range and weapon load, no F35A will ever operate offensively or defensively in support of these large aircraft capable warships because they simply won't be able to be where the ships are. The F35B will be able to operate from these ships, and its weapon load and range will be infinitely superior to the F35A in that scenario. IE: the ships will be capable of operating "blue water" and that is the intent of their acquisition. I say again, the F35A will not be able to operate wherever the ships go, therefore buying just the F35A will be consigning Australian troops and sailors to battle without air cover!

F35C advocates must remember Bob Hawk decided conventional carriers were too expensive close to 30 years ago. Since then, consecutive governments of both persuasions clearly believe STOVL operations are not too expensive because they have already bought the ships. A mix of F35As and Bs is not going to be much more expensive than a full fleet of F35As, and despite the growing list of myths and old wives tales, STOVL is the future for embarked operations. Real aeroplanes must not depend on ship machinery for launching and recovering because if that machinery fails the dependant aeroplanes are expensive scrap (who cares how much extra range/payload it could have carried if only the launch system hadn't failed...)

[Trojan1981]

[/QUOTE] In the Australian context, I find it incredibly interesting that the Navy is being supplied with aircraft carriers, and we seem to be coming up with strange names and weird excuses as to why they shouldn't be equipped with aircraft. There is nothing surer than the fact that, despite its great range and weapon load, no F35A will ever operate offensively or defensively in support of these large aircraft capable warships because they simply won't be able to be where the ships are. The F35B will be able to operate from these ships, and its weapon load and range will be infinitely superior to the F35A in that scenario. IE: the ships will be capable of operating "blue water" and that is the intent of their acquisition. I say again, the F35A will not be able to operate wherever the ships go, therefore buying just the F35A will be consigning Australian troops and sailors to battle without air cover![/QUOTE]

Hit the nail on the head! We will not have a true expeditionary capability without organic FW air support. What we will have is a deployed force vulnerable to air attack, and soldiers with no CAIRS. The only way to turn our 'humanitarian carriers' into proper warships and the nucleolus of independent task groups is to purchase and embark appropriate numbers of F-35B. This would also make the RAAF fighter force operationally relevant again.

[pull-up-terrain]

F-35B Ship Suitability Testing - YouTube

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Wow! How much performance disadvantage comes from that fan door being open during launch. Vectored thrust or not, that thing is one HUGE air brake!

[jas24zzk]

Oz,
was thinking the same.... then noticed it's angle.

concluded its the auto-rotate device :rolleyes:

[pull-up-terrain]

I could only imgaine what would happen if those fan doors failed to open. That plane aint going to be landing on the carrier...

[flyinkiwi]

I could only imgaine what would happen if those fan doors failed to open. That plane aint going to be landing on the carrier...

Explosive jettison maybe?

[DBTW]

I imagine there will be several critical "no go" items in terms of serviceability, and a fully operating lift fan is certainly going to be one of them.

A couple of points to remember about that.

The F22 ceased production for several reasons. One of them was certainly associated with cost, and another is to do with very poor availability by modern standards. For comparison, the Rhino has huge availability/reliability built in. An old USN mate of mine told me being programmed to fly on a Rhino squadron meant you were going flying, and as any older fast jet mate will tell you that is often not the case. I hear the Rhino bloke will be flying the aeroplane he is programmed to fly when he expects to fly 98 times in 100 walks. By comparison, my understanding is that the F22 mate is more likely to be back in the crew room 40% of the time...2 in 5 walks! That's not good. Even second and third generation fighters are more available than that.

Availability and reliability have been very high up on the priority list throughout the selection process for the JSF. The aim being that the aeroplanes never fail, and this was driven by the difficulties found with the F22. The F18E/F were the first beneficiaries of the new thinking, and to have been down selected from the initial 3 prototype designs, the F35 is the best in that regard as well. Worrying about lift fan door and variable nozzle serviceability on PPruNe may be conversational, but I am convinced there are some very clever design and operator minds working on those little issues right now, and it is unlikely to be a show stopper at this stage.

NB: people worried about the single engine F16 during the development phase, and made self evident statements like, "But if the engine fails the aeroplane will crash!" With that truism in mind, I have never heard an F16 mate complain about his aeroplane. They all seem to rate it very highly, and having one engine doesn't bother them. Everybody knew its triplex fly-by-wire would be a fatal flaw as well. There are well over 4000 F16s out there now...with their dangerous single engine and their flawed triplex fly-by-wire...and the F35 will replace it. You can bet your very last cent the F35 is going to be a worthy replacement.

[Gnadenburg]

Re- F35B for the RAN Carriers.

Inter-service squabbling aside, I feel the argument for the F35B is compelling as long as it is in service with the Americans and the aircraft are operated by the RAAF.

However, the greatest threat to a RAN flotilla is sub-surface. And this needs to be addressed before we look at expensive fighters. Submarines are proliferating throughout Asia and Australia needs to be confident they can meet this threat. The RAN has been a basket case, but it must meet this fundamental requirement if it is to operate regionally. I'm not talking of joint USN ops within the first Chinese island chain, but we may as well tie our boats to the pier if we can't defend against a conventional submarine threat.

The air threat regionally is somewhat less evolved. Yes, that can change quickly. But an Aegis flanked RAN surface group, will be argued as meeting the local air force capabilities- few have stand off missiles. Couple the AEGIS defense with an offensive counter air campaign against an enemy using cruise missiles on the air warfare destroyers and land based RAAF strikes with JSF/Hornets or LRMP with stand-off weapons, and the bean counters have an argument against JSF on carriers.

You would hope, as our carrier ops evolve, with the use of army tactical helicopter in close air support roles, the three services can combine and lobby for a squadron of VTOL JSF's. All three services benefit- RAN gets fighter defence and strike, army gets tactical support and the RAAF gets another squadron of JSF, with a real justification for the 100 aircraft fleet.

[baswell]

Explosive jettison maybe?
How about the currently preferred method of equipment failure making a ship landing impossible: go up to the tanker, get some gas and go to a land base!

Alternatively, if that is not an option either, there is a way to explosively jettison a specific critical part of the system already. One that doesn't worry too much about bits of debris damaging lift components. :)