F35 - Lemon?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wanna Be Up There...
Age: 53
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Now all we need is a boutique war for it to shine.
Originally Posted by cattletruck
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.
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.
USSR and etc
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In answer to Andy_RR
DBTW already wrote
Good one Andy_RR! You are clearly one who has forgotten
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
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...
How quickly we all forget
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
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Antartica
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?)
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 .
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DBTW
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
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
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...
Last edited by Andy_RR; 29th Mar 2012 at 09:06.
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: a Galaxy far far away
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: a Galaxy far far away
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
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.
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..
Countries like Australia are stuck with small numbers of aircraft and cannot afford a Hi-Lo mix..
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...
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Owen Stanley's "Real World"
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Baswell
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 I don't know how the JSF system is supposed to be better and obviously,
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.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.
It makes old Wayne's huffing and puffing about a budget surplus next year amount to a walk in the park!
out of anyone he thinks he'll not cop a backlash over.
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.
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.