Bit of a concern if even partly true. F35 Lemons.
LL;
There are two problems here:
- the first is the assumption that China is technically backward and the only reason for it’s rise is that it “steals technology from the West.” From personal experience this is not only untrue but it leads to a dangerous underestimating of China’s capabilities. It is however a very common and comforting assumption to make.
- the second is that air wars are going to be fought using an American paradigm, and I am including in that all the drone swarming, unmanned aircraft stuff that people are probably playing with behind the scenes. I’m sure the F35 is more than capable by these standards, but what if the Chinese and Russians don’t decide to play that way?
For example I’m sure all this datalink stuff and battlespace domination stuff looks real cool in a powerpoint presentation, but what if the slightest emf radiation draws an accurate hypersonic anti radiation missile?
We we have grown our armed forces to fight little brown people with small arms and not much technology. Facing China or Russia is a very different kettle of fish. The F35 could easily turn out to be the equivalent of the Boulton Paul Defiant, then where are we?
the PRC develops technology that hasn't been stolen I will be concerned. I have spoken with a person who has written Defense White papers and he thinks the F35 is a great machine. I think he would know what he is talking about.]
- the first is the assumption that China is technically backward and the only reason for it’s rise is that it “steals technology from the West.” From personal experience this is not only untrue but it leads to a dangerous underestimating of China’s capabilities. It is however a very common and comforting assumption to make.
- the second is that air wars are going to be fought using an American paradigm, and I am including in that all the drone swarming, unmanned aircraft stuff that people are probably playing with behind the scenes. I’m sure the F35 is more than capable by these standards, but what if the Chinese and Russians don’t decide to play that way?
For example I’m sure all this datalink stuff and battlespace domination stuff looks real cool in a powerpoint presentation, but what if the slightest emf radiation draws an accurate hypersonic anti radiation missile?
We we have grown our armed forces to fight little brown people with small arms and not much technology. Facing China or Russia is a very different kettle of fish. The F35 could easily turn out to be the equivalent of the Boulton Paul Defiant, then where are we?
The Chinese are still trying to put the C919 into service. The F 35 could also turn out to be like the Typhoon, troubled at the start but devastating when it mattered. According to the head of International Relations at LaTrobe Uni Russia is a gad fly and is not relevant to the Pacific theater of Operations. You have your sources in PM&C, I have my sources who back the F-35.
The Chinese are still trying to put the C919 into service. The F 35 could also turn out to be like the Typhoon, troubled at the start but devastating when it mattered. According to the head of International Relations at LaTrobe Uni Russia is a gad fly and is not relevant to the Pacific theater of Operations. You have your sources in PM&C, I have my sources who back the F-35.
Based upon its current role with the RAF, itis simply replicating the Tornado role.
It would be interesting to compare the flight performance of the F18 Super Hornet and the F35 following an engine failure.................tongue in cheek.
What's wrong with this airframe. F15x and F15EX Strike Eagle.
Why can't they integrate the advanced avionics in the proven F15 airframe. It has performance, range and most importantly can stay airborne afte an engine failure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaK_uSeCJgg
F
What's wrong with this airframe. F15x and F15EX Strike Eagle.
Why can't they integrate the advanced avionics in the proven F15 airframe. It has performance, range and most importantly can stay airborne afte an engine failure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaK_uSeCJgg
F
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- the first is the assumption that China is technically backward and the only reason for it’s rise is that it “steals technology from the West.” From personal experience this is not only untrue but it leads to a dangerous underestimating of China’s capabilities. It is however a very common and comforting assumption to make.
While the 35 is 'all singing, all dancing' electronically and all the info fantastic..if the busy brain can take it all in. Having studied the Russian stuff a bit my concerns are...apart from the horrendous cost...
1. An argument for the F18 was that 2 engines are better that one, see Mirage...especially out over the briny.. now we are back to one. Que? One has fallen in the water off Japan...reason ?? Been found yet ?
2 Range. Way out from Oz and the tanker for return fuel isnt there anymore...then what ??
3 Payload and super cruise issues are others.
Recent Defence article in The Oz stated RAAF Drivers were getting their straffing endorsements.!
Seems strange for us not to have a dedicated tank buster eg Thunderbolt 2 specifically designed for same and risk the 35 low down where a soldier with a pocket rocket could deal with it.
Wont be much good if Oz does not have a strategic fuel stockpile either. NO fuel. No fly.
1. An argument for the F18 was that 2 engines are better that one, see Mirage...especially out over the briny.. now we are back to one. Que? One has fallen in the water off Japan...reason ?? Been found yet ?
2 Range. Way out from Oz and the tanker for return fuel isnt there anymore...then what ??
3 Payload and super cruise issues are others.
Recent Defence article in The Oz stated RAAF Drivers were getting their straffing endorsements.!
Seems strange for us not to have a dedicated tank buster eg Thunderbolt 2 specifically designed for same and risk the 35 low down where a soldier with a pocket rocket could deal with it.
Wont be much good if Oz does not have a strategic fuel stockpile either. NO fuel. No fly.
Wont be much good if Oz does not have a strategic fuel stockpile either. NO fuel. No fly.
Not to take anything away from the A-10, but armour can also be dealt with by PGMs from medium or high altitude. The biggest tank-killer of GW1 was actually the F-111F/GBU-12 combination, not the the A-10/GAU-8 that everyone assumes.
‘Because then you don’t have to confront the possibility that the Chinese might be technically smarter than you are.
To put that another way; what if they are brainy nerds, not stupid thieves?
One of the reasons the Germans lost WWII was that they were convinced of their own technical superiority in fields like encryption.
To put that another way; what if they are brainy nerds, not stupid thieves?
One of the reasons the Germans lost WWII was that they were convinced of their own technical superiority in fields like encryption.
And no Australian company owns a tanker, so we can easily be squeezed where it hurts. We need another country to sell us fuel, and another country to rent us a ship. This is security madness. Seabreeze
What Seabreeze said. It's nothing less than scandalous. Since 9/11 federal governments have been stealing our civil liberties but they've done nothing to make the country more secure.
