F35 - Lemon?
 

Interesting viewpoint being expressed here The ADF's Joint Strike Fighter lemon - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 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.

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.

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:

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..

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

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.

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:

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...

Expensive and...
 

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Lemon? ..Dont think so.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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:

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!)