Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SD67 on September 11, 2008, 11:11:06 PM
-
Seems the F35 aint all it's cracked up to be :lol
I already suspected it was a lemon.
We need the F22 not this little toy.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2008/09/11/1220857689496.html
-
I didn't know it was possible to have an aircraft uglier than the F22.
-
Invest on UCAVs instead!
It's cheaper overall than investing on manned combat aircraft. 20+ years of investing on F-22 that will only guarantee 5 years of superiority is ridiculous!
Future UCAV operators should be easy to train, and won't be as expensive (or risky) as training pilots to operate manned aircraft.
If USAF goes 95% for UCAV, the number of combat planes flying for mission will be back to WWII levels :aok
Ground controlled UCAVs are the future of combat aircraft!
(http://instapinch.com/blog/wp-content/photos/ucav_control.jpg)
(http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_UAV_Neuron_Mock-up_Paris_2005_lg.jpg)
-
Seems the F35 aint all it's cracked up to be :lol
I already suspected it was a lemon.
We need the F22 not this little toy.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2008/09/11/1220857689496.html
Unfortunately, the article didn't happen to mention WHICH simulated Sukhoi's beat it in a computer game.
-
nvm
-
Judging from the placement of his hands, UCAV's have other advantages beside being less risky.... I wonder what other Windows he has open in the task bar...
...too far?
They need MAC's GUI for EZ access and Red Hat Linux for bullet-proof reliability.
NO wondws!
-
nvm
-
Yeah, UCAV's are the way to go, but I forget what I was watching, but they were talking about this subject and said that pilots in the Airforce don't like the idea of not actually being in the fighters, pilots want to be up in the air flying the jet and not sitting back in a room behind a desk, and the higher up's feel the same way, atleast as of now.
-
and btw,
Strength in numbers always win battles... something I believe that UCAVs will have over manned combat aircraft.
IMO a very good recipe for perfect UCAV...
cheap
lightweight
fuel efficient
highly maneuverable (+- 20Gs)
advanced avionics
advanced hardware/software support with bullet-proof reliability :aok
-
Yeah, UCAV's are the way to go, but I forget what I was watching, but they were talking about this subject and said that pilots in the Airforce don't like the idea of not actually being in the fighters, pilots want to be up in the air flying the jet and not sitting back in a room behind a desk, and the higher up's feel the same way, atleast as of now.
It's the same feeling that sword-wielding warriors of the past refuse to carry guns because it's against the chivalry code.
They'll get over that feeling once they see the benefits of 100% UCAVs in combat.
-
The article doesn't mention how any of the jets stacked up against the Australian designed and built fighter aircraft. Oh wait...
-
How's this for solution...
If you (Australian AF) can't beat them (Sukhois), buy them~!
RAAF should buy some advanced variants of Su-27 family (especially the ones with 3-D thrust vectoring engines) :aok. I think Russian government would approve if they only buy the airframe/engine and not the avionics. Once it's delievered, they could just install Western/USA avionics.
China gets its Su-27s (J-11 Shenyang) with conditions of only buying the airframe and engine. J-11's avionics are indigenous.
(http://www.alide.com.br/noticias/su35_01/su35_05.jpg)
(http://www.alide.com.br/noticias/su35_01/su35_09.jpg)
(http://www.alide.com.br/noticias/su35_01/su35_04.jpg)
(http://www.alide.com.br/noticias/su35_01/su35_01.jpg)
(http://www.alide.com.br/noticias/su35_01/su35_02.jpg)
(http://www.alide.com.br/noticias/su35_01/su35_03.jpg)
(http://www.alide.com.br/noticias/su35_01/su35_06.jpg)
(http://www.alide.com.br/noticias/su35_01/su35_07.jpg)
(http://www.alide.com.br/noticias/su35_01/su35_08.jpg)
Here's how the cockpit might look like if installed with Wester/USA/Israeli-style "glass" avionics :aok
(http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7470/su35cabinau1.jpg)
-
Current UCAV technology cannot provide a pilot with the visual fidelity an in the cockpit experience provides.
-
What part of "computer simulation" do you guys not understand? The JSF's main weapons are stealth and BVR kill capabilities.
BTW, were those Aussies piloting the sims? How did US pilots do in the same scenario?
-
From what I understand it was US pilots flying the F35 in the simulations, the RAAF personnel were there to observe.
I have always viewed the JSF as a fancy piece of junk. It's too much of a compromise, as if it's been cobbled together to try to fit into too many roles.
It's simply the wrong plane for Australia, if we end up flying this here we will regret it and soon.
I cannot see the powers that be purchasing Sukhois. They would be an awesome platform and well suited to use here, but politically it would be a "brave" move. For the most part politicians are not brave people.
-
I dont't think russia would care. Sukhoi is willing to offer their planes to anyone... friend or foe... just like the French Dassault business practice back in the 50s-70s.
The Su-35 was offered to several countries including South Korea, UAE, Malaysia and Brazil. Only Brazil is seriously thinking about buying it.
-
Somehow I don't think it's the Russians' feeling our pollies would be worried about. :rofl
Could you imagine the wailing that would emanate from the USA if we passed over their 16 billion dollar F35 deal for Sukhois?
-
"This is based on a computer game, computer modeling of the aircraft," he told Sky News.
You are kidding aren't you? :lol
Its no secret there are elements in the Aussie Defense establishment who, for their own personal advancement, have been badmouthing the JSF since it adaptation. Like in this slice of silliness.
The JSF isn't designed to be the most aerodynamically superior aircraft in the world. Its designed to be "nimble enough", and incrementally more so then the F-16. Remember this thing has the frontal RCS of a small bird. The entire idea of future air warfare is to detect and kill he enemy before he even knows your there.
Boy theres more hot air coming our of the Aussie anti-F-35 industry then in a pot pie eating contest. Your own air generals have said the F-35 is the best selection for the RAN. The F-22 doesn't have a dual attack role.
Notice how this article has zero facts to back it up. "Baby seals"? :lol Some of you Aussies have a few roos loose in the paddock.
BTW we couldnt care less what aircraft you chose. Go ahead and buy Russian and see if the average Americans gives a rats arse.
-
Oh please.
It does not matter if you have the radar cross section of a freakin' GNAT. If it's a gnat doing mach2 it's going to get shot at.
FYI the RAN is not the RAAF. If the RAN want the F35 then let them apply for it themselves. The F35 is quite simply NOT the right aircraft for the RAAF. It's been pushed for purely political reasons.
BTW we couldnt care less what aircraft you chose. Go ahead and buy Russian and see if the average Americans gives a rats arse.
The average American probably wouldn't and that's actually a good thing. :aok. It's the political fallout that would scare them away from buying the Russian birds.
-
I dont't think russia would care. Sukhoi is willing to offer their planes to anyone... friend or foe... just like the French Dassault business practice back in the 50s-70s.
The Su-35 was offered to several countries including South Korea, UAE, Malaysia and Brazil. Only Brazil is seriously thinking about buying it.
Have you lost your mind? We have 9 major partners in the program who want it so bad they have contributed billions to its developmental program. There are going to be 3,000 to 4,000 of the Lightnings built. There are an additional 4 or 5 air forces interested in it and will probably buy it. Like India, Singapore, Israel, and Brazil.
-
Oh please.
It does not matter if you have the radar cross section of a freakin' GNAT. If it's a gnat doing mach2 it's going to get shot at.
FYI the RAN is not the RAAF. If the RAN want the F35 then let them apply for it themselves. The F35 is quite simply NOT the right aircraft for the RAAF. It's been pushed for purely political reasons.The average American probably wouldn't and that's actually a good thing. :aok. It's the political fallout that would scare them away from buying the Russian birds.
Both services want them. And your statement is as short on specifics as that article, exactly what "political reasons" do all these air Generals have?
-
Btw the F-35 is downgraded from VERY low observable to low observable.
A crucial aspect of the fighter's "stealth capability" - radio frequency signatures - has been downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", according to the US Defence Department website.
Peter Goon, a former RAAF flight test engineer, said that would mean the difference between it appearing as a "marble and a beach ball" on enemy radar. The problem with the fighter, Dr Jensen says, is that it can be relatively easily detected from the rear.
If that's true, F-35 will be nothing but a dump truck
"[The Joint Strike] is essentially a second tier bomb truck. It lacks the necessary aerodynamics to defeat the [Sukhoi] Flankers, never mind future aircraft that may proliferate," he told the parliamentary inquiry into Australia's regional air superiority.
The Sukhoi family of Russian aircraft are, or will be, operated by most Asian air forces, including China, Indonesia, Malaysia and India.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/not-so-stealthy-the-15b-fighters/2006/03/13/1142098404532.html
-
It's not the "Generals" that have the political reasons. The "Generals" actually want the F22. They really do NOT want the F35 for many reasons, but they really have not been given a choice.
-
The F-35 is indeed a bad idea. It's supposed to replace our F-111's and F/A-18 HUG (and soon to be F/A-18E super hornet) but the F-35 costs too much and trucks very little not very far.
It'll waste our Wedgetail AEW&C (whenever Boeing gets around to delivering them) and suck up the capacity of the new KC-30B's.
We should've taken the money we're wasting on 24 F/A-18E and tried to get the same deal the Koreans got on new F-15's. Even with an acquisition of six EA-18G where still leaving ourselves short legged.
Theres no likelyhood we'd even be able to acquire F-22's, and the current F-22 still can't give the bomb truck we're losing by retiring the F-111 early but it still light years ahead of the F-35 in capability, range and survivability.
The RAAF should be a mix of a upgraded F-15E variant (F-15K, SG etc), and the F-111's until a later block of the F-35, or the question of the F-22 can be better answered.
Tronsky
-
Wow, what an in depth well sourced article. :rolleyes:
-
Which one Virg? There are many many more.
This is a long running debate between the Air Force and the Government acquisition departments.
The Air Force are having the F35 pushed upon them as a political favour for the US. They have repeatedly told the Government ministers that the aircraft is unsuitable and that there better options.
The F35 is a giant dud and the American politicians who backed it are desperate to find customers at almost any cost. The JSF experiment is a failure.
-
You are kidding aren't you? :lol
Its no secret there are elements in the Aussie Defense establishment who, for their own personal advancement, have been badmouthing the JSF since it adaptation. Like in this slice of silliness.
The JSF isn't designed to be the most aerodynamically superior aircraft in the world. Its designed to be "nimble enough", and incrementally more so then the F-16. Remember this thing has the frontal RCS of a small bird. The entire idea of future air warfare is to detect and kill he enemy before he even knows your there.
Boy theres more hot air coming our of the Aussie anti-F-35 industry then in a pot pie eating contest. Your own air generals have said the F-35 is the best selection for the RAN. The F-22 doesn't have a dual attack role.
Notice how this article has zero facts to back it up. "Baby seals"? :lol Some of you Aussies have a few roos loose in the paddock.
BTW we couldnt care less what aircraft you chose. Go ahead and buy Russian and see if the average Americans gives a rats arse.
It is true that a lot of the military are anti-F- 35 they remember the purchase of the old Mirages with the single engine going out all the time hence why they went for the FA/18's having two engines. Plus you can't blame a General looking at a brand new toy that is far more superior & thinking do I want my guys flying against an equal or do I want my guys to rule the sky? F22 Raptor is the answer in the fighter roll.
-
Don’t know which exact sukhoi version simulated against the F-35, but the newest version is this one the Su-35BM. BM (Bolshaya Modernizatsiya) means the ultimete modernization. some features are Glass cockpit, new radar ΝΙΙΡ IRbis-E with AESA tech, new engines 117S with 3-D exhaust nozzles, rear hemisphere radar, IRST OLS, ECM/ESM package L175M Khibiny, plus GPS style nav aid GLONASS.
Btw the are no stealth weapons yet. F-35 uses the usual weapons AMRAAM, JDAM but carries them inside in special compartments. Thus the stealth regarding the weapon load.
(http://)(http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x39/PanosGR/27-02-08_01.jpg)
(http://)(http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x39/PanosGR/27-02-08_13.jpg)
(http://)(http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x39/PanosGR/maks2007_Su35BM.jpg)
But still the Russians are prepere their new Fifth-Gen fighter. The programme is called PAK-FA. Below are some ideas about how this thing is like. Look familiar to you? :lol
im not saying ofcourse that this how PAK-Fa is gonna like Raptor, i fell is gonna be much different and these icons are 4 year old maybe older.
(http://)(http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x39/PanosGR/Sukhoi_T50_3.jpg)
(http://)(http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x39/PanosGR/Sukhoi_T50.jpg)
-
Strength in numbers always win battles... something I believe that UCAVs will have over manned combat aircraft.
:huh
Might want to review your military history there.
RAF was heavily outnumbered during the BOB.
The Americans were heavily outnumbered in the vast majority of aerial battles in the Pacific from the beginning of the war up through at least the Battle of the Phillippine Sea.
During Gulf War I the Iraqis had the third-largest army in the world.
The right tactics, training, experience and equipment can overcome numbers in virtually ANY combat engagement.
-
Boy theres more hot air coming our of the Aussie anti-F-35 industry then in a pot pie eating contest. Your own air generals have said the F-35 is the best selection for the RAN. The F-22 doesn't have a dual attack role.
Actually the F-22 is multi mission capable and routinely carries 2 1000lb JDAM's or 8 GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bombs
(http://www.defense-update.com/images/raptor_weaponbay.jpg)
The US Air Force began integration testing of the F-22A Raptor and the GBU-39/B Small-Diameter Bomb (SDB). Testing is conducted since February 2007 by the 411th Flight Test Squadron at Edwards. The weapon is a low-cost, stand-off, next generation precision strike weapon, capable of flying autonomously. Integrating the F-22's stealth and speed and the weapon at a stand-off distance of up to 60 nautical miles (111 km). The 250-pound (114 kg) class small-diameter bomb takes target information from the aircraft and flies using an onboard computer after release from the aircraft. Four SDBs and its BRU-61 carriage can be loaded in each weapon bay of the Raptor, enabling the F-22 to carry a total of eight SDB weapons in addition to two AMRAAMs.
-
Which one Virg?
How about the one you linked for this thread? Is it not obvious I'd be talking about the article you linked?
-
F22 Raptor is the answer in the fighter role.
I don't think anyone is going to get the Raptor. It's to bad in a way really because if we sold them to a few select countries that would reduce the per unit cost for us and we could afford more of them.
-
How about the one you linked for this thread? Is it not obvious I'd be talking about the article you linked?
Yes. Fair enough. ;)
I was wondering if you'd also read the other article posted by mg1942?
It may come as a surprise to you in the US but our press media, unlike our TV media, is surprisingly balanced. Yeah there are your basic political affiliations but largely they tend to report pretty fairly.
It was simply reporting on the results of the simulation exercise. From other material I've seen I'm not at all surprised to find the F35 completely outclassed by the Russian jets.
Can any of you seriously agree with these statements?
Senator Minchin said he had a classified briefing on the JSF from its US manufacturer Lockheed-Martin which had promoted the aircraft as the most advanced jet fighter ever.
"I can't really say much about it, but this is a phenomenal aircraft.
"As our chief of defence Angus Houston has said this is a most extraordinary aircraft, it is the right aircraft for Australia."
The multi-purpose fighter would be the backbone of the United States military, Senator Minchin said.
"We are fortunate to be in it and the government should move to make the decision to acquire it."
Would YOU in the USA consider this aircraft the backbone of the United States military?
-
Ya I believe that article LMFO. We Already have a company in the Us that makes Mig`s and Su-35BM it called Mattel(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/TNBrat/Emotions/Rant-On.gif)
-
When it goes into final production, yes it will be. The Air Force, Marines, and Navy will all be flying a variant of this aircraft in large numbers. In fact for the Marines it will be the ONLY fighter aircraft they will have, as the plan, the last I heard, was for the Marines to transfer their F-18's to the Navy, and completely retire the AV-8B from service.
The Navy will replace most of the early model F-18's with the JSF, keeping the Super Hornets.
The Air Force is planning on replacing all active duty F-16's with the JSF and transferring most of those older aircraft to the Reserves and Air National Guard.
Yeah this plane will be a MAJOR part of our combined air fleet.
-
Oh please.
It does not matter if you have the radar cross section of a freakin' GNAT. If it's a gnat doing mach2 it's going to get shot at.
FYI the RAN is not the RAAF. If the RAN want the F35 then let them apply for it themselves. The F35 is quite simply NOT the right aircraft for the RAAF. It's been pushed for purely political reasons.The average American probably wouldn't and that's actually a good thing. :aok. It's the political fallout that would scare them away from buying the Russian birds.
A gnat doing mach 2 would be hard to hit. :aok
-
Fair enough Hornet :aok Thank you for the frank reply.
Will these be used in a strictly homeland defence role or will they be used in international theatres too?
The effective range and redundancy level of the aircraft are probably the two biggest problems this aircraft has for use here. Australia is a pretty big place when you take the distances between suitable landing areas into account. We are also likely to be mixing it up with the very aircraft which according to the reports soundly whipped the F35 in combat simulations.
Since we'd probably also be at a numerical disadvantage we would really like to be in an aircraft we could have confidence in. Currently that is NOT the F35.
-
Well it really depends on what version the RAAF purchases. The Air Force version has the longest range, but it does require a prepared airfield to operate out of. The Navy version is the middle of the road for the aircraft. Shorter range, but heavy duty landing gear and hook for carrier operations, as well as a larger wing for better low speed handling i.e. carrier aproaches, so it could operate from rough fields. The Marine version has the shortest range, but it is a true VTOL/STOL aircraft with Mach 1+ speed so it can pretty much operate from anywhere.
All of them have the same basic avionics, and fire control systems, as well as weapons loads. Almost 75% of the airframes components are identical between the 3 models so from a logistics standpoint alone that makes it very cost effective in regards to training, procurment, and maintaining the aircraft. Performace on average will be on par if not slightly better than the newest models of the F-16 Falcon, which is regarded by most people around the world as one of the finest light fighter/attack aircraft ever built. That's why so many different countries fly the Falcon.
With the JSF (regardless of model purchased) you get all/more of the capabilities/performance of an F-16 with the added capabilities/benfits of stealth, super cruise, advanced targeting and fire control, lower overall cost. Figure 2-3 F-35's for the cost of 1 F-22
I wouldn't read too much into that "test". It was a computer simulation. How many sims have you played with were the flight models have been screwed up?
I also can't see the US Military getting this plane and keeping it here in the states. It will be deployed worldwide, just like the F-16, F-18, AV-8B's have been. The F-35 was designed to be a direct replacement for all three of those aircraft with better capabilities. The RAAF flies the F-18 right?
-
I also can't see the US Military getting this plane and keeping it here in the states. It will be deployed worldwide, just like the F-16, F-18, AV-8B's have been. The F-35 was designed to be a direct replacement for all three of those aircraft with better capabilities. The RAAF flies the F-18 right?
Hopefully, because we need the volume sales to help offset the per-unit cost.
-
I have always viewed the JSF as a fancy piece of junk.
do you have any credentials beyond computer games to qualify your views?
-
i played that sim, the Sukhoi is over modeled.
-
Don't club baby Seals! :D
(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a157/sublim3170/club_baby_seals.jpg)
-
i played that sim, the Sukhoi is over modeled.
You would think that the simulation they used would be some kind of Million-dollar purpose-built program...But it would be hillarious if they just used some junk off-the-shelf video game. :lol
-
If RAAF gets the F-35, avoid VISUAL RANGE and DOGFIGHT at all costs.
-
From what I understand it was US pilots flying the F35 in the simulations, the RAAF personnel were there to observe.
I have always viewed the JSF as a fancy piece of junk. It's too much of a compromise, as if it's been cobbled together to try to fit into too many roles.
It's simply the wrong plane for Australia, if we end up flying this here we will regret it and soon.
I cannot see the powers that be purchasing Sukhois. They would be an awesome platform and well suited to use here, but politically it would be a "brave" move. For the most part politicians are not brave people.
Could be they let themselves get beat so as to give the ruskies a false sense of security and so as to not let our past and probable future enemy again know its full capabilities.
WAIT!
This is the US government we're talking about.
They wouldnt do that.
That would make too much sense LOL
-
If RAAF gets the F-35, avoid VISUAL RANGE and DOGFIGHT at all costs.
Why avoid the dogfight? It's supposed to be more nimble than an F-16.
-
Why avoid the dogfight? It's supposed to be more nimble than an F-16.
And Sukhois with 3D vectoring thrust + helmet off-boresight to steer missiles already eat F-16s/15s in 3-course meals (in simulations of course, given equal pilot skills).
-
Su-30 vs RAAF Alternatives
Many visitors will be asking the obvious question of how the Sukhois stack up against the F/A-18A HUG, the JSF panacea and recently proposed interim fighters such as the F/A-18E/F.
Against all three types the Su-30 derivatives, especially with later engine subtypes, will always have a significant kinematic advantage - there is no substitute for thrust in the kinematic performance game. There is another factor to consider here, which is the superlative 10 tonnes of internal drag free fuel the Sukhoi carries. When not operating at extended combat radii, the Sukhoi driver has more fuel to convert into energy, and that energy can nearly always be used to an advantage.
With mutually competitive WVR missiles and Helmet Mounted Sights/Displays for close-in combat, all three types will live or die in a close in engagement with an advanced Su-30MK variant by pilot ability and good or bad luck. The Sukhoi combines high alpha manoeuvre capabilities with excellent thrust/weight performance, and is apt to have an energy advantage entering and prosecuting a close in fight. A JSF driver opting to engage a thrust vectoring late model Su-30MK in a knife fight may not survive to speak of the experience, unless the Sukhoi driver is unable to exploit his advantage properly.
In close in air combat terms the JSF qualifies as 'double inferior' against the later model Sukhois, since the Sukhois have an advantage in both thrust/weight ratio and in wing loading (interested visitors refer R.L. Shaw's Fighter Combat), and with its canard and thrust vectoring capability will generally be able to gain a firing solution quicker. Because the JSF is designed within the kinematic performance class of the F/A-18 and F-16, it is right in the middle of the performance envelope of aircraft the Sukhoi was designed to kill.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html
-
My credentials? :lol
In a word, no. I'm not basing my opinion off one simulation report either.
I do do a lot of reading both on and off the internet about what our Government is and is not doing with regard to our defense forces.
I do have a family member who holds a ranking position in the RAAF who I have regular discussions with on topics along these lines. ( He does know when to draw the line regarding things he will talk about though :cry )
I have designed and analysed aircraft strictly as a hobby for 6 years and I have helped build three and and currently building one myself.
I participate in some quite animated discussions with others who work in the aerospace industry about aircraft performance.
I do not claim to be an expert, but from what I've read and what I've heard coming from "inside the circle" so to speak, this is NOT the right choice to replace our F18's with.
I also find it highly irregular that someone flying an exercise for the point of demonstrating aircraft performance to a potential customer would be thrown. People buying something like this generally do not want to see it getting convincingly beaten by the aircraft they will likely be using it against.
-
And Sukhois with 3D vectoring thrust + helmet off-boresight to steer missiles already eat F-16s/15s in 3-course meals (in simulations of course, given equal pilot skills).
Every aircraft has advantages and disadvantages, good pilots exploit their enemies weaknesses while utilizing their own strengths.
-
Why avoid the dogfight? It's supposed to be more nimble than an F-16.
Why would you even want to "dogfight" in the first place? Why would you want to give an enemy anywhere near equal advantage. Thats the reason we build AWACs and advanced stealth Jets in the first place.
I was in a hurry this morning and had to rush my posts cause I had to leave for work. I dont really want to get back into this unless the discussion gets technical. This entire "bash the F-35" crusade is a creation of "Air Power Australia" and a guy named Carlo Kopp who himself has a financial interest in maintaining and lengthening the service of existing RAAF F-111s and thats why hes been on this crusade to keep the 111's and get America to sell the F-22s. Even tho both the Political and Air Force leaders of Australia have repeatedly said they can neither afford, nor do they need, that option.
The military leaders of Australia consider this guy a nitwit but he writes a good article, scams about what an expert he is, and is pretty good at skewing data to support his own stances.
So Im not interested in another bi-yearly "Waa,Waa we want the F-22 cause the F-35 sucks" thread. Unless someone can introduce hard data then the entire thing is silly. What possible reason would an Aussia believe a guy whos never even been in the service before they would believe their top RAAF people? And what possible reason would your elected leaders, and air force experts, have for wanting the F-35 if they didnt believe its the right choice?
-
Why would you even want to "dogfight" in the first place? Why would you want to give an enemy anywhere near equal advantage. Thats the reason we build AWACs and advanced stealth Jets in the first place.
the need for the ability to dogfight will come from the aircraft that get past our BVR weapons....and quite a few will.
i might be wrong, but i say just keep building the FA18's, toss in a few F22's, and we'll hammer any and all comers in the air.
I was in a hurry this morning and had to rush my posts cause I had to leave for work. I dont really want to get back into this unless the discussion gets technical. This entire "bash the F-35" crusade is a creation of "Air Power Australia" and a guy named Carlo Kopp who himself has a financial interest in maintaining and lengthening the service of existing RAAF F-111s and thats why hes been on this crusade to keep the 111's and get America to sell the F-22s. Even tho both the Political and Air Force leaders of Australia have repeatedly said they can neither afford, nor do they need, that option.
The military leaders of Australia consider this guy a nitwit but he writes a good article, scams about what an expert he is, and is pretty good at skewing data to support his own stances.
So Im not interested in another bi-yearly "Waa,Waa we want the F-22 cause the F-35 sucks" thread. Unless someone can introduce hard data then the entire thing is silly. What possible reason would an Aussia believe a guy whos never even been in the service before they would believe their top RAAF people? And what possible reason would your elected leaders, and air force experts, have for wanting the F-35 if they didnt believe its the right choice?
-
Dr. Carlo Kopp is a very smart guy who is well versed in fighter aircraft. It doesn't mean he's correct or incorrect, it just means his arguments should be carefully considered.
-
The F-35 is indeed a bad idea. It's supposed to replace our F-111's and F/A-18 HUG (and soon to be F/A-18E super hornet) but the F-35 costs too much and trucks very little not very far.
It'll waste our Wedgetail AEW&C (whenever Boeing gets around to delivering them) and suck up the capacity of the new KC-30B's.
We should've taken the money we're wasting on 24 F/A-18E and tried to get the same deal the Koreans got on new F-15's. Even with an acquisition of six EA-18G where still leaving ourselves short legged.
Theres no likelyhood we'd even be able to acquire F-22's, and the current F-22 still can't give the bomb truck we're losing by retiring the F-111 early but it still light years ahead of the F-35 in capability, range and survivability.
The RAAF should be a mix of a upgraded F-15E variant (F-15K, SG etc), and the F-111's until a later block of the F-35, or the question of the F-22 can be better answered.
Tronsky
F-35 has much more range than the Super Hornet. Range is still a hugely important factor in air combat.
-
Why would you even want to "dogfight" in the first place? Why would you want to give an enemy anywhere near equal advantage. Thats the reason we build AWACs and advanced stealth Jets in the first place.
I guess technically, it is preferable to kill the other guy before it ever gets to a dogfight. I should have been more clear in my original post......I was thinking along the lines of avoiding at all costs. As I said in a later post each aircraft has it strengths and weaknesses.
-
I was in a hurry this morning and had to rush my posts cause I had to leave for work. I dont really want to get back into this unless the discussion gets technical. This entire "bash the F-35" crusade is a creation of "Air Power Australia" and a guy named Carlo Kopp who himself has a financial interest in maintaining and lengthening the service of existing RAAF F-111s and thats why hes been on this crusade to keep the 111's and get America to sell the F-22s. Even tho both the Political and Air Force leaders of Australia have repeatedly said they can neither afford, nor do they need, that option.
The military leaders of Australia consider this guy a nitwit but he writes a good article, scams about what an expert he is, and is pretty good at skewing data to support his own stances.
So Im not interested in another bi-yearly "Waa,Waa we want the F-22 cause the F-35 sucks" thread. Unless someone can introduce hard data then the entire thing is silly. What possible reason would an Aussia believe a guy whos never even been in the service before they would believe their top RAAF people? And what possible reason would your elected leaders, and air force experts, have for wanting the F-35 if they didnt believe its the right choice?
Well that makes sense and explains that article, I had a hard time believing that the F-35 could do as poorly as that article said it did. The F-35 is a generation 5 fighter and I doubt that anything other then another gen 5 fighter could defeat it.
-
You do know that the F-35 incorporates a Helmet-Mounted display to enable "look-see" targeting and off-axis engagement abilities, aye?
(http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/05/f-35_HMDS.jpg)
Thrust vectoring and traditional "get on the bad guy's six" aren't as important when the enemy pilot just has to turn his head in order to engage the enemy with weapons. It's all about who sees who first in the combat environment.
-
Why would you even want to "dogfight" in the first place? Why would you want to give an enemy anywhere near equal advantage. Thats the reason we build AWACs and advanced stealth Jets in the first place.
So Im not interested in another bi-yearly "Waa,Waa we want the F-22 cause the F-35 sucks" thread. Unless someone can introduce hard data then the entire thing is silly. What possible reason would an Aussia believe a guy whos never even been in the service before they would believe their top RAAF people? And what possible reason would your elected leaders, and air force experts, have for wanting the F-35 if they didnt believe its the right choice?
People are upset because they see participation in the F-35 project was a purely political decision. Just as the reason to go for the Super Hornet was a purely political decision.
The heads at the RAAF, and the then govt. threw out the proper selection process and decided for both based on the desire to strengthen relations with the Bush administration instead of properly assessing alternatives for our own needs.
If its true that AESA upgraded Sukois are going to able to detect and fire on the "sort of stealthy" F-35's before they even get into missle range especially if our neighbours get those new AEW&C killers - how is this a good thing?
F-22's can defeat them, but that doesn't help us if there aren't any around.
F-35 has much more range than the Super Hornet. Range is still a hugely important factor in air combat.
Agreed, for the RAAF range is everything and thats also why I also think the Super Hornet is a mistake.
Tronsky
-
Tronski, weren't these mainly for an interceptor role? Or is the requirement the ability to hit targets' in Mainland Asia from Fields in Northern Australia?
-
The RAAF needs an aircraft that can perform in both roles.
Now we are losing our F111's we have no long range bombing capability.
-
(http://www.combataircraft.com/aircraft/fef2000_p_08_l.jpg)
:D
If it wasn't for our idiotic government you would have had the TSR 2 instead of the F-111. And it would probably still be kicking arse :(
-
I feel for you guys...
What happened to TSR was murder! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjN3PE4ICj0&feature=related)
-
:cry
Don't remind me!
That was one of the worst political decisions ever made!
-
Dr. Carlo Kopp is a very smart guy who is well versed in fighter aircraft. It doesn't mean he's correct or incorrect, it just means his arguments should be carefully considered.
Hes never even flown any has he? Outside of Sims? He flys small personal aircraft, along with about 700 million others.
-
The guys who will actually fly them here don't want them either. Does that count for anything?
-
The RAAF needs an aircraft that can perform in both roles.
Now we are losing our F111's we have no long range bombing capability.
get the f22's then think bigger
you could have bombed the other side of the planet with this old girl:
(http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/242/HMAS_Melbourne_R21_13.jpg)
and we still have it's a4's despite the socialist's fire sale.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Skyhawk_HMAS_Melbourne_1976.jpg)
-
The RAAF needs an aircraft that can perform in both roles.
Now we are losing our F111's we have no long range bombing capability.
There is no viable replacement anywhere in the world for the F-111. There is no plane that can carry the same bomb load the same distance. The F-111 is a relic from the Cold War. If Australia wants a long range bombing capability they will need to purchase an actual bomber and there is precious few of those today.
-
get the f22's then think bigger
I don't think anyone is going to get the F-22. To much sensitive technology involved.
At $137 million each, can Australia even afford them?
*edit* Cost per unit figures vary widely.
In April 2006, the cost of the F-22A was assessed by the Government Accountability Office to be $361 million per aircraft. This cost reflects the F-22A total program cost, divided by the number of fighters the Air Force is programmed to buy; and which has so far invested $28 billion in the Raptor's research, development and testing. That money, referred to as a "sunk cost", is already spent and is separate from money used for future decision-making, including procuring a copy of the jet. The Unit Procurement Cost was estimated at $177.6 million in 2006 based on a production run of 181 airframes.[11] This unit cost will decrease if total production is higher. This cost includes $3.233 billion already spent on research and development by 2006.[12]
By the time all 183 fighters have been purchased, $34 billion will have been spent on actual procurement, resulting in a total program cost of $62 billion or about $339 million per aircraft. The incremental cost for one additional F-22 is around $138 million;[4] decreasing with larger volumes. If the Air Force were to buy 100 more F-22s today, the cost of each one would be less and would continue to drop with additional aircraft purchases.
-
why doesn't Australia just build it's own planes?
-
From what I understand it was US pilots flying the F35 in the simulations, the RAAF personnel were there to observe.
I have always viewed the JSF as a fancy piece of junk. It's too much of a compromise, as if it's been cobbled together to try to fit into too many roles.
It's simply the wrong plane for Australia, if we end up flying this here we will regret it and soon.
I cannot see the powers that be purchasing Sukhois. They would be an awesome platform and well suited to use here, but politically it would be a "brave" move. For the most part politicians are not brave people.
Wait a minute...the simulation didn't say which type of russian aircraft. I bet I could put up a harrier against an SU-27 and beat the harrier every time with the SU-27.
It's always meanful if you compare apples to apples.
-
I guess technically, it is preferable to kill the other guy before it ever gets to a dogfight. I should have been more clear in my original post......I was thinking along the lines of avoiding at all costs. As I said in a later post each aircraft has it strengths and weaknesses.
true, each does......but there WILL be quite a few enemys that DO get past BVR engagements. there is, and always will be a need for aircract with the ability to mix it up in close quarters.
didn't the US go through this with thr phantom? didn't we decide to not arm it with guns, because we were sooo superior that we'd never have to dogfight? same thing happening. numbers win, not technology. technology can only handle so much. technology in the aircraft costs too much. there's nothing in the sky that can outfly a US piloted FA18, F16, or even a F15. we have a lot of these, and could more easily build more(with some updated electronics and control systems) than we can build the F35, or the F22(although since we already have the 22, keep them in the mix too.
i could be wrong, but this just seems a cheaper way to win the war that's probably comming. russia is broke. all we have to do is outlast them a little if they're the enemy.
-
didn't the US go through this with thr phantom? didn't we decide to not arm it with guns, because we were sooo superior that we'd never have to dogfight?
That is sorta right and sorta wrong.......heh
The F-4 Phantom II originally wasn't given an internal gun because it was thought that missiles had made the dogfight obsolete. And the Phantom carried 8 of the worlds most advanced missiles at the time.
Vietnam was a major reality check, many missiles either didn't track or were defective in some other way, that applies to both the AIM-7 Sparrow and the AIM-9 Sidewinder. At very close ranges dogfights occurred and the Phantom had no gun. As a stop gap measure the SUU-23 gun pod was developed and McDonnell Douglas was preparing to manufacture the F-4E that had a 20mm M61A1 cannon in the nose.
-
there's nothing in the sky that can outfly a US piloted FA18, F16, or even a F15.
Sukhoi aircraft rock. One of the Sukhoi's has what might be the most advanced thrust vectoring in existence today (I forget the designation atm). It is a very formidable opponent
-
That is sorta right and sorta wrong.......heh
The F-4 Phantom II originally wasn't given an internal gun because it was thought that missiles had made the dogfight obsolete. And the Phantom carried 8 of the worlds most advanced missiles at the time.
Vietnam was a major reality check, many missiles either didn't track or were defective in some other way, that applies to both the AIM-7 Sparrow and the AIM-9 Sidewinder. At very close ranges dogfights occurred and the Phantom had no gun. As a stop gap measure the SUU-23 gun pod was developed and McDonnell Douglas was preparing to manufacture the F-4E that had a 20mm M61A1 cannon in the nose.
a marine friend of mine flew that version of the phantom...with the external gun pod.
i can't type in here what his words were concerning the idea of a fighter that can't fight. :D
-
Sukhoi aircraft rock. One of the Sukhoi's has what might be the most advanced thrust vectoring in existence today (I forget the designation atm). It is a very formidable opponent
yes, it is. each and every time i see any videos of them, it impresses the watermelon out of me.
BUT,,,,,,,a majority of those cool groovy maneuvers we see them do, bleed off a LOT of energy. we all know that is bad.
besides......say 3 or 4 su27's vs the same number FA18's.......ooo hell......lets go older.......F15's......the eagles will still come out on top...if for no other reason than the US has the best trained pilots there are.
i think
-
yes, it is. each and every time i see any videos of them, it impresses the watermelon out of me.
BUT,,,,,,,a majority of those cool groovy maneuvers we see them do, bleed off a LOT of energy. we all know that is bad.
besides......say 3 or 4 su27's vs the same number FA18's.......ooo hell......lets go older.......F15's......the eagles will still come out on top...if for no other reason than the US has the best trained pilots there are.
i think
There are relatively few Sukhoi aircraft also. Less than 700 SU-27's were built and far less of the Su-30(+) aircraft. Compared to the vast numbers of some MiGs they are fairly uncommon. (Even the MiG-29 only had 1200+ built)
-
There is no viable replacement anywhere in the world for the F-111. There is no plane that can carry the same bomb load the same distance. The F-111 is a relic from the Cold War. If Australia wants a long range bombing capability they will need to purchase an actual bomber and there is precious few of those today.
Very true - but our F-111's are still servicable and could be easily continued in service till 2020. The idea it is a relic is the reasoning that the last govt. were so desperate to get rid of it, but our F-111's have been continually upgraded since the mid 1990's, its weapon systems are up to current Nato standards and are far more capable than they were since the 70's. No-one thinks to retire B-52s, or B-1 just because the eras in which they were designed for have passed.
Tronsky
-
Very true - but our F-111's are still servicable and could be easily continued in service till 2020. The idea it is a relic is the reasoning that the last govt. were so desperate to get rid of it, but our F-111's have been continually upgraded since the mid 1990's, its weapon systems are up to current Nato standards and are far more capable than they were since the 70's. No-one thinks to retire B-52s, or B-1 just because the eras in which they were designed for have passed.
Tronsky
I didn't mean to imply that the Australian F-111's were outdated or obsolete, just that the F-111 was designed during the Cold War and with a war in Europe vs the Warsaw Pact in mind.
-
why doesn't Australia just build it's own planes?
Because we sold all our manufacturing base to China. Just like you guys are busy doing. :aok
-
The guys who will actually fly them here don't want them either. Does that count for anything?
And who are they?
For a guy who makes a lot of silly comments you dont have one iota of technical or practical expertise. Even worse your research abilities are zero.
You cant compare air wars from 40 years ago with air wars of today. The current state of ATA missile technology is many times superior then those first sidewinders. Everything? Everything on the F-35 is just a different ballgame, From its advanced AESA radar, to its low RCS, to its advanced situational awarness technology, data links, AIM 120/132 ATA and various strike missile packages.....ect
The RCS of a F-35 is going to be at or under 0.0015m2, where'as a MIG-29 is at 5M2. The RCS of the SU-27 is 4M2.
Well what do you think that means actualy in air warfare? When you can see him and get a target solution long before he can see you?
The F-35 does give Australia long range strike capabilities because you have tanker aircraft and precision standoff weapons the US is selling you.
And while we havnt officially retired our long range bombers we have far less of them then we used to. Australia only spends 2.4% of their GNP on defense so if you want to go the route of F-22s, and maintaining those F-111s, it would cost you big time. Because your also spending big dough on Air Defense DDs and LHDs for your navy. You might end up at 4.4% of GNP like America does.
Then SD7 can whine about prices when he feels a "hate America moment" for creating a thread.
-
damn, Rich, yah didn't even leave enough butt cheek to offer us a target to punt!
-
Hes never even flown any has he? Outside of Sims? He flys small personal aircraft, along with about 700 million others.
Ask Widewing, he knows Dr. Kopp. It is VERY unwise to dismiss his thoughts out of hand.
-
Rich, I don't "hate" America.:lol
I've already covered the RCS angle. Against a technologically proficient foe the RCS isn't going to make that big a difference. I also think you've overestimated the F35 stealth capacity.
Whatever aircraft we chose it's going to cost us. If we make the wrong choice it's just going to cost us more, much much more.
-
planning on mass quantities of oriental meterosexual chefs with a penchant for your blooming onion recipe showing up anytime soon?
-
:rofl
The way things are going you can never be sure.
I don't have a recipe for blooming onion btw, if you'd be so kind to forward me yours ;)
:D
-
The JSF is a multi-role fighter. I much prefer the idea of having an aircraft for each role. More (combat) efficient that way.
-
The JSF is a multi-role fighter. I much prefer the idea of having an aircraft for each role. More (combat) efficient that way.
In theory, if you are using one plane for interdiction, strike, Air Supremecy, and maybe even recon., Your train of supply, spares and support for using just the one plane get's alot simpler than for using two aircraft-and that might be a factor given Australia's distance the OEM plant here in the states...They could produce most of what they need under license, but then you simply devolve back to raw materials', and you sorta still have the same problem; Then you need enough manufacturing for two different sets of aircraft parts, etc, etc. The biggest problem facing anything the Aussie's buy, IMO.
-
Australians don't need any defensive aircraft. Who the hell would invade Australia? Fer crissakes, England sent their inmates there hundreds of years ago and now those inbreds have bred like sheep. Genetically speaking, no one wants Australia. :aok Put up an airforce of bi-planes, any invading country would be laughing so hard that they'd call off an attack. :rock
-
Australians don't need any defensive aircraft. Who the hell would invade Australia? Fer crissakes, England sent their inmates there hundreds of years ago and now those inbreds have bred like sheep. Genetically speaking, no one wants Australia. :aok Put up an airforce of bi-planes, any invading country would be laughing so hard that they'd call off an attack. :rock
Then explain the Japanese wanting of the island in wwII :noid
-
Fer crissakes, England sent their inmates there hundreds of years ago and now those inbreds have bred like sheep.
Sounds like a great place to drop a coupla rabbits.
-
Because we sold all our manufacturing base to China. Just like you guys are busy doing. :aok
you are truly a brilliant nothing!
-
you are truly a brilliant nothing!
Thank ya sah! I try ;)
-
Australians don't need any defensive aircraft. Who the hell would invade Australia? Fer crissakes, England sent their inmates there hundreds of years ago and now those inbreds have bred like sheep. Genetically speaking, no one wants Australia. :aok Put up an airforce of bi-planes, any invading country would be laughing so hard that they'd call off an attack. :rock
Australia is chock full of mineral wealth of all kinds. IT controls the most important ocean transport routes in the world. But mostly cause its resource rich. Zinc, copper, Gold, silver, tungsten, Nickle, Lead, cobalt, and new oil riches have recently been found offshore. Its no secret the Chinese have always looked south with longing. Australia is also a major food producer.
This is one of the most successful economies in the world.
Plus Australia has defense treaty requirements and has had defense issues in the past with other regional powers. She has the most advanced diesel hunter/killer submarines in the world. They are armed with the latest Yank Adcap torpedoes, anti-ship missiles, and combat management system.
An can someone please answer my question. Who exactly in the RAAF, or Aussie armed forces, respects DR. Kopp? Has he ever actually flown anything but small one engine personal airplanes? My understanding is hes a computer guy, or electrical engineer, on the payroll of a company that would score big should the F-111s be retained. My understanding is hes also persona non Grata in RAAF circles.
Hes nothing more then a "Defense enthusiast" with no meaningful credentials, no access to classified material, and nothing more then an Aces High fighter pilot, "and he even burned that bridge when he misstated RAAF statements".
Rich, I don't "hate" America.
I've already covered the RCS angle. Against a technologically proficient foe the RCS isn't going to make that big a difference. I also think you've overestimated the F35 stealth capacity.
Whatever aircraft we chose it's going to cost us. If we make the wrong choice it's just going to cost us more, much much more.
Yeah, right :lol Stealth has been a total failure so far. I imagine it will be even more so in an airplane with at least 1/2 the return of a F-117 and more aerodynamic then an F-16. But the truth is none of us know the real RCS of the F-35, unless you have access to classified material.
But hey, don't think I don't feel for you. Putting your trust into such a 3rd rate warplane industrial base like Americas is must be painful. We spend countless Billions more on airplane development then the Russians, have a far superior technological base, and still they club us like baby seals.
Even worse we drag you Aussies under with us by forcing on you the same garbage we'll be protecting our 25 CVs and LHDs with, in fact our entire navy. Oh the shame of it all. :huh
-
planning on mass quantities of oriental meterosexual chefs with a penchant for your blooming onion recipe showing up anytime soon?
First mistake confusing the outback restaurant is from Australia it is not it is an American company with a so called Australian theme laughable to I might add. As an Australian living here I never heard of a blooming onion until I came here to the USA. So who are the metrosexual chefs then?
-
Australians don't need any defensive aircraft. Who the hell would invade Australia? Fer crissakes, England sent their inmates there hundreds of years ago and now those inbreds have bred like sheep. Genetically speaking, no one wants Australia. :aok Put up an airforce of bi-planes, any invading country would be laughing so hard that they'd call off an attack. :rock
Ignorant statement.
-
:huh
Might want to review your military history there.
RAF was heavily outnumbered during the BOB.
The Americans were heavily outnumbered in the vast majority of aerial battles in the Pacific from the beginning of the war up through at least the Battle of the Phillippine Sea.
During Gulf War I the Iraqis had the third-largest army in the world.
The right tactics, training, experience and equipment can overcome numbers in virtually ANY combat engagement.
Not to mention the Battle of Canne
-
The Israelis showed that a few F-15s can defeat hordes of technologically lesser Migs. Using that philosophy, I think Australia should have went with the F-22 for air superiority, and a dedicated ground attack aircraft.
-
The Israelis showed that a few F-15s can defeat hordes of technologically lesser Migs. Using that philosophy, I think Australia should have went with the F-22 for air superiority, and a dedicated ground attack aircraft.
The US is not selling the F-22 to any other countries at this point. I understand wanting to keeps it's secrets close to it's chest even when it comes to selling it to one of the US'S strongest supporting Allies.
-
The Israelis showed that a few F-15s can defeat hordes of technologically lesser Migs. Using that philosophy, I think Australia should have went with the F-22 for air superiority, and a dedicated ground attack aircraft.
yep, and they showed that the F22 can defeat 5 F15's. when everyone plays by the rules. what happens when the real enemy doesn't?
-
First mistake confusing the outback restaurant is from Australia it is not it is an American company with a so called Australian theme laughable to I might add. As an Australian living here I never heard of a blooming onion until I came here to the USA. So who are the metrosexual chefs then?
...this one's along side the boat. should i use a gaff, a net, or just shoot the damn thing?
-
...this one's along side the boat. should i use a gaff, a net, or just shoot the damn thing?
Release, you might get to reel him in again. ;)
-
yer right. I should tag and release.
...where are those explosive tags....
(http://www.uboataces.com/images/depth-charge-attack2.jpg)
-
...this one's along side the boat. should i use a gaff, a net, or just shoot the damn thing?
Come on in the water is fine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfbPYn2LtSU
-
lol.. gotta suck to be that guy..
;)
-
The JSF is a multi-role fighter. I much prefer the idea of having an aircraft for each role. More (combat) efficient that way.
unless you are trying to dogfight in a B-52.
-
They need MAC's GUI for EZ access and Red Hat Linux for bullet-proof reliability.
NO wondws!
Currently, the UAVs the USAF is using don't run on Windows....Believe me, it would be a heck of alot easier than me having to learn Unix.
-
...this one's along side the boat. should i use a gaff, a net, or just shoot the damn thing?
Why bother? :D
-
Ok, so maybe I was a little out of line with the "JSF experiment is a failure" line. I apologise for that.
I admit I was probably a little biased from talking with a friend who was involved in the Boeing bid for the contract. Maybe there is a little sour grapes there, maybe his feelings have merit. Time will tell.
Now it may just be the perfect all-round aircraft for use by the US Armed Services. You guys have the infrastructure and resources to back it up. Australia does not.
The biggest reason cited here for unsuitability of the F35 is a logistical one. It's a very long way between suitable fields. Single engine fighter aircraft were tried and deemed to be too risky in our environment.
-
I dunno, we've operated Mirage's, Sabres, A-4's etc for years
Tronsky
-
Indeed we had.
The A4 skyhawk was an excellent aircraft and saw service with the RAN as it's carrier based aircraft.
The Sabre also served us well though I was a bit young to remember them, the Mirage was a bit of a stumbling block though. I remember them being referred to as Miracles in the '80's since it was a miracle they were still flying :lol
-
Ok, so maybe I was a little out of line with the "JSF experiment is a failure" line. I apologise for that.
I admit I was probably a little biased from talking with a friend who was involved in the Boeing bid for the contract. Maybe there is a little sour grapes there, maybe his feelings have merit. Time will tell.
Now it may just be the perfect all-round aircraft for use by the US Armed Services. You guys have the infrastructure and resources to back it up. Australia does not.
The biggest reason cited here for unsuitability of the F35 is a logistical one. It's a very long way between suitable fields. Single engine fighter aircraft were tried and deemed to be too risky in our environment.
LM just plain out designed Boeing, most of all for the STOVL design. Now Imagine your friend gushing had Boeing actually gotten the contract? See the difference? Most of all since the program, really unprecedented in aircraft design history, has been relatively trouble free.
I dont get your next statement about resources and what not. Our F-35s will be used much the same way yours will be. Much the same way the F-16 excelled at. Our navy is living with the one turbofan so why cant the RAAF? As far as engine design and dependability we are so far ahead of the Russians its not even funny. Our single engined F-16 has been our most dependable and successful fighter aircraft ever produced up to this date.
The F-35 is going to set a new standard as far as ease of maintenance and dependability. Even the stealth coatings will be able to be touched up with a paint roller. And dont forget the worlds premier military power is betting an awful lot on this design.
-
Our single engined F-16 has been our most dependable and successful fighter aircraft ever produced up to this date.
That's not entirely accurate. The F-15 has been more dependable and accident free than the F-16 has. The F-16 has been the most accident free single engine fighter we have ever produced.
-
That's not entirely accurate. The F-15 has been more dependable and accident free than the F-16 has. The F-16 has been the most accident free single engine fighter we have ever produced.
Here's my question; Both of those are kinda old now, correct? I believe the first flight of the F-15 was in 1972? and the F-16 first flew in '74? But both are still in service (although I understand the F-15 is starting to be phased out as deliveries of the F-22 step up.) Both of these aircraft have had a service history of over 30 years. Now, is it because they were that hard to improve upon, or because we are approaching a sort of "fine end" of technology? AFAIK, stealth technology, thrust vectoring and the ever-improving realm of electronics are the only real technology advances made since either of the afformentioned made their first flights. So, in reality, the Aussies might really be complaining that for their money, they aren't getting some new kind of wonder-weapon that shoot's sukhoi's down with laser-beams...
-
Now, is it because they were that hard to improve upon, or because we are approaching a sort of "fine end" of technology?
Much of the information concerning the technology of the F-22 is classified, in spite of that, what we do know indicates a quantum leap in technology. I think the reasons for the F-15 and F-16 having such long service lives is directly proportional to 1) their initial high costs and 2) the fact that both airframes were just that good. Both aircraft have been considered the premium fighters in the West over the last 30 years. It wasn't until the advent of the Eurofighter Typhoon, French Rafael and the Swedish Gripen that the F-15/16 have had any serious competition in the West.
Even the Soviet Union didn't have any real competition for the F-15/16 until the arrival of the MiG-29 and Su-27 in the mid 80's. By the time the MiG and Sukhoi arrived the US was already in the initial development stages for the Advanced Tactical Fighter which we now know as the F-22.
-
That's not entirely accurate. The F-15 has been more dependable and accident free than the F-16 has. The F-16 has been the most accident free single engine fighter we have ever produced.
Yeah thats what I meant. When I'm in a hurry posting before I leave for work I sometimes leaves things out I wouldn't normally.
The F-15 has also been fairly high maintenance. Oh not like the F-14, but any supersonic aircraft, with a great deal of complicated technology behind it, from that era, is going to need a lot of man hours to keep the things running. The latest F-18s are a quantum leap ahead regarding ease of maintenance and the F-35 is going to log even better then that. Which is another + in its hat. The sustained sortie rates the RAAF is going to get from its F-35 fleet is going to be astounding. Thats another thing regarding your F-111s. They are difficult to maintain in a high sortie rate combat environment.
In short you are going to be able to keep more 5'th Gen Jabos in the air, for longer, and for more sorties per day of conflict. Dont underestimate the importance of that statement, which is another added bonus of buying Yank. The fact that you get access to our training and maintenance infrastructure. But from the git-go the F-35 has been designed with an eye to ease of maintenance and a high sortie rate ability. Again no other country can compare with the technological/Industrial, juggernaut That is the Yank warplane Industry. Not even the Euros who have made many fine fighters and still do. Its no secret the Euro consortium is fearful the F-35 will really hurt the EF sales. And the EF is an excellent design, but it isn't selling outside of Europe. In fact they are so worried the Euro consortium have made a version of their outstanding Meteor ATA missile to fit the F-35. And The French? Last I heard they couldn't sell those Rafaels anywheres. Maybe they have found a buyer since I last got into this. Maybe one!
So for an airplane thats been so vilified on the Internet there are sure a lot of buyers who want it.
-
The F-15 has also been fairly high maintenance
I worked on the F-15A/B models for close to 4 years. I also worked on the F-4E Phantom II for a bit over a year and a half. The F-4E was high maintenance, stupid things came back broke all the time.
For example, in preparation for surge operations with the F-4E we got as many of our 27 aircraft ready as possible, usually around 18 - 20 were ready come Monday morning. 12 primaries and the rest spares. By the time Friday rolled around we always had difficulty even getting 12 primaries ready and many times started the days flight operations w/o a single spare.
Contrast that to the F-15......when we prepared for surge operations we again got 12 primaries ready...but...we only got 2 spares ready each day. It was pretty rare to ever need a spare. Even when we did need to use a spare, the primary was usually fixed and ready to go before the *spare* returned from it's sortie.
Maintenance on the F-15 was far easier than it was on the Phantom as well. Again a contrast, removal and reinstallation of the internal gun, 6 full hours on the Phantom and then you not only were required to do electrical functional checks but you also had to perform a boresite as well. The F-15, the gun could be removed and reinstalled in about an hour and a half, and that includes the electrical functional check. A boresite wasn't even required unless certain parts of the gun itself had been replaced.
The F-15 and F-16 both had very high Mission Capable Rates, our F-15's were almost always in the 95%+ range. If the F-35 is supposed to be even better in this regard than the F-15/16 have been, well that's saying something.
Yeah thats what I meant. When I'm in a hurry posting before I leave for work I sometimes leaves things out I wouldn't normally.
That just shows that like the rest of us, you too...are human. :D
-
I remember the F-4s like it was yesterday. I had a lot of friends in maintenance and we all worked Mids and shift together. I quite often would pull security of the fighter pad. We all loved the F-4s but like you these guys would cuss them. It was a high maintenance airplane and many of them saw action, plus the fact that we were always in a high state of readiness during the cold war which meant Pilots saw a whole lot of hours in the air. Most of all in Phantoms tasked for special weapons as many in NATO were. And the smoke? You could see the things 2 time zones away. We had a lot of 'Nam guys back then. Both the pilots and the maintenance, and they were awfully good. These guys had to keep those things flying combat sortie rates. They told me they would work incredible hours sometimes.
And those are the real Heros of an air force. The guys who kept the planes combat ready.
We were getting 15s before I got out but I never even saw one. They went to Germany first and when I hit the states again I worked at MAC bases and did a stretch TDY convoying.
It was a love/hate thing with the Phantoms. I myself only loved them. The F-15 changed air combat forever and the F-16 ended up being the kid who overachieves. The F-35 is just an entirely new ballgame. Just 12 F-22s based at Kadena Japan completely changes the balance of military power in Asia. Thats what stealth brings to the table.
I forget the short term/combat sortie rates the F-35 equipped RAAF will be able to sustain in the opening days of a war but it was some obscene number. Networked into the land,sea, and air, systems they are developing they will be a bad enemy to have in their region of operations.
-
I forget the short term/combat sortie rates the F-35 equipped RAAF will be able to sustain in the opening days of a war but it was some obscene number. Networked into the land,sea, and air, systems they are developing they will be a bad enemy to have in their region of operations.
Most people don't realize how large of a force multiplier it is. You still need something for all out air superiority, but the F-35 under that umbrella is an awesome system. The spine of each aircraft has an antenna array, plus all the cameras and LPI, multi-mode radar, and massive bandwidth & datalink hub capabilities... all of it highly automatic and easy to use by 1 guy with 1 LCD screen. It's the new kingpin of battlefield support.
I think it's a good choice for Australia, but only if they have a dedicated wing of F-15s or new model Su's to protect it.
-
Most people don't realize how large of a force multiplier it is. You still need something for all out air superiority, but the F-35 under that umbrella is an awesome system. The spine of each aircraft has an antenna array, plus all the cameras and LPI, multi-mode radar, and massive bandwidth & datalink hub capabilities... all of it highly automatic and easy to use by 1 guy with 1 LCD screen. It's the new kingpin of battlefield support.
I think it's a good choice for Australia, but only if they have a dedicated wing of F-15s or new model Su's to protect it.
Indy can you imagine sending fighters with huge radar returns along with a stealth strike mission "in order to protect it"?
Think about that for a minute and then please re-post.
-
Ask Widewing, he knows Dr. Kopp. It is VERY unwise to dismiss his thoughts out of hand.
I know Carlo very well, he's a friend. However, his argument for keeping the F-111 isn't overly strong. It's a missile magnet. It's old technology that is expensive to maintain. Both of those reasons are why the F-14 was retired.
Carlo has taken a ride in the F-111. He likes it very much for the long-range strike capability it offers. He feels that the F-35 is inferior in that role, and understands that tankers can certainly extend the combat radius. However, tankers are quite vulnerable.
He makes good points, but the F-111 is becoming prohibitively expensive to keep in service. The Aussies figure that if that money is to be spent, they should spend it on technology that is cost effective and offers far great flexibility at some expense of long range strike ability.
Within the budget constraints, the F-35 offers good capability and long service life.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Indy can you imagine sending fighters with huge radar returns along with a stealth strike mission "in order to protect it"?
Think about that for a minute and then please re-post.
I would argue that the F-15 drivers that ran the CAP for the F-117s in '99 would disagree.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Bosnia_mig29.jpg/751px-Bosnia_mig29.jpg)
-
I would argue that the F-15 drivers that ran the CAP for the F-117s in '99 would disagree.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Bosnia_mig29.jpg/751px-Bosnia_mig29.jpg)
Do you have more then a picture to support that?
Also, BTW, F-117s had no defensive armament and no defense period other then stealth. The F-35 is going to be fully capable of defending itself and its going to do double duty as an air superiority fighter. So again why would you send a fighter like an F-15, with its large RCS, to escort stealth strike fighters? Most of all ones that will have 1/2 the RCS of an F-117 and are fully capable of defending their own selves. They wont need legacy fighters, with large radar returns, to do it for them.
It would be the equal of holding up a huge metal disk with, "stealth strike fighters coming this way", painted on it.
-
Do you have more then a picture to support that?
The record of the air conflict over Yugoslavia. Desert Storm. Afghanistan. Non-stealth Air Superiority fighters did their job while stealth dump trucks did the penetrations. You don't escort. You find the other guys, and kill them, with a dedicated air superiority fighter.
-
The record of the air conflict over Yugoslavia. Desert Storm. Afghanistan. Non-stealth Air Superiority fighters did their job while stealth dump trucks did the penetrations. You don't escort. You find the other guys, and kill them, with a dedicated air superiority fighter.
I dont even know what your talking about. Whats your point?
-
the point is the f22 is the real deal while the f35 is sloppy seconds.
how the fek can australia adequately defend new zealand if it's not given all the best stuff?
-
Most of all ones that will have 1/2 the RCS of an F-117 and are fully capable of defending their own selves. They wont need legacy fighters, with large radar returns, to do it for them.
It would be the equal of holding up a huge metal disk with, "stealth strike fighters coming this way", painted on it.
i would venture a guess, that by the time that the 35 s in full active service, there will be someone that has figured out a way to "see" it comming, and target it.
didn't that happen to the 117 on a couple occasions?
-
I dont even know what your talking about. Whats your point?
numbers win wars, not technology
-
I dont even know what your talking about. Whats your point?
Point I was poorly making is that Australia probably still would need a dedicated Air Superiority fighter. Even in conflicts with a variety of stealth assets, non-stealth assets still provided perfectly viable air superiority. Low RCS is great, and it does change the game, but it's not a complete substitute for raw aerodynamic performance. Plus, in those conflicts I listed, I can't find a BVR shot even being taken. That's when stealth & LPI radar can be king. All the shots I've read about have been WVR. Once you're that close, stealth isn't all that helpful.
-
the point is the f22 is the real deal while the f35 is sloppy seconds.
how the fek can australia adequately defend new zealand if it's not given all the best stuff?
The point is the F-22 is not a dual role strike fighter. The point is the RAAF said its not suitable cause you cant attack land/sea targets with it, they said they dont need it, that they dont want it, and that they cant afford it. Another point is we aint selling it and have said from the beginning we aint.
Insert Quote
the point is the f22 is the real deal while the f35 is sloppy seconds.
how the fek can australia adequately defend new zealand if it's not given all the best stuff?
Thanks for making that point. That the US is going to entrust the defense of our zillion $$ super carriers to a sloppy 2nds airplane. :huh You must work for Janes defense or somthing like that. You, you, you, you, you, military aviation expert you.
i would venture a guess, that by the time that the 35 s in full active service, there will be someone that has figured out a way to "see" it comming, and target it.
didn't that happen to the 117 on a couple occasions?
So are you just guessing or actually "venturing"? Were all waiting to hear what you base that statement on.
No it didnt happen to F-117s. The one F-117 that was shot down in Serbia had nothing to do with the failure of stealth. And nothing is truly invisible anyways. You can always see the thing with your eyes, which is why we often fly at night. And if your close enough you can track its IR signature. What stealth gives you is one heck of a big edge against other aircraft without it. Or those with a higher RCS. The fact is the airplane that is aware of the enemy long before the enemy is aware of him has a big edge.
Most of all in the strike mode. Future wars will be won or lost based on the success of opening night strikes. Saddam basically lost Gulf-1 on the opening night when we delivered fatal blows to his air defense system that the Iraqis could never recover from.
numbers win wars, not technology
Your kidding Cap right?
Point I was poorly making is that Australia probably still would need a dedicated Air Superiority fighter. Even in conflicts with a variety of stealth assets, non-stealth assets still provided perfectly viable air superiority. Low RCS is great, and it does change the game, but it's not a complete substitute for raw aerodynamic performance. Plus, in those conflicts I listed, I can't find a BVR shot even being taken. That's when stealth & LPI radar can be king. All the shots I've read about have been WVR. Once you're that close, stealth isn't all that helpful.
What conflicts? Vietnam? The technology wasnt there at the time.
I believe all the Kills in Gulf-1 with the AIM-7 were BVR. And most of the AIM-9 kills were made near the outside of the missiles envelope. There was no gunnery used against Iraqi aircraft and the closest thing to a dogfight was an F-15 stick who rode an Iraqi MIG into the ground as a lawn dart. The reason F-14s never fired the Pheonix missiles , in the few incidents they were involved in, was due to limitations in "Rules of engagement" placed upon the Tomcat pilots. But the truth is its only fairly recently that BVR missilry has reached a high level of dependability.
-
the point is the f22 is the real deal while the f35 is sloppy seconds.
how the fek can australia adequately defend new zealand if it's not given all the best stuff?
We don't need to be defended thanks, the rest of the world loves NZ, unlike Australia.
-
The F35 is a neat aircraft, but it's not worth it.
-
We don't need to be defended thanks, the rest of the world loves NZ, unlike Australia.
New who?
-
The F35 is a neat aircraft, but it's not worth it.
Must be in a hurry right? :huh
-
The F35 is a neat aircraft, but it's not worth it.
People thought the A-10 wasn't worth it either. It was the best tank killer of the Cold War era.
-
i would venture a guess, that by the time that the 35 s in full active service, there will be someone that has figured out a way to "see" it comming, and target it.
didn't that happen to the 117 on a couple occasions?
We already have an system that has been operating here in Australia for years that can spot it. The system in itself is not a secret, but some of the way it does what it does is. Suffice to say it does not rely on FCS to identify and track a target.
-
We already have an system that has been operating here in Australia for years that can spot it. The system in itself is not a secret, but some of the way it does what it does is. Suffice to say it does not rely on FCS to identify and track a target.
(http://www.nzetc.org/etexts/WH2Arti/WH2Art093b(h280).jpg)
-
:rofl
Not quite.
OTH Systems: Australia
A more recent addition is the Jindalee over-the-horizon radar developed by the Australian Department of Defence in 1998 and completed in 2000. Jindalee is a multistatic radar (multiple-receiver) system using OTH-B, allowing it to have both long range as well as anti-stealth capabilities. Interestingly, Jindalee uses 560 kW as compared to the US's OTH-B's 1 MW, yet offers far better range than the US 1980s system, due to the considerably improved electronics and signal processing.[1]
-
People thought the A-10 wasn't worth it either. It was the best tank killer of the Cold War era.
WAS?
still is the best ground attack aircraft, bar none.
-
We already have an system that has been operating here in Australia for years that can spot it. The system in itself is not a secret, but some of the way it does what it does is. Suffice to say it does not rely on FCS to identify and track a target.
that was my point. if we know you can or will be able to spot our planes anyway, then why waste the money on stealth? spend it on protecting the pilot, and spend it on making it the best in the world like the F15, 16, and the FA 18.
-
WAS?
still is the best ground attack aircraft, bar none.
It's being phased out as far as I know.
-
It's being phased out as far as I know.
really? i hadn't heard that? i'll have to check with my air force friends........last i heard they had updated the electronics, and were planning on keeping them in service till at least 2020.
there really is nothing better than the warthog for ground attack. turns on a dime, can stand hits to the cockpit area from 30mm rounds, can fly single engine, redudnant flight control backups, and of course the 30mm gatling cannon......who wants to face 4,000 rounds/minute of hell? :devil
i've read of these comming back home on manual controls as the primary, and primary backup systems hadf been destroyed.
-
really? i hadn't heard that? i'll have to check with my air force friends........last i heard they had updated the electronics, and were planning on keeping them in service till at least 2020.
there really is nothing better than the warthog for ground attack. turns on a dime, can stand hits to the cockpit area from 30mm rounds, can fly single engine, redudnant flight control backups, and of course the 30mm gatling cannon......who wants to face 4,000 rounds/minute of hell? :devil
i've read of these comming back home on manual controls as the primary, and primary backup systems hadf been destroyed.
It's been awhile since I heard of plans to phase it out, but if the electronics have been updated you are probably correct. :salute
-
We already have an system that has been operating here in Australia for years that can spot it. The system in itself is not a secret, but some of the way it does what it does is. Suffice to say it does not rely on FCS to identify and track a target.
Not exactly. Its true JORN is capable of detecting aircraft with a reduced RCS but only under perfect atmospheric conditions. All JORN is is high frequency radar being bounced off the ionosphere in the same way radio waves are. The problem with that is that during certain times of the day, most of all morning and night, or during storms, the Ionosphere dont want to cooperate. Another issue is JORN only covers the north of Australia, where the sea lanes are. And another is that JORN is very expensive and relys on a few high value land stations, "and we've seen how long those last in war".
So we didn't design our stealth aircraft to defeat the kind of radar system JORN is. Nor was JORN designed to defeat stealth aircraft. Nor was a system like JORN a secret at the time of stealth aircraft development. If we wanted to attack a country with JORN we would just go in in the morning and take out the radar stations. Even better, send TLACMs. Or we would just aim the CV to the south of the country where there is no JORN coverage.
Fact is JORN was built more to control boat traffic then to detect stealth. Heck the same company making the F-35 was involved in constructing JORN.
that was my point. if we know you can or will be able to spot our planes anyway, then why waste the money on stealth? spend it on protecting the pilot, and spend it on making it the best in the world like the F15, 16, and the FA 18.
Read the above. And then compare the pilot safety rate per sortie, F-117 vs F-legacy, even taking into account the 117 flew alone and unarmed into some of the most heavily defended airspace in the world.
-
Not exactly. Its true JORN is capable of detecting aircraft with a reduced RCS but only under perfect atmospheric conditions. All JORN is is high frequency radar being bounced off the ionosphere in the same way radio waves are. The problem with that is that during certain times of the day, most of all morning and night, or during storms, the Ionosphere dont want to cooperate. Another issue is JORN only covers the north of Australia, where the sea lanes are. And another is that JORN is very expensive and relys on a few high value land stations, "and we've seen how long those last in war".
So we didn't design our stealth aircraft to defeat the kind of radar system JORN is. Nor was JORN designed to defeat stealth aircraft. Nor was a system like JORN a secret at the time of stealth aircraft development. If we wanted to attack a country with JORN we would just go in in the morning and take out the radar stations. Even better, send TLACMs. Or we would just aim the CV to the south of the country where there is no JORN coverage.
Fact is JORN was built more to control boat traffic then to detect stealth. Heck the same company making the F-35 was involved in constructing JORN.
Read the above. And then compare the pilot safety rate per sortie, F-117 vs F-legacy, even taking into account the 117 flew alone and unarmed into some of the most heavily defended airspace in the world.
i think the point is though.......if australia has the capability at all, it will only improve, to complete coverage. also, if australia has it, then others most certtainly do, or will in the near future.
-
i think the point is though.......if australia has the capability at all, it will only improve, to complete coverage. also, if australia has it, then others most certtainly do, or will in the near future.
If you re-read Rich's post, there are huge holes in the coverage, not only in area covered but also certain times of the day when this particular radar doesn't work nearly as well as others. Very easy to neutralize I'd say.
-
i think the point is though.......if Australia has the capability at all, it will only improve, to complete coverage. also, if Australia has it, then others most certainly do, or will in the near future.
Why? Is the Ionosphere going to go away?, or are the Laws of Physics going to change?
Australia didn't build it to protect against Stealth. They knew that to do so was silly, most of all since Lockheed Martin was involved in JORN and probably told them so. Nobody is going to invest such $$ into a technology that can be defeated by stealth. Which is why we built the stealth aircraft to be effective against the ground radars it will have to go up against in real life. Not that those radars will survive long anyway.
If you have some Hi Tech info you'd like to share with us Cap then please do so. Because these silly one liners of yours just aint making it.
The northern coast of Australia is where the piracy, drug running, and important sea lanes are. They have no plans Im aware of to expand coverage of JORN.
-
If you re-read Rich's post, there are huge holes in the coverage, not only in area covered but also certain times of the day when this particular radar doesn't work nearly as well as others. Very easy to neutralize I'd say.
I UNDERSTOOD WHAT he was saying. what i was saying though was that the technology will come about to overcome those problems.
-
Why? Is the Ionosphere going to go away?, or are the Laws of Physics going to change?
Australia didn't build it to protect against Stealth. They knew that to do so was silly, most of all since Lockheed Martin was involved in JORN and probably told them so. Nobody is going to invest such $$ into a technology that can be defeated by stealth. Which is why we built the stealth aircraft to be effective against the ground radars it will have to go up against in real life. Not that those radars will survive long anyway.
If you have some Hi Tech info you'd like to share with us Cap then please do so. Because these silly one liners of yours just aint making it.
The northern coast of Australia is where the piracy, drug running, and important sea lanes are. They have no plans Im aware of to expand coverage of JORN.
well, sir, these aren't silly one liners. what these are, are the statements of a man that lives in the reality of things.
the reality is, that as our stealth technology progress's, so does the technology to defeat stealth.
you don't think our possible enemies are working their asssss's off to defeat this?
the f117 was stealth. it was tracked on more than one occasion. the blackbird was missle locked(air to air) at least once, although it was no big deal with its speed. i'm sure the b2 probably was too.
we do have the best in the world, but others need to counter what we have.
step back, and look at the whole picture, and you'll agree.
-
A very interesting article about the development of the JINDALEE system.
Have a read :D
http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/attachments/The_development_of_over-the-horizon_radar.pdf
-
the f117 is stealth. it was tracked on more than one occasion. the blackbird was missile locked(air to air) at least once, although it was no big deal with its speed.
The F-117 is still stealthy, although not as stealthy as the F-22 and F-35, it still gets the job done quite nicely. Interesting, out of all the sorties it has flown in combat zones, only one has been lost to enemy fire. I'd say it works just fine.
The SR-71 was fired upon many times by SAMs. I know of at least one incident over Korea where the SR-71 pilot saw the missile trail coming upwards and said to his co-pilot....Oh look, they're shooting at us, and opened the throttle. That missile missed by something like 7 miles. :D
-
They're called MISSiles for a reason :aok
-
Australia better replace F-111 before THIS (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Grumble-Gargoyle.html) missile see widespread service in Asia...
-
The F-117 is still stealthy, although not as stealthy as the F-22 and F-35, it still gets the job done quite nicely. Interesting, out of all the sorties it has flown in combat zones, only one has been lost to enemy fire. I'd say it works just fine.
The SR-71 was fired upon many times by SAMs. I know of at least one incident over Korea where the SR-71 pilot saw the missile trail coming upwards and said to his co-pilot....Oh look, they're shooting at us, and opened the throttle. That missile missed by something like 7 miles. :D
guys........don't misunderstand me. i'm not puting our technology down. i am very very proud to be an american, and think we are the biggest baddest kid on the block........
i just think that everyone is only looking at what WE do here. no one seems to think that the potential enemies of the US are going to do anything except to crap their pants when they realize that we have this technology. they WILL find ways to defeat it. hell, they may have already, even if we don't know they did....yet.
so that was the point i was trying to make. why spend the money on stealth which will be defeated, when that money can be better spent on the weapons systems, protecting the pilot/crew in combat, etc?
-
They're called MISSiles for a reason :aok
:rofl :rofl
true......and that would hold true for BVR engagements too. :noid
-
Australia better replace F-111 before THIS (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Grumble-Gargoyle.html) missile see widespread service in Asia...
The F-111 has terrain following radar, it can come in under the radar nps. :)
-
FYI
Setting the Record Straight on F-35
FORT WORTH, Texas, September 19th, 2008 -- U.S. Air Force analyses show the Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35 Lightning II is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market.
The Air Force's standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance, pitted the 5th generation F-35 against all advanced 4th generation fighters in a variety of simulated scenarios. The results were clear: the F-35 outperformed the most highly evolved fighters in aerial combat by significant margins.
"In all F-35 Program Office and U.S. Air Force air-to-air combat effectiveness analysis to date, the F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois," said Maj. Gen. Charles R. Davis, F-35 program executive officer.
Recent claims that Russian fighters defeated F-35s in a Hawaii-based simulated combat exercise are untrue, according to Maj. Gen. Davis.
"The reports are completely false and misleading and have absolutely no basis in fact," Maj. Gen. Davis said. "The August 2008 Pacific Vision Wargame that has been referenced recently in the media did not even address air-to-air combat effectiveness. The F-35 is required to be able to effectively defeat current and projected air-to-air threats. All available information, at the highest classification, indicates that F-35 is effectively meeting these aggressive operational challenges."
The Pacific Vision Wargame was a table-top exercise designed to assess basing and force-structure vulnerabilities, and did not include air-to-air combat exercises or any comparisons of different aircraft platforms.
Other erroneous allegations about the program were recently made in a letter distributed and written by industry-watchers Winston Wheeler and Pierre Sprey.
"It's not clear why they attacked the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice president of F-35 program integration. "It is clear they don't understand the underlying requirements of the F-35 program, the capabilities needed to meet those requirements or the real programmatic performance of the JSF team."
Here are the facts:
The F-35 is a racehorse, not a "dog," as Wheeler/Sprey suggest. In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. This allows unprecedented "see/shoot first" and combat radius advantages.
The high thrust-to-weight ratios of the lightweight fighter program Wheeler/Sprey recall from 30 years ago did not take into consideration combat-range fuel, sensors or armament, which dramatically alter wing loading, thrust-to-weight ratios and maneuverability. We do consider all of this in today's fighters.
The F-35 has the most powerful engine ever installed in a fighter, with thrust equivalent to both engines today in Eurofighter or F/A-18 aircraft. The conventional version of the F-35 has 9g capability and matches the turn rates of the F-16 and F/A-18. More importantly, in a combat load, with all fuel, targeting sensor pods and weapons carried internally, the F-35's aerodynamic performance far exceeds all legacy aircraft equipped with a similar capability.
When the threat situation diminishes so that it is safe for legacy aircraft to participate in the fight, the F-35 can also carry ordnance on six external wing stations in addition to its four internal stations.
Other important facts:
External weapon clearance is part of the current F-35 test program.
The government has already proven that no other aircraft can survive against the 5th generation stealth that only the F-22 and the F-35 possess; it is impossible to add this stealth to fourth-generation fighters.
The F-35's data collection, integration and information sharing capabilities will transform the battlespace of the future and will redefine the close air support mission. The F-35 is specifically designed to take advantage of lessons learned from the F-117 stealth aircraft. Unlike the F-117, the ability to share tactically important information is built into the F-35, along with stealth.
F-35 is developing, testing, and fielding mature software years ahead of legacy programs, further reducing development risk. The F-35's advanced software, already flying on two test aircraft with remarkable stability, is demonstrating the advantages of developing highly-common, tri-variant aircraft. The software developed span the entire aircraft and support systems including the aircraft itself, logistics systems, flight and maintenance trainers, maintenance information system and flight-test instrumentation.
Rather than relying exclusively on flight testing, the F-35 is retiring development risk through the most comprehensive laboratories, sensor test beds, and integrated full-fusion flying test bed ever created for an aircraft program. Representing only 25% of our verification plans, still the F-35's flight test program is comparable in hours to the combined flight test programs of the three primary U.S. aircraft it will replace.
The F-35 is one aircraft program designed to replace many different types of aircraft around the world - F-16, F/A-18, F-117, A-10, AV-8B, Sea Harrier, GR.7, F-111 and Tornado - flown by 14 air forces.
In addition to 19 developmental test aircraft, the F-35 is producing 20 fully instrumented, production-configured operational test aircraft. No program in history has employed this many test vehicles.
"Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access -- all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again," said Burbage.
The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5th generation stealth fighter. Three F-35 variants derived from a common design, developed together and using the same sustainment infrastructure worldwide will replace at least 13 types of aircraft for 11 nations initially, making the Lightning II the most cost-effective fighter program in history. Two F-35s have entered flight test, two are in ground test, and 17 are in various stages of assembly, including the first two production-model jets scheduled for delivery to the U.S. Air Force in 2010.
Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2007 sales of $41.9 billion.
F-35 and Lightning II are trademarks of Lockheed Martin Corporation.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/p...dstraight.html
-
Here are the facts:
The high thrust-to-weight ratios of the lightweight fighter program Wheeler/Sprey recall from 30 years ago did not take into consideration combat-range fuel, sensors or armament, which dramatically alter wing loading, thrust-to-weight ratios and maneuverability. We do consider all of this in today's fighters.
The F-35 has the most powerful engine ever installed in a fighter, with thrust equivalent to both engines today in Eurofighter or F/A-18 aircraft. The conventional version of the F-35 has 9g capability and matches the turn rates of the F-16 and F/A-18. More importantly, in a combat load, with all fuel, targeting sensor pods and weapons carried internally, the F-35's aerodynamic performance far exceeds all legacy aircraft equipped with a similar capability.
There's a reason why the rate of climb is still classified...
-
Australia better replace F-111 before THIS (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Grumble-Gargoyle.html) missile see widespread service in Asia...
Why?
This quote is from your article:
Australia's F-111s, if used cleverly, are arguably much more survivable against this class of technology than the vast majority of newer types in service - it should come as no surprise that the Bundes-Luftwaffe in Germany developed the terrain following Tornado ECR Wild Weasel precisely around this regime of attack on the SA-10/20/12.
:P
-
FYI
Setting the Record Straight on F-35
FORT WORTH, Texas, September 19th, 2008 -- U.S. Air Force analyses show the Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35 Lightning II is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market.
The Air Force's standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance, pitted the 5th generation F-35 against all advanced 4th generation fighters in a variety of simulated scenarios. The results were clear: the F-35 outperformed the most highly evolved fighters in aerial combat by significant margins.
"In all F-35 Program Office and U.S. Air Force air-to-air combat effectiveness analysis to date, the F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois," said Maj. Gen. Charles R. Davis, F-35 program executive officer.
Recent claims that Russian fighters defeated F-35s in a Hawaii-based simulated combat exercise are untrue, according to Maj. Gen. Davis.
"The reports are completely false and misleading and have absolutely no basis in fact," Maj. Gen. Davis said. "The August 2008 Pacific Vision Wargame that has been referenced recently in the media did not even address air-to-air combat effectiveness. The F-35 is required to be able to effectively defeat current and projected air-to-air threats. All available information, at the highest classification, indicates that F-35 is effectively meeting these aggressive operational challenges."
The Pacific Vision Wargame was a table-top exercise designed to assess basing and force-structure vulnerabilities, and did not include air-to-air combat exercises or any comparisons of different aircraft platforms.
Other erroneous allegations about the program were recently made in a letter distributed and written by industry-watchers Winston Wheeler and Pierre Sprey.
"It's not clear why they attacked the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice president of F-35 program integration. "It is clear they don't understand the underlying requirements of the F-35 program, the capabilities needed to meet those requirements or the real programmatic performance of the JSF team."
Here are the facts:
The F-35 is a racehorse, not a "dog," as Wheeler/Sprey suggest. In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. This allows unprecedented "see/shoot first" and combat radius advantages.
The high thrust-to-weight ratios of the lightweight fighter program Wheeler/Sprey recall from 30 years ago did not take into consideration combat-range fuel, sensors or armament, which dramatically alter wing loading, thrust-to-weight ratios and maneuverability. We do consider all of this in today's fighters.
The F-35 has the most powerful engine ever installed in a fighter, with thrust equivalent to both engines today in Eurofighter or F/A-18 aircraft. The conventional version of the F-35 has 9g capability and matches the turn rates of the F-16 and F/A-18. More importantly, in a combat load, with all fuel, targeting sensor pods and weapons carried internally, the F-35's aerodynamic performance far exceeds all legacy aircraft equipped with a similar capability.
When the threat situation diminishes so that it is safe for legacy aircraft to participate in the fight, the F-35 can also carry ordnance on six external wing stations in addition to its four internal stations.
Other important facts:
External weapon clearance is part of the current F-35 test program.
The government has already proven that no other aircraft can survive against the 5th generation stealth that only the F-22 and the F-35 possess; it is impossible to add this stealth to fourth-generation fighters.
The F-35's data collection, integration and information sharing capabilities will transform the battlespace of the future and will redefine the close air support mission. The F-35 is specifically designed to take advantage of lessons learned from the F-117 stealth aircraft. Unlike the F-117, the ability to share tactically important information is built into the F-35, along with stealth.
F-35 is developing, testing, and fielding mature software years ahead of legacy programs, further reducing development risk. The F-35's advanced software, already flying on two test aircraft with remarkable stability, is demonstrating the advantages of developing highly-common, tri-variant aircraft. The software developed span the entire aircraft and support systems including the aircraft itself, logistics systems, flight and maintenance trainers, maintenance information system and flight-test instrumentation.
Rather than relying exclusively on flight testing, the F-35 is retiring development risk through the most comprehensive laboratories, sensor test beds, and integrated full-fusion flying test bed ever created for an aircraft program. Representing only 25% of our verification plans, still the F-35's flight test program is comparable in hours to the combined flight test programs of the three primary U.S. aircraft it will replace.
The F-35 is one aircraft program designed to replace many different types of aircraft around the world - F-16, F/A-18, F-117, A-10, AV-8B, Sea Harrier, GR.7, F-111 and Tornado - flown by 14 air forces.
In addition to 19 developmental test aircraft, the F-35 is producing 20 fully instrumented, production-configured operational test aircraft. No program in history has employed this many test vehicles.
"Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access -- all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again," said Burbage.
The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5th generation stealth fighter. Three F-35 variants derived from a common design, developed together and using the same sustainment infrastructure worldwide will replace at least 13 types of aircraft for 11 nations initially, making the Lightning II the most cost-effective fighter program in history. Two F-35s have entered flight test, two are in ground test, and 17 are in various stages of assembly, including the first two production-model jets scheduled for delivery to the U.S. Air Force in 2010.
Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2007 sales of $41.9 billion.
F-35 and Lightning II are trademarks of Lockheed Martin Corporation.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/p...dstraight.html
very very well written.
but you've no idea how hard i'm slamming my head against the wall right now.
yes, thre US IS the best. yes, there is no technology to match ours...............CURRENTLY.
if WE have it, you all KNOW THEY'LL have it sooner or later. orrrrrr, they'll have found a way to defeat the stealth.
i love being an american and being able to brag about the stuff we have, but c'mon guys.......this isn't dogfights. this is the real thing. if we launch missles from our "invisible" aircraft, the bad guys ain't gonna fly straight into em like everyone seems to think.
-
So.. Who do you believe?
As expected, L.M. have come out swinging, but the methods they use for their comparisons appear a little biased. Seriously, 400% more effective than the best fighters currently available? :rolleyes:
Lockheed Martin 'Sets The Record Straight' On F-35 Lightning II
Former Defense Secretary Aide Says JSF Is "A Dog"
US Air Force analyses show the F-35 Lightning II is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market, according to the plane's manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
That terse statement comes following claims made last week by industry watcher Winston Wheeler and Pierre Sprey, an aide to then-Defense Secretary James Schlesinger in the early 1970s. Sprey was a member of the team that produced such accomplished fighters as the F-16, and A-10 Warthog... and he says recent combat simulations against a variety of current aircraft show "the F-35 is a dog," when compared against Saab's Gripen, the Dassault Rafale, MiG-35 and Sukhoi Su-35, and the Eurofighter Typhoon.
Sprey's comments came after reports in Australian newspapers earlier this month, that claimed F-35s were "clubbed like baby seals" by simulated Sukhois during the Pacific Vision 2008 wargames exercise in Hawaii.
Lockheed maintains that in using the USAF's standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance, the F-35 was pitted against all advanced 4th generation fighters in a variety of simulated scenarios. "The results were clear: the F-35 outperformed the most highly evolved fighters in aerial combat by significant margins," Lockheed claims.
"In all F-35 Program Office and US Air Force air-to-air combat effectiveness analysis to date, the F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois," said Maj. Gen. Charles R. Davis, F-35 program executive officer.
Recent claims that Russian fighters defeated F-35s in simulated combat are untrue, Davis added.
"The reports are completely false and misleading and have absolutely no basis in fact," Maj. Gen. Davis said. "The August 2008 Pacific Vision Wargame that has been referenced recently in the media did not even address air-to-air combat effectiveness. The F-35 is required to be able to effectively defeat current and projected air-to-air threats. All available information, at the highest classification, indicates that F-35 is effectively meeting these aggressive operational challenges."
Lockheed described the Pacific Vision Wargame as "a table-top exercise," designed to assess basing and force-structure vulnerabilities. It did not include air-to-air combat exercises or any comparisons of different aircraft platforms.
"It's not clear why they attacked the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice president of F-35 program integration. "It is clear they don't understand the underlying requirements of the F-35 program, the capabilities needed to meet those requirements or the real programmatic performance of the JSF team.
"The critics seem to get credibility, but the program doesn't," Burbage added.
Sprey and Wheeler stand by their accusations... saying the F-35 appears too fast for a tactical role, too 'delicate' in head-to-head combat, and too flammable to withstand sustained rounds from ground fire, according to Reuters.
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=83502215-e0ee-4f90-a795-62ba6b34e212&
-
You have to figure that the 400% is an all inclusive number. Performance, cost to build and maintain, cost to train pilots and ground crew for all branches of service, ext.
When 1 plane is being designed to replace upwards of a dozen current aircraft, the 400% number makes more sense.
-
So.. Who do you believe?
As expected, L.M. have come out swinging, but the methods they use for their comparisons appear a little biased. Seriously, 400% more effective than the best fighters currently available? :rolleyes:http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=83502215-e0ee-4f90-a795-62ba6b34e212&
take a dozen active military combat pilots. take them and the F35 to germany and fly it in a "red flag" type of scenario against the current luftwaffe.
they NEED to be just current pilots though. not ones that are going to be biased as a test pilot might be. ones that will end up in this fighter if it sees service. that'll be the most honest opinions you'll get.
-
take a dozen active military combat pilots. take them and the F35 to germany and fly it in a "red flag" type of scenario against the current luftwaffe.
they NEED to be just current pilots though. not ones that are going to be biased as a test pilot might be. ones that will end up in this fighter if it sees service. that'll be the most honest opinions you'll get.
Not really. The "Joint Fighter Conference" held during World War II comes to mind.
-
You have to figure that the 400% is an all inclusive number. Performance, cost to build and maintain, cost to train pilots and ground crew for all branches of service, ext.
When 1 plane is being designed to replace upwards of a dozen current aircraft, the 400% number makes more sense.
Maybe Hornet, but that article specifically said 400% more effective in air to air combat not overall.
Sounds too good to be true.
take a dozen active military combat pilots. take them and the F35 to germany and fly it in a "red flag" type of scenario against the current luftwaffe.
they NEED to be just current pilots though. not ones that are going to be biased as a test pilot might be. ones that will end up in this fighter if it sees service. that'll be the most honest opinions you'll get.
Yeah, that seems like it would be the way to go too. I wonder if the Russians, French and Swedes could be convinced to join in as well? It would be interesting to see it pitted against the best aircraft that Europe has to offer. It certainly would boost sales IF the JSF came put on top wouldn't it?
-
guys........don't misunderstand me. i'm not puting our technology down. i am very very proud to be an american, and think we are the biggest baddest kid on the block........
i just think that everyone is only looking at what WE do here. no one seems to think that the potential enemies of the US are going to do anything except to crap their pants when they realize that we have this technology. they WILL find ways to defeat it. hell, they may have already, even if we don't know they did....yet.
so that was the point i was trying to make. why spend the money on stealth which will be defeated, when that money can be better spent on the weapons systems, protecting the pilot/crew in combat, etc?
We did. The F-22 is one of the most nimble airplanes ever made. When its stealth is added to the equation it is the most invincible air superiority fighter in history.
Cap instead of making all kinds of loony predictions let me give you one piece of advice. Type "defeating stealth" into a search engine and try and find some concrete facts to support your conclusions.
Stealth was never intended to be invincible, even if it basically has been. It was designed to provide a war winning edge for its operators. It was designed to defeat the type of radars it would actually go up against in combat. And even then pilots will use standard radar avoidance tactics to enhance their stealth. Besides these radars will be hit hard as well per standard doctrine.
War technology will always be a horse race. There may well be a time when stealth will be useless. But its not going to be anytime in our lifetimes.
-
We did. The F-22 is one of the most nimble airplanes ever made. When its stealth is added to the equation it is the most invincible air superiority fighter in history.
Cap instead of making all kinds of loony predictions let me give you one piece of advice. Type "defeating stealth" into a search engine and try and find some concrete facts to support your conclusions.
Stealth was never intended to be invincible, even if it basically has been. It was designed to provide a war winning edge for its operators. It was designed to defeat the type of radars it would actually go up against in combat. And even then pilots will use standard radar avoidance tactics to enhance their stealth. Besides these radars will be hit hard as well per standard doctrine.
War technology will always be a horse race. There may well be a time when stealth will be useless. But its not going to be anytime in our lifetimes.
here's a couple sites i found. probably houy though.....but somewhat interesting none-the-less
http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2001-12/stealth-threat
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread187610/pg1
http://www.ehow.com/how_2179694_detect-stealth-aircraft.html
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20051121.aspx
the last one was somewhat more interesting as this guy used his resources and brains more than any technology he may or may not have had available to him
-
http://www.afa.org/magazine/Feb1999/0299radar.asp
In theory, a bistatic radar that placed the transmitter in one location and the receiver in another might be able to pick up what might be called the "trailing" RCS that is directed away from the monostatic radar. However, bistatic radars, while simple in concept, have many fundamental technical and operational issues to overcome, according to John Shaeffer, RCS engineer at Marietta Scientific in Georgia. The receiver antenna beam must intercept its companion transmit beam and follow the transmit pulse which is moving at the speed of light. Unless the transmitter and receiver pulses are synchronized, distance measurement is impossible. Even a workable bistatic radar must then address the problem of how much volume of airspace it can scan at a given power setting in a given time. When the receiver, transmitter, and target are located on a straight line, the receiver can be overwhelmed by the transmitter pulse, which hides the target's radar return. As Shaeffer put it, "This is similar to looking into the Sun for light scattered from Venus."
Bistatic systems are hardly new news. You see them when you tune the TV for the weather report.
-
the last one was somewhat more interesting as this guy used his resources and brains more than any technology he may or may not have had available to him
While it is an impressive feat, getting 2 jets out of hundreds in a 20+ day air campaign... that's a bit like trying to plug Hoover Dam with your finger.
-
While it is an impressive feat, getting 2 jets out of hundreds in a 20+ day air campaign... that's a bit like trying to plug Hoover Dam with your finger.
agreed. the point though, is thatwhat he did was supposed to be impossible.
-
Very true - but our F-111's are still servicable and could be easily continued in service till 2020. The idea it is a relic is the reasoning that the last govt. were so desperate to get rid of it, but our F-111's have been continually upgraded since the mid 1990's, its weapon systems are up to current Nato standards and are far more capable than they were since the 70's. No-one thinks to retire B-52s, or B-1 just because the eras in which they were designed for have passed.
Tronsky
One of the problem being that they are getting harder to maintain. Themy may look good on the outside, but they are wearing out. I read an articel a few years back that the wing box is cracking alot on them. A real pain to fix. You have to remove alot of stuff to get to it. They are still a great aircraft, but one reason they are getting replaced is they are wearing out. Of course, you can keep any plane flying if you want to keep fixing it. But parts are a big big problem. To keep the B-52s flying, they have to "can." from the fleet and the boneyard.
So in the end, it gets too much to maintain. But I cann't see how the F-35 can replace a med bomber. And I build them, so I want all the custumers we can get so I can have a job till I retire.
-
While it is an impressive feat, getting 2 jets out of hundreds in a 20+ day air campaign... that's a bit like trying to plug Hoover Dam with your finger.
Hardly impressive. The CO of that Yank squadron should have been court martialed for his sheer stupidity. There was no target worth hitting in daytime a 117 couldn't hit at night. It was sheer ignorance and stupidity on our part, and add in a bit of 3rd world ethnic cleansing shrewdness. So if we were ever stupid enough to fly the things in straight lines, time after time, in daytime, so the enemy can pattern them with binoculars, then we stand another good chance of losing a stealth aircraft.
And I dont blame the Serbs for not wanting to leave their radars on. It must have been those photos of the Iraqi crispy critters manning their Dars to the last ember.
And lets not forget the Yank led NATO air Juggernaut brought the Serbs to their knees sniveling and begging, spittle dripping from their simpering faces. The mission was accomplished and it didn't take one ground pounder to do it.
Stealth was never meant to be invincible, for the hundredth time. It was designed to be a decisive war winning system.
-
Stealth was never meant to be invincible, for the hundredth time. It was designed to be a decisive war winning system.
Skunkworks by Ben Rich is a good read on the development of it.
-
Hardly impressive. The CO of that Yank squadron should have been court martialed for his sheer stupidity. There was no target worth hitting in daytime a 117 couldn't hit at night. It was sheer ignorance and stupidity on our part, and add in a bit of 3rd world ethnic cleansing shrewdness. So if we were ever stupid enough to fly the things in straight lines, time after time, in daytime, so the enemy can pattern them with binoculars, then we stand another good chance of losing a stealth aircraft.
And I dont blame the Serbs for not wanting to leave their radars on. It must have been those photos of the Iraqi crispy critters manning their Dars to the last ember.
And lets not forget the Yank led NATO air Juggernaut brought the Serbs to their knees sniveling and begging, spittle dripping from their simpering faces. The mission was accomplished and it didn't take one ground pounder to do it.
Stealth was never meant to be invincible, for the hundredth time. It was designed to be a decisive war winning system.
agreed about the co doing the same predictable things da in day out.
i have understood what you've been saying all along. the only point i've been trying to make is that while we are advancing our technology to have stealth, potential enemies are probably going apechit developing technology to defeat it. they may or may not be successful. i sincerely hope they're not.
i didn't read the whole page, yet, but one of those links i posted had mentioned that we were selling this technology. i sincerely hope this isn't true too. that is part of why i said in that post that those sites mightve been a bunch of houy.....
it just seems to me that a lot of us(myslef included sometimes) tend to onlyu look at what we want to see
-
Skunkworks by Ben Rich is a good read on the development of it.
It wasn't as big a secret as they would have liked it to be. In 1982 a retired British General, Sir. John Hackett, published a book "The Third World War". It was an account of a Soviet/Warsaw PAC invasion of Western Europe. In the book he included opening night tactical strikes on Soviet C&C by a Yank attack plane that was invisible to radar. In the book he called the plane the "Frisbee". This was a year before we had an operational squadron and 6 years before USAF admitted we had such an airplane.
The thing traveled at will in some of the heaviest protected airspace in the world. And the F-35 is going to be a far, far more effective and versatile platform. Really just a tremendous step up from the 117.
-
agreed about the co doing the same predictable things da in day out.
i have understood what you've been saying all along. the only point i've been trying to make is that while we are advancing our technology to have stealth, potential enemies are probably going apechit developing technology to defeat it. they may or may not be successful. i sincerely hope they're not.
i didn't read the whole page, yet, but one of those links i posted had mentioned that we were selling this technology. i sincerely hope this isn't true too. that is part of why i said in that post that those sites mightve been a bunch of houy.....
it just seems to me that a lot of us(myslef included sometimes) tend to onlyu look at what we want to see
Very true. Defense is always a horse race. Thats why America spends for defense the same rough amount of the entire rest of the world combined. You cant look at stealth as the only element in the equation. Its a huge asset yes but the same importance is also placed on training, doctrine, and sound tactics. Computer power alone has allowed the entire battle space to be networked into one huge system. Command and Control is almost instantaneous. All this is what is really going to give an edge to an air force like the RAAF. They have a very high level of competency and technology, as do we. Stealth is just one part of the equation.