JSF "clubbed like baby seals"

[jollyFE]

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.

[Elfie]

...this one's along side the boat. should i use a gaff, a net, or just shoot the damn thing?

Why bother?   

[SD67]

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.

[-tronski-]

I dunno, we've operated Mirage's, Sabres, A-4's etc for years

 Tronsky

[SD67]

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

[Rich46yo]

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.

[Elfie]

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.

[FrodeMk3]

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...

[Elfie]

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.

[Rich46yo]

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.

[Elfie]

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. 

[Rich46yo]

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.

[indy007]

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.

[Rich46yo]

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.

[Widewing]

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