JSF "clubbed like baby seals"

[Furball]

 

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 

[mg1942]

I feel for you guys...

What happened to TSR was murder!

[SD67]

Don't remind me!
That was one of the worst political decisions ever made!

[Rich46yo]

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.

[SD67]

The guys who will actually fly them here don't want them either. Does that count for anything?

[Excel1]

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:


and we still have it's a4's despite the socialist's fire sale.

[Elfie]

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.

[Elfie]

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.

[john9001]

why doesn't Australia just build it's own planes?

[Ripsnort]

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.

[CAP1]

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.

[Elfie]

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.

[Elfie]

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

[CAP1]

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.

[CAP1]

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