Australia’s First F-35 on the Go

[burnz]

Originally Posted by rdmr

I wasn't aware f22 production had even stopped. F35 it is then.
Hopefully it will be a Development hell, operational heaven story like the f111 was.
$12 billion could go a very long way into building our own drone industry though. Plenty of joystick warriors around.

the grand kids?? (enders game)

[Franco Cozzo]

Maybe the Government should have approached Russian company Sukhoi about building their fighter jets under license in Australia? As they do it in other countries.

Then we could have somewhere for the manufacturing workers from SA and Vic to go to:

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2013/04/08/...ois_23629.html

Old article but interesting.

So what is Australia to do? According to the independent think tank New Australia, it should consider not just the Sukhoi Flanker but in future the PAK-FA. “We recommend that Australia enter an arrangement with Sukhoi similar to HAL in India to build either the Sukhoi Su-35S Flanker or Su-32 Fullback aircraft under licence in Australia. The current preference is Su-35S,” says New Australia.

“Sukhoi licenses the manufacture of Sukhoi planes and parts in several countries including India and China. Australia could buy the entire Sukhoi aircraft and build the avionics, consumables and weaponry locally. Many companies in Russia, Asia, Israel and Europe manufacture Sukhoi components. Sukhoi is ‘open source’.”

I guess the current Government didn't want to live up to their promises and actually create jobs rather than lose them, good opportunity here for that instead of just buying the 50 odd F35s.

[Bossxr8]

With the current situation in the Ukraine, buying weapons from the Russians who have got our allies on edge isn't an option. And Putin seems hell bent on returning Russia to the bad old days.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Maybe the Government should have approached Russian company Sukhoi about building their fighter jets under license in Australia? As they do it in other countries.

Then we could have somewhere for the manufacturing workers from SA and Vic to go to:

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2013/04/08/...ois_23629.html

Old article but interesting.



I guess the current Government didn't want to live up to their promises and actually create jobs rather than lose them, good opportunity here for that instead of just buying the 50 odd F35s.

Rubbish.

Do you write in Cyrillic ?

There is a reason why Western Europe and the US are worried about Russia.

Sleeping bears don't sleep forever.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

Rubbish.

Do you write in Cyrillic ?

There is a reason why Western Europe and the US are worried about Russia.

Sleeping bears don't sleep forever.

Nah, I like their porn though, we won't build their fighter jets but we'll sell them our uranium.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...0319-qjm5.html

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

With the current situation in the Ukraine, buying weapons from the Russians who have got our allies on edge isn't an option. And Putin seems hell bent on returning Russia to the bad old days.

Or is the reason we just ordered 58 new fighter jets is that we are preparing for something the allies and our Government haven't told us about?

Ukraine is Ukraine's problem and like usual the USA wants to play world police except this time it isn't throwing rocks at a bunch of opium farmers.

Maybe we should start looking after our own interests for once?

[My poor XF]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Maybe we should start looking after our own interests for once?

And how is buying a dated soviet air frame with no integration into our allied systems looking after ourselves? We would need to develop that integration at our own expense. Why bother.

[bungarra]

Originally Posted by My poor XF

And how is buying a dated soviet air frame with no integration into our allied systems looking after ourselves? We would need to develop that integration at our own expense. Why bother.

You do realise the East German MiG's and Sukhoi's were integrated into the new German Air Foce without too many issues? Avionics is software change over mostly.

THe SU31 has one of the toughest and updated air frames and is no different to the F18's we just bought if not more uprated in the last redesign.

The RAAF did exercises a few years ago and the SU range in the right hands out performed our F18's. Given the new Flankers have thrust vectoring (no US manufactured plane bar the F22 at the moment has), I woudl say, not bad for an outdated airframe.

Also, Sukohoi Aviation is a partner on the JSF, they designed and developed the thrust vectoring for VTOL versions.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Maybe the Government should have approached Russian company Sukhoi about building their fighter jets under license in Australia? As they do it in other countries.

We could buy the PAK-FA from Sukhoi without combat systems and avionics and fit our own off-the-shelf sourced gear from US based manufacturers.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

Rubbish.

Do you write in Cyrillic ?

There is a reason why Western Europe and the US are worried about Russia.

Sleeping bears don't sleep forever.

There are 2 issues as I see it with the current Ukraine situation:

1) Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union/Russia for 60-70 years. You can't simply undo that level of integration with Russian society overnight. I think what we're seeing is that sentiment. Half of it anyway.

2) Putin has called Obama's bluff with his "red line" warnings to be little more than talk.

The last line of your post is troubling and foreshadows what is to come.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by bungarra

You do realise the East German MiG's and Sukhoi's were integrated into the new German Air Foce without too many issues? Avionics is software change over mostly.

THe SU31 has one of the toughest and updated air frames and is no different to the F18's we just bought if not more uprated in the last redesign.

The RAAF did exercises a few years ago and the SU range in the right hands out performed our F18's. Given the new Flankers have thrust vectoring (no US manufactured plane bar the F22 at the moment has), I woudl say, not bad for an outdated airframe.

Also, Sukohoi Aviation is a partner on the JSF, they designed and developed the thrust vectoring for VTOL versions.

Cant compare East German MiG's and Sukhois, they were during a time when a plane could operate on its own. The F35 is supposed to seamlessly pass information between it and other allied systems (AWAC's Ships, you name it) It part of a system. Sukhois are a very capable plane, you could argue that Sukhois would beat any aircraft in a dog fight (including the F22, but thats a whole new debate) The F35, however is very different in how it is designed to operate (as I said its more of a system, it works with other systems to identify threats and work out the best way to eliminate them) How well it works I dont know

As for putting F35 gear into a Sukhoi, I dont think it would work, airframes and systems are designed to work together. It would be a bit like saying you like the appearance of an iphone but want to put in Nokia gear.

[bungarra]

Originally Posted by SB076

Cant compare East German MiG's and Sukhois, they were during a time when a plane could operate on its own. The F35 is supposed to seamlessly pass information between it and other allied systems (AWAC's Ships, you name it) It part of a system. .

Partially correct, the German aircraft were runing interlink prior to the US and still manage. Interlink is not a US only technology is purely a software system with a hub system similar to the internet. Any reasonable computer tech would fit out to any aircraft. US fitted it to SU and MiG's they have for training. Australian techs have checked the possibility (Indonesain Sukhois will have the software to cross communicate to their F16's and US Aircraft during missions and exercises)

Originally Posted by SB076

Sukhois are a very capable plane, you could argue that Sukhois would beat any aircraft in a dog fight (including the F22, but thats a whole new debate) The F35, however is very different in how it is designed to operate (as I said its more of a system, it works with other systems to identify threats and work out the best way to eliminate them) How well it works I dont know.

Any aircraft under the right pilot will be capable of many things. The electronics is capable of being built into any aircraft. Eurofighter is an example as it runs the same interlink system but can be run to an independant link as well.

Originally Posted by SB076

As for putting F35 gear into a Sukhoi, I dont think it would work, airframes and systems are designed to work together. It would be a bit like saying you like the appearance of an iphone but want to put in Nokia gear.

Different to mobile phones. The software and equipment for networking is designed to be run on multiple aircraft types. No other equipment apart from weapons systems need to be adapted and given the ability of Raytheon or Rafael, that is a non issue. The Hawks were changed form full Euro Typhoon cockpit compliance to F18 for Australia without any major issues.

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Maybe we should start looking after our own interests for once?

Being allies with the US is looking after ourselfs, in a massive way. Australia didnt head to Iraq and Afghanistan just for the sake of it, Australia is there for a much important reason.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by bungarra

Partially correct, the German aircraft were runing interlink prior to the US and still manage. Interlink is not a US only technology is purely a software system with a hub system similar to the internet. Any reasonable computer tech would fit out to any aircraft. US fitted it to SU and MiG's they have for training. Australian techs have checked the possibility (Indonesain Sukhois will have the software to cross communicate to their F16's and US Aircraft during missions and exercises)

The F35, "supposedly" has a entire new level (generation) of communications, so its different than what we have seen in the past (Sukhois, MiG's, Eurofighter, F18's etc) The plane and its systems are supposed to reduce the pilots work load, provided better tasking, threat analysis etc (but we will have to see)

Originally Posted by bungarra

Different to mobile phones. The software and equipment for networking is designed to be run on multiple aircraft types. No other equipment apart from weapons systems need to be adapted and given the ability of Raytheon or Rafael, that is a non issue. The Hawks were changed form full Euro Typhoon cockpit compliance to F18 for Australia without any major issues.

Yes but the Hawk is different than a MiG or Sukhoi, the Hawk (as a lead in fighter) was designed to simulate a variety of planes. So it can be used as a trainer for a Typhoon, or F18 with minimal fuss

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by ford man xf

Being allies with the US is looking after ourselfs, in a massive way. Australia didnt head to Iraq and Afghanistan just for the sake of it, Australia is there for a much important reason.

You think that if we happen to find ourselves in some serious **** they're going to help us from the other end of the globe or just use what little they have here in Australia if at all?

Being allies with them is one thing but that doesn't mean we have to be their slave and buy all their crap, I'm pretty sure they wont break the alliance over some fighter jets we didn't buy from them.

[Bent8]

Bad move getting these, they are no good at anything and the only guys that will benefit from it's production are the contractors and politicians that have a stake in it.

Our modernized F/A-18's would make short work of an F-35 and according to Pierre Sprey (the guy who designed the F-16 and A-10), a 1950's MIG-21 can bring it down!

What a scam... and who's going to be paying for these planes again?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Maybe the Government should have approached Russian company Sukhoi about building their fighter jets under license in Australia? As they do it in other countries.

Then we could have somewhere for the manufacturing workers from SA and Vic to go to:

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2013/04/08/...ois_23629.html

Old article but interesting.



I guess the current Government didn't want to live up to their promises and actually create jobs rather than lose them, good opportunity here for that instead of just buying the 50 odd F35s.

This guy is a genius, his idea sounds pretty good man!

[My poor XF]

Originally Posted by Bent8

Bad move getting these, they are no good at anything and the only guys that will benefit from it's production are the contractors and politicians that have a stake in it.

Our modernized F/A-18's would make short work of an F-35 and according to Pierre Sprey (the guy who designed the F-16 and A-10), a 1950's MIG-21 can bring it down!

What a scam... and who's going to be paying for these planes again?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw

This guy is stuck in a world where you need to out manoeuvre your opponent to get the kill. The F-35 will kill you before you are even with 100kms.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by My poor XF

This guy is stuck in a world where you need to out manoeuvre your opponent to get the kill. The F-35 will kill you before you are even with 100kms.

Except from the sounds of things the F-35 performs worse than me in school PE and its "stealth" capability can't hide from a radar designed in the 1940s.

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by My poor XF

This guy is stuck in a world where you need to out manoeuvre your opponent to get the kill. The F-35 will kill you before you are even with 100kms.

Not really.. way back during the Vietnam war, USAF believed their F-4 Phantom's fitted with medium range Sparrow missiles would defeat the need for a nose mounted 20mm gun... they we're very quickly proven wrong.

[Fordman1]

The 'freak show conspiracists' say this plane will be a dud and obsolete rubbish will be superior.

All I'll say is 'Stick to your conspiracy theories and we'll see'.

The proof will be in the pudding. Let's see what the real story is in 2022.

The F35 will be the best choice by a mile by then.

[ILLaViTaR]

America seems to be offloading these planes to us whilst not allowing us to purchase the superior F22 raptor that they use for themselves. The F35 has been plagued with development problems and is essentially a lemon with many incapabilities and algorithm problems apparently even the Russian planes are widely regarded to be better. Someone needs the balls to back out of this deal and to at least have a rethink about it.

[calais]

Uh, for the millionth time.

The F-22 is no longer in production.

The F-35 is a fifth generation platform which can support a multitude of roles. All these arguments of it being a dog are total trash talk.

It seems like the wheel has turned again just like it did when Australia signed on for the F-111. Lets not forget the struggle that spawned a measure of airpower superiority that was unmatched in our region until its retirement.

[My poor XF]

Originally Posted by Bent8

Not really.. way back during the Vietnam war, USAF believed their F-4 Phantom's fitted with medium range Sparrow missiles would defeat the need for a nose mounted 20mm gun... they we're very quickly proven wrong.

This isn't the 70's anymore, theses missiles can be fired from 100's of Kms away and are nearly always a kill. As i said it all comes down to situational awareness. Which the F35 has in spades.

Pierre Sprey also said they wrecked his F16 by putting sophisticated radars into it....

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by My poor XF

This isn't the 70's anymore, theses missiles can be fired from 100's of Kms away and are nearly always a kill. As i said it all comes down to situational awareness. Which the F35 has in spades.

Pierre Sprey also said they wrecked his F16 by putting sophisticated radars into it....

Not entirely true...

AAM's with BVR (Beyond Visual Range) might sound good on paper but it's a different story in real world engagements.

Even today, fighter pilots still prefer to get within visual range of their targets for proper identification before engaging to avoid friendly fire incidents.

Yes, they do have IFF (Identification Friendly or Foe) transponders now but they are not always 100% reliable.

Extract from the link below....

"Latest BVR craze has resulted in F-22 and F-35, both of which are utterly expensive and maintenance intensive, and latter of which is in its major characteristics more similar to century series than modern fighter aircraft. F-35 in itself is utterly incapable of handling itself in close combat due to large weight, high drag, high wing loading and low thrust to weight ratio. It can also carry at most 4 BVR missiles in internal bays. With this in mind, claims by manufacturer that F-35 is 4 times as effective in air-to-air combat as next best fighter in the air would require probability of kill for BVR missiles of 80-90%, and opponent’s complete inability to engage F-35 itself at BVR range. Track record of BVR missiles to date as well as development of infrared BVR missiles and long range QWIP IRST sensors mean that any such assumptions are nothing more than wishful thinking on part of sales department and high technology addicts."

Source http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2...of-bvr-combat/

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by Bent8

Not entirely true...

AAM's with BVR (Beyond Visual Range) might sound good on paper but it's a different story in real world engagements.

Even today, fighter pilots still prefer to get within visual range of their targets for proper identification before engaging to avoid friendly fire incidents.

Yes, they do have IFF (Identification Friendly or Foe) transponders now but they are not always 100% reliable.

Extract from the link below....

"Latest BVR craze has resulted in F-22 and F-35, both of which are utterly expensive and maintenance intensive, and latter of which is in its major characteristics more similar to century series than modern fighter aircraft. F-35 in itself is utterly incapable of handling itself in close combat due to large weight, high drag, high wing loading and low thrust to weight ratio. It can also carry at most 4 BVR missiles in internal bays. With this in mind, claims by manufacturer that F-35 is 4 times as effective in air-to-air combat as next best fighter in the air would require probability of kill for BVR missiles of 80-90%, and opponent’s complete inability to engage F-35 itself at BVR range. Track record of BVR missiles to date as well as development of infrared BVR missiles and long range QWIP IRST sensors mean that any such assumptions are nothing more than wishful thinking on part of sales department and high technology addicts."

Source http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2...of-bvr-combat/

So they should not go with "the latest craze" Yeah, lets not keep up to date, there is no track record of continual improvement in military advancement is there. So all the missiles cant anything, and the US it equiping itself with around 2000 of these because they are no good. Why would they do that?

But a bloke who designed planes in the 60's that are being superceded says they are no good? I think the new smarties know better.

[ford man xf]

Jump jets on Defence radar

Australia could buy "jump-jet" Joint Strike Fighters to base aboard new landing ships, giving the nation its first aircraft carrier since the early 1980s.

Defence Minister David Johnston told The Weekend West _the Government was considering buying the "B" model of the F-35 - a specialised variant of the stealth jet being built to operate from aircraft carriers.

Last month, Australia committed to buying 72 of the conventional model F-35s from US aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin at a cost of almost $20 billion.

But the Government has left the door open to buying more F-35s and the minister says the F-35B will be considered.

"Now that aircraft is more expensive, does not have the range but it's an option that has been considered from day one," Senator Johnston said.

The F-35B has a shortened take-off distance and can land vertically, just like the legendary Harrier jump jet.

The British Navy and the US Marines are buying the F-35B to station aboard aircraft carriers.

Australia is soon to bring into service two large ships called landing helicopter docks. Though they resemble small aircraft carriers, the Government has maintained until now they would be used only to deploy helicopters and troops.

Senator Johnston said stationing the F-35 aboard an LHD would be costly and technically challenging, but it could be done.

"The deck strength is there for such an aircraft," he said.

The Hawke government mothballed Australia's last aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne, in 1982.

Commissioning an aircraft carrier is considered a significant strategic statement of military might by a country.

China recently launched its first aircraft carrier. The sea trials are being watched closely.

The F-35B has less range than the conventional F-35 owing to the complex systems of jets used to allow it to land vertically.

The B variant has been the most trouble-plagued of the three F-35 models. Testing was stalled this year after cracks were discovered in the aircrafts' bulkheads.

The F-35 will replace Australia's fleet of F/A-18A/B Classic Hornet aircraft, due to be withdrawn in 2022.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/la...defence-radar/

[mik]

Originally Posted by Silver Ghia

Jet turbine engines are significantly more reliable these days so cannot be compared to years ago. Twin engines virtually doubles the maintenance costs.

As mentioned many times, F22s were out of the question, not being available for sale outside the US.

Thinking about the f35 and earlier reports that it was under powered, if I was a pilot I think I would be liking another engine, also im thinking rightlyror wrongly, if you lose one engine you might just get home with the other.
coming back to cost the f35 is already a kings ransom so a bit of extra servicing coin would be of little consequence.

[Moby Vic]

The F-16 only has one engine. I suppose it was a failure, too.

[bungarra]

Originally Posted by Moby Vic

The F-16 only has one engine. I suppose it was a failure, too.

The F16 is generally not used in long range over water operations such as off an aircraft carrier or defending a large island nation. That is why we bought F-18's over F16's when we went down the FA-18A/B path. A lesson learned from the Mirage having one engine. One flame out and no hot start, game over.

[pottery beige]

thread is funny

its all about integration in the theatre

will be a good bird