Australia’s First F-35 on the Go

[mik]

Originally Posted by Moby Vic

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

I only know what I read Moby, and you have to admit this aircraft has been extremely controversial, even people in your own military questioning its worth, only february of last year, they where thinking about cancelling the program.

[Moby Vic]

Originally Posted by mik

I only know what I read Moby, and you have to admit this aircraft has been extremely controversial, even people in your own military questioning its worth, only february of last year, they where thinking about cancelling the program.

They were thinking of canceling it because it had only one engine?

All new developments are controversial these days, and all new developments have teething pains. This is an incredibly complicated aircraft. The bulk of the difficulty is from one of its three variants.

[mik]

No i think because it was so problematic in so many areas and so costly, another recent article I read claims it still falls below hourly reliability.

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by bungarra

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.

Again - technology has moved on - there is a reason why successful long distance commercial aircraft have gone from 4 to 2 engines - they rarely have engine failures compared to the past. The benefits gained in efficiency outweigh the very rare loss of an engine (and this rarely results in a fatality)

The weight and efficiencies allow the all internal weapons - which means you can remain stelthier, a much greater advantage in staying alive - being shot at continuously is much more dangerous than an ultra rare ejection.

[Moby Vic]

Originally Posted by mik

No i think because it was so problematic in so many areas and so costly, another recent article I read claims it still falls below hourly reliability.

So they'll fix it.

We never could have won WWII in the Internet era. People focus on any flaw, minor or major, now and take it as proof that any situation is hopeless.

Don't like the taillight design of the next Mustang? THE CAR IS AN UTTER FAILURE! FORD WILL BE BANKRUPT IN A WEEK!

[Moby Vic]

Originally Posted by tweeked

Again - technology has moved on - there is a reason why successful long distance commercial aircraft have gone from 4 to 2 engines - they rarely have engine failures compared to the past. The benefits gained in efficiency outweigh the very rare loss of an engine (and this rarely results in a fatality)

The weight and efficiencies allow the all internal weapons - which means you can remain stelthier, a much greater advantage in staying alive - being shot at continuously is much more dangerous than an ultra rare ejection.

Also, how much more complicated would the vertical takeoff be with two engines?

[Ghost101]

Hello gentle man, the fact is that the F-35 (JSF) is a actual lemon which came from a good friend which (he) is currently severing as a member of the ADF - RAAF if you wish to know.

He has spoken to a few of the pilots while being in the US which have flown the F-35 (JSF), In fact this aircraft has limitations ( which most do) but the current 4th gen aircraft can certainly and out perform (not system wise), but yes the 4th gen has a problem with the RCS due to the fact of it's materials which of being made of among other things to.
The avionics/systems are very advanced with "Data" link among other networking systems eg - sensor fusion that combines radio frequency and IR tracking for continuous all-direction target detection etc. In theory this is a great aircraft, yes I do kinder like it but I must admit that everything has is teething problems so to speak, but it's just not cost effective enough - At all.

- The F-35 JSF will actually need a EA-18G Growler due to it's very sexy avionic's systems it will provide suppression and electronic attack against airborne communication threats, active Electronically Scanned Array & it's jamming pod which can certainly suppress. - And they sure can listen to your phones calls.. ;)

Just my input, Cheers.

Personally I prefer

[Moby Vic]

Lots of stuff here, but it touches on how customer requirements dictated design compromises for all three variants:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/7-t...9885/+ballaban

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

thread is funny

its all about integration in the theatre

Correct. Integration, and generally sucking up.

Most of what we do now is about sucking up to the US, at all levels.
We don't need a combat airforce, nor much of a navy, to wave our big sticks in The Solomons, Fiji, or anywhere else we might decide to go.
The rest is about cooperating with the USA, and being SEEN to be a strong ally, such that it would be politically unpalatable for them to not honour the ANZUS treaty if needed. Defence contractors have massive pull in Washington, so buying their crap also helps.

The ANZUS treaty is what keeps Indonesia out of PNG, and stops them getting belligerent about gas and oil fields. Our single biggest defensive factor is that we are an island and any serious aggressor would soon have the US Navy to contend with.
That's why, when the next "IRAQ" comes along, we will send the SAS, a couple of tankers, and a squadron of Hornets or F35s, and play Allies.

The US is far from perfect, but this aint a perfect world, and if we have to choose sides I would rather be on theirs.

As for the plane itself? FMD every piece of equipment ever built is a compromise. Military hardware particularly tends to be aimed at the edges of the envelope. In GW1 the Abrams infamously had problems with their turbines, but that didn't stop them blowing the crap out of the Russian built **** Iraq had.

[Handles81A]

The F35 Lightning II JSF, on paper at this time as the plane is still in the development stage, promises that this aircraft can do a little bit of everything, but not any one role particularly well. the RAAF is going to get this aircraft because of the Anglo-centric leanings of the previous Prime Minister (Howard) sucking up to the US Government as means of ensuring the ANZUS Treaty stays alive and well (that's politics for you). There are much more capable aircraft (Euro-Fighter Typhoon for one) already in service with other Air Forces in Europe that have proven to be superior in reality when compared to the JSFs' advertised capabilities (on paper).

The choice of this aircraft for the RAAF is going to mean that our aircrew are going to be a distinct disadvantage (and thus more risk) should they be required to deploy this plane on operational duties (I hope they never have to but you can never predict the future can you).

As for the ANZUS Treaty, if it were in the interests of the US (access to future gas and oil supplies), I've little doubt that we'd find ourselves on our own with very little aid from the US.

[Dash_XR]

Wonder if we'll get them in time for Iraq 2 - Rise of ISIS.

[CoupeKing]

Or Cold War 2

[Dash_XR]

No Cold War, Russia's not scared of the US anymore and can become number one economically instead. That and they shouldn't have much trouble disposing of F35's anyway.

[CoupeKing]

The only time Russia would have been scared of America was from 1945 to 1949. Yanks had nukes and the Russians didnt, tested their first end of 49. Kind of settles the age old question who would have won if America had of attacked the Soviets after Germany`s surrender.

[Polyal]

Simple question.

Why do we need these?

[SB076]

Originally Posted by Polyal

Simple question.

Why do we need these?

In simple terms because we have no idea what may or may not happen in future. Check Aus and Britains spending on defence prior to and leading up to WWII. If they had known or had any concerns with a potential world war you would think they would have increase spending on defence - yet they didnt, so you can assume they had no idea.

Whether we get get a Euro Fighter, Sukhoi, F 35, we just want to make sure that some one else is a more attractive target than us.

Lot of countries flexing muscles at the moment, does not take much to go wrong to cause something. Chinese military planes have flown with in meters of Japanese Military planes, Japaneses planes flying within meters of Chinese and Russian planes. China declaring no fly zones, US flying through said no fly zones. Russia in Ukraine, China in Vietnam, ships locking firing radars etc

Keep in mind too Australia cant just make a plane anymore - Wirraways, Boomerangs etc cant just be switched on like they could years ago, so we need to plan for the worst case scenario and hope for the best.

[Dash_XR]

Missiles and drones are cheaper and do the same thing. One would think a country completely surrounded by water would need more ships to defend its sovereignty over short range fighters. Planes are redundant if you can't get close enough to launch them.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

Missiles and drones are cheaper and do the same thing. One would think a country completely surrounded by water would need more ships to defend its sovereignty over short range fighters. Planes are redundant if you can't get close enough to launch them.

We have a Defence force, IF the F 35, has the radar cross section it claims and IF the plane can communicate effectively with other assets and simply pop up launch ordnance and disappear, it may be enough to deter other forces

It could be argued planes led to the demise of the battleship, would be interesting to see how a modern day planes would fare against a AEGIS cruiser.

I believe the F35 will most likely be our last piloted fighter

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

Missiles and drones are cheaper and do the same thing. One would think a country completely surrounded by water would need more ships to defend its sovereignty over short range fighters. Planes are redundant if you can't get close enough to launch them.

Missiles only go so far.

Ships are very slow and also hard to defend when near a hostiles terrtory or against submarines.

Range for these planes is not really an issue. We have in-flight refueling a330 tankers.

The whole secret to these planes is you can get close enough to launch the misiles/guided bombs.

[Dash_XR]

Planes can't hold territory and i'd rather see any enemy's deterred 100's of kilometers out to sea first. Pressure from the US combined with clever salesmen is the reason we bought them, not their (claimed) superiority. We are friends with most nations of any threat so the argument is moot anyway lol.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

Planes can't hold territory and i'd rather see any enemy's deterred 100's of kilometers out to sea first. Pressure from the US combined with clever salesmen is the reason we bought them, not their (claimed) superiority. We are friends with most nations of any threat so the argument is moot anyway lol.

A plane will do that, can quickly cover 100'ks launch and disappear. US make good stuff, there are reasons why things happen that we will wont understand, but I am sure the plane has a few good tricks of its own.

As for friends wasn't Menzies impressed when he visited Germany in 1938? We even backed Hitler in issues with Czechoslovakia. But I hope you are correct and that we remain friends with most nations.

War can be unpredictable, so we need to be reasonably prepared.

[Dash_XR]

I believe the only way those F35's will ever be used (asside from training) is if they are sent to fight someone else's battle.

Still I can think of worse things for the government to waste money on though.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

I believe the only way those F35's will ever be used (asside from training) is if they are sent to fight someone else's battle.

I hope they are never used apart from training. Would be nice to have another 20 years or so of peace.

[Dash_XR]

In Australia definitly, the Middle East and Europe? Near on impossible.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by tweeked

Range for these planes is not really an issue. We have in-flight refueling a330 tankers.

Until the bad guys you're up against take out your tankers and AWACS, then your short-legged fighters have a problem if they are caught in a region beyond their onboard fuel range.

[ILLaViTaR]

Just tried them on BF4 and they're ****, heatseekers won't even lock when another aircraft is in front of your face let alone 100 meters.

[envyyvne]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

Just tried them on BF4 and they're ****, heatseekers won't even lock when another aircraft is in front of your face let alone 100 meters.

I hope you are not being serious

[SB076]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

Just tried them on BF4 and they're ****, heatseekers won't even lock when another aircraft is in front of your face let alone 100 meters.

Maybe Australia should just buy 20 USAS 12 from BF3

[Moby Vic]

Originally Posted by CoupeKing

The only time Russia would have been scared of America was from 1945 to 1949. Yanks had nukes and the Russians didnt, tested their first end of 49. Kind of settles the age old question who would have won if America had of attacked the Soviets after Germany`s surrender.

Perhaps Australia should reconsider its alliance. Putin's a good bloke. Give him a go.

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

In Australia definitly, the Middle East and Europe? Near on impossible.

I still dont get it..have a look at Iraq now, that was a good investment.

I think our country has 99 problems, and the planes ain't one.

We spend all this money fighting wars for others that are born from BS...Im not completely naive to think there mighnt be another WW..but honestly; I think the world has actually moved past it..now we are all show boating.

Can you imagine if someone like China actually tried to take over/invade another country. IMO the international community just wouldnt stand for it...not on a large scale anyway.