More F-35 critiquing

[_BlackHawk_]

I'm still not a fan of this aircraft and that's just on cost alone. I'm also not a fan of the Robert McNamara rationalisation programs as you'll always need a dedicated fighter, bomber and strike aircraft. For Australia, do we really need this aircraft? I would prefer us to have a large force of conventional aircraft supported by a force of electronic warfare aircraft and then a smaller force of stealth for special operations. I've maintained that F-15 should still be built and would be the perfect aircraft for Australia.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/the-1 ... 6950254330

[Adam the Akrodude]

Good topic for discussion Brad. I am a fan of the 35 and believe it's a extraordinary aeroplane. The F-22 and F-35 are currently re-writing the rules of air combat. These aeroplanes work as the great fighter pilots such as Richtofen, Hartmann, etc in choosing when to engage on your terms, not the bad guys. Blowing 'em out of the sky before the opponent even knows you are there - same with dropping ordnance. The RAAF has been sending ACI's on exchange for some time to USAF F-22 squadrons to learn about this new era of air warfare. Interestingly enough, the biggest challenge the RAAF faces with the F-35 is upgrading security big time in and around Williamtown and Tindal. A whole different level of security is required for these aircraft.

The days of dedicated single role military fighters are long gone. The cost and long lead time of developing single purpose fighters pretty well died with the end of the cold war. Even the F-22 is being optimised to drop bombs and it won't do this as well as the F-35. The Euro-canards are multi-role. The new Suk Pak-FA will be multi-role, the Chinese offerings will be multi-role as well (J-31 is a F-35 equivalent, J-20 will be long range anti-air and maritime strike) - all of which are 7-10 years off at the very least.

F-15, well this country was never going to get them. It's a late 60's/early 70's design, non-stealthy, big and expensive to operate. Why buy something even the USAF isn't buying anymore and hasn't for some time? It's all about inter-operability these days. Yes there is the "Silent Eagle", but no customers for this yet - perhaps the Saudi's or Sth Koreans may be interested? There is no other 5th gen fighter being built in the West and the RAAF will never buy Russkie or Chinese - NEVER! Well, not unless there's some radical change to our political system, hey comrade!

The F-35 has a enormous 40k Ib thrust engine (in A/B) allowing super cruise or at least high transonic cruise without use of A/B. It has a great deal more range than the F-18 and F-16, internal weapons bay, 360 deg "sensors" and stealthy as we know. Sorry, but the idea of using "cheaper" 4th gen aeroplanes in greater numbers is ludicrous. A fighter pilot alone costs a good $4 million to train to a basic level -it's very expensive. At the top end of the knucklehead scale, do you know how much the RAAF spends on a ACI course per student? It's something like $20+ million per student. More fighters also means more ground support, more tankers, more ordnance, more everything - it's not the answer.

There was that awful 4 Corners program some time ago on the F-35 which dragged out from retirement in Florida one of the original "Fighter Mafia" guys (pushed for the F-16 back in the 70's) and of course prime F-35 shit stirrer Peter Goon from Air Power Australia who along with his mate Carlo Copp are under some deluded belief that we should have the F-22. Well, that also was never going to happen. Congress stopped F-22 export in it's tracks. The sheer cost of the F-22 alone made it a non starter in this country anyway - it's just too limited in roles as well. None of the comparisons between the F-16/F-18 or anything else for that matter against the F-35 are real or fair from that program. Ah, the F-35 can't do a 9 G turn. Oh yeah, can the F-16 do that with bombs under it's wings? Loaded up, what can a F-16 do versus the F-35? How do acceleration times compare? Look it up Brad - do the research, compare apples with apples and you will see what a phenomenal piece of tech the F-35 is. You also need to look at what weapons the F-35 will employ - such as the new Naval Strike Missile/Joint Strike Missile in development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile) just as one example. The JASSM-ER or new equivalent will probably be used on the F-35 as well. There is even talk of the F-35 having some kind of a laser in the future as it's engine generator is so powerful. The F-35 will also have the ability to fire stuff from the AWD's as well - it's all this hunter/killer networked battlespace stuff - point, click - KABOOM!

This "concurrency" thing has made introduction and testing of the F-35 difficult and is not optimum. There really was no choice given the long gestation time of this aeroplane - it's a phenomenally complex program. The flight and weapons envelope is getting bigger every day. Gleaning what you can from public sources, those working and flying this machine are blown away with it - that's good enough for me. It's the only game in town and is a big step up from the F-18 - what's not to love? It's got a bloody big donk under the bonnet - dude, ya can't beat cubic inches! Once you get around to the thinking of this aeroplane and how it will be employed and with the new weapons available, like the 787 in the civvy world, the F-35 is a game changer. That's my belief and spin on this program anyway. If down the track the operators and users say the F-35 is a piece of crap, that's a different story. I do not believe this will happen though.

[Nillus]

From a couple of RAAF Fighter Types:
"If you actually get to see the oppo...you have failed already."

[_BlackHawk_]

I remain unconvinced that it's going to live up to the sales pitches and still don't think it is the aircraft for Australia.

[Adam the Akrodude]

From a couple of RAAF Fighter Types:
"If you actually get to see the oppo...you have failed already."

That's it in a nutshell - as proven by almost every a/a kill in the last 30+ years. Stealth tactics are different. The idea is never to get to the merge. A F-22 driver let on to me at Avalon they can involve rapid and very substantial altitude changes skirting around one's opponents detection range/limits. If all this stealth stuff is rubbish, why then are the Russians and Chinese spending billions doing likewise?

This is what happens when you don't have Gen 5 fighters, plus decent AWACS, tactics, training, weapons, etc.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013 ... coast.html

Brad - please let me know what you think is the best fighter for Australia and why.

F-22 - forget about it, can't be sold outside USA, production line torn up anyway to make way for F-35. There ain't any more. Very limited as a bomb/missile hauler.

F-15 - no way, too old, limited with weapons, USAF not even buying them anymore. Barely Gen 4 systems. AESA radar good plus lots of payload and range - just too old. No proper air force is going to buy 40+ y.o airframe technology.

Typoon - good aeroplane, lots of performance, small on computing/data crunching, limited with weapons (British - aside from AIM-120C) - just no way Australia was buying European I believe. Typhoon isn't cheap either and only Gen 4+ - not stealthy.

Rafale - no chance in hell RAAF would buy French again and same argument as Typhoon above.

F-18F/G - well, the RAAF has these as a bridging gap for another 15/20 years, but these will be replaced by F-35's eventually, or perhaps UAV's. These are mainly bomb haulers - accelerate slower than the Classics as well. Turns on a dime when below 250 knots, but do you really want to be that slow in a shooting war? The only and correct choice as a interim for more F-35's/UAV's in the future.

So, what else is there other than the F-35? Don't bother suggesting Russian or Chinese.

USAF F-105's almost stopped Nth Vietnam in 1968 carrying the bulk of the bombs up North (something like 60% I think). They did get hammered over time - mainly due to being driven down too low (Takhli wing in particular) into AAA range and because of very poor tactics being dictated from the White House from Johnson and "Dr. Strange" (same target times, same routes, etc). The one thing the "5" had was high speed - speed is life!

Like it or loath it, F-35 will be around 40+ years. Fair enough, you're not a fan. You're not suggesting what would be a better solution though.

[Adam the Akrodude]

Brad, check this out. I may never convince you about the F-35 being the right (and only choice), but here's an interesting link to what the 35 is all about. It's not sales pitch/jargon any more. There is so so much depth to this aeroplane that we mere mortals (discussing this on a modelling forum) will never know. This also comes back to the security challenge discussed previously - and in this months Australian Aviation as well. You will see more big dogs with big teeth around RAAF Williamtown and Tindal! Millions will be spent upgrading the infrastructure and security at these bases.

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/a-gods- ... n-the-f-35

[Nillus]

Relax Blackhawk.
The RAAF is unlikely to call you up to go to war in their crappy F-35.

[_BlackHawk_]

I would still go with F-15. You seem to think just because the aircraft is a 40 year old design that it has to be obsolete. Why? The B-52 is a 60 year old design and you still can't get a better bomb truck. F-15 can still reach Mach 2+, can carry a great deal of bombs and missiles and has a proven combat record. Build new ones with updated systems and electronics at a fraction the cost of JSF. As I said, just how much faster and how much of a tighter turn radius do you want in an aircraft? I also think the USAF have already started to upgrade some later models.

I would work on defensive measures against stealth. Let the enemy waste billions on stealth aircraft while you develop counter measures to either detect them or render useless their ability to hit your aircraft BVR. Heavy jamming being the obvious route there.

[Adam the Akrodude]

I would still go with F-15. You seem to think just because the aircraft is a 40 year old design that it has to be obsolete. Why? The B-52 is a 60 year old design and you still can't get a better bomb truck. F-15 can still reach Mach 2+, can carry a great deal of bombs and missiles and has a proven combat record. Build new ones with updated systems and electronics at a fraction the cost of JSF. As I said, just how much faster and how much of a tighter turn radius do you want in an aircraft? I also think the USAF have already started to upgrade some later models.

I would work on defensive measures against stealth. Let the enemy waste billions on stealth aircraft while you develop counter measures to either detect them or render useless their ability to hit your aircraft BVR. Heavy jamming being the obvious route there.

OMG, you're so right! Why didn't anybody think of that?? Dude, send your CV immediately to Boeing!

1. OK, building new F-15's with new gear in them will not be at a fraction of the cost of a F-35 for a start. You think it's OK to field new build F-15's against future Suk Pak-Fa's, J-20 & 31's and whatever else could emerge? You are totally discounting the technology that is going into the 35. Did you read what was in that link?

2. Mach 2+ - do you know that any aeroplane designed to fly at Mach 2+ can only do so for a very short period of time (SR-71 excepted, but needs lots of Ray's fav aeroplanes along the route!). That damn drag gets you every time going up at the 1/2 the square of speed (not forgetting rho of course!) - the ol' Bernoulli effect. There is a "sweet spot" which is the transonic/Mach 1 range, lots of speed/energy without burning too much fuel - hence the big turbofan in the 35.

3. USAF has put some AESA radars in some F-15C's yes. These are now very old aeroplanes though. Aeroplanes do wear out (except of course B-52's which will be flying another 35-40 years!). Fighters wear out much faster due to high G.

4. There is a better bomb truck than the B-52, it's called the B-2.

5. Read what the 35 does in regard to jamming - it's not about high power any more.

All you are suggesting is being tried by Boeing and yet no one is buying the Silent Eagle - o'pps. Perhaps Boeing needs a new Silent Eagle sales rep? Go for it Ace!

[_BlackHawk_]

Yes I read the link and it's a sales brochure. A very nice sales brochure, but one none the less. But to answer your points;

1 - I understand there is all this technology going into the F-35 and it's not necessarily a bad thing. Note that I have no opposition to a stealth aircraft itself (although I am concerned about the issues raised in the JSF program). Your argument is starting to sound like the old 'bomber gap' argument of the cold war and the one that initially built the F-15; the over estimation of the MiG-25's capabilities.

2 - Yes, but yank and crank fights don't happen at such speeds, hence, how fast do you want to go. At mach 2.5+, the F-15 has the edge over the Pak-Fa, but I've no details on the other aircraft.

3 - So? At 30 odd million bucks a piece I could live with replacing a few F-15's again in 40 years. Hell, by then it might all be drones.

4 - Comes down to cost. At 3/4 of a billion each, you don't get as much bang for your buck as you do with the B-52. Much like our discussion here; large force of conventional bombers over a small force of stealth bombers.

5 - Haven't read that.

As for being a sales rep for Boeing, I don't think they need one considering they are managing to sell the F-35, the more expensive system just fine. You want your customers to buy the most expensive product.

I'm not actually opposed to the JSF program, but I am to Australia spending so much on it. Could it have a role in an RAAF commanded by me, sure. I'd deploy them much like the F-117, in a small specialised strike force. This is providing it actually works like the sales brochure says it will. Unfortunately, we may never actually know as all that data is top secret and will be for many years, unless a shooting match breaks out somewhere.