Australia’s First F-35 on the Go

[George1861]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Are any of these planes in active service any where in the world yet?

:

In service in training squadrons, not front line yet.

[Kable72]

Originally Posted by George1861

In service in training squadrons, not front line yet.

I would be surprised if there were many air superiority conflicts going on around the world with us involved in them.

[George1861]

Originally Posted by Kable72

I would be surprised if there were many air superiority conflicts going on around the world with us involved in them.

Actually just saying all of the F-35s are in training squadrons, not combat designated squadrons.

[XR Martin]

And just thinking about it, I think they may have even been JS2s, not T34s.

EDIT:

In April of 1945, SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Körner (platoon commander from the 2nd Company) was supporting an infantry counterattack in the Bollersdorf area (east of Berlin), when he encountered two Soviet JS-II heavy tanks at a distance of 200m. He quickly destroyed the first one and second one trying to reverse in order to take a firing position drove into an anti-tank ditch and was abandomed by the crew. On the road from Bollersdorf to Strausberg, Körner observed additional 11 JS-II tanks and around 120 to 150 enemy tanks in the process of being refuelled and re-armed on the egde of the village. He then fired and destroyed all 11 JS-II tanks on the road and attacked the rest of the tanks and their suprised crews. Number of fuel and ammunition trucks exploded causing even more panic among the Russian tankers, while Körner fired all 39 rounds he had left and knocked out 39 enemy tanks before he withdrew. Following this action, sSSPzAbt 503 and other units were falling back to defend Berlin. On his way to Berlin, Karl Körner destroyed over 100 Soviet tanks and 26 anti-tank guns in total, achievement for which on April 29th, he was awarded the Knights Cross in the bunker of Reichs Chancellery. After the ceremony, Körner returned to his unit on the frontline at Charlottenburg district of Berlin. On May 2nd, last King Tiger from sSSPzAbt 503 was destroyed during an attempt to break out of the city on the Spandau Bridge.

[Neale]

Although I love the look & idea of these aircraft, I cant see the reason that we are spending huge dollars on this type of aircraft in the name of defence of the country.

But we continue to hire firebombing aircraft that get used every year in "defence" of the country against the annual threat of bushfires.

I would have thought that at least the purchase of a couple of skycranes or fitting out a couple of old C130's with some tanks for fighting fires instead of sending them off to the scrappers would be money better spent.

[BHDOGS]

Soviets treated there soilders badly the german command treated there's bad to no retreats fight to the death child soldiers hardly boy scouts

[Madaya]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

Soviets treated there soilders badly the german command treated there's bad to no retreats fight to the death child soldiers hardly boy scouts

Once knew an old gent, Oave was his name. He was a 12 year old, sitting in school in Denmark, 1944. A German officer and his cohorts swept into the classroom and announced "you have all volunteered to join the German Army".
The drawn Luger made volunteering quick and simple.
Basic daily training was this...
The local abattoir would dump the offal on a field of mud, spanned by barbed wire. The soldiers would crawl, weapon in hand through this 'stuff', weapon in hand with live machine gun fire skimming the wire.
Quite a few 'cadets' failed this training when they lifted their head.
After two weeks of intensive training, he was parachuted into Leningrad.
He had a scar on his hand, a present from a Russian bayonet.
Sometimes, a simple chat in the local pub, blows the mind of a 24 year old man (me). At 12 years old, I was still playing with Dinky toys and building 'cubbies' in the bush.
When you are starving, people taste good.
Didn't mean to go off topic, but I see there has been a few deviations here, which probably isn't too bad, seeing as we are talking about war machines.

[SB076]

Personally I think we need a deterrent and we cannot rely on our allies to do all the work. History has shown we are not great at predicting wars, for example look at what Australia/Britain/USA spent on defence in 1937 and 1938 and then look what happened in 1939.

Lot of military projects look like failures at the start, but then seem to come good (not all, Sea Sprite was a dud) To me the I am not sure about the Collins class, although I have been advised by someone that works in the Navy that they do very well in war games and apparently they can be quiet. Initially the F 111's we thought to be failures and now a lot of people think they are great.

Tiger II tanks where almost unbeatable on the battlefield, just a case of too little too late, Allies resorted to aerial attacks and even carpet bombing to take them out. If you want an account of what WWII was about read a book called "Forgotton Solider" Author I think is Hal Sajer (not 100% sure of spelling etc) very interesting read, goes on about shell shock, rocket artillery

[Kable72]

Man, these F-35s look very impressive. I would love to fly one of them. I tried to get in but my eyes suck, lol.

[FPV_Steve]

Originally Posted by Kable72

Man, these F-35s look very impressive. I would love to fly one of them. I tried to get in but my eyes suck, lol.

Surely you don't need your eyes anymore!?

Isn't that what all this technology is supposed to do for you

[Kable72]

Originally Posted by FPV_Steve

Surely you don't need your eyes anymore!?

Isn't that what all this technology is supposed to do for you

Lol not at all

[Dash_XR]

I'd rather not live in fear of something that realistically will probably never happen. Not too mention if a bigger country did decide to "rough us up" all the F35's in the world couldn't stop them if you don't have the pilots to fly them. We couldn't even dig in as gorillas because we have no guns lol. We're a small country, we would never be able to defend against a bigger country. That's why we stay friends with them.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

I'd rather not live in fear of something that realistically will probably never happen. Not too mention if a bigger country did decide to "rough us up" all the F35's in the world couldn't stop them if you don't have the pilots to fly them. We couldn't even dig in as gorillas because we have no guns lol. We're a small country, we would never be able to defend against a bigger country. That's why we stay friends with them.

Its like insurance, you don't want to have to use it (be it JSF or any other equipment but, if it hits the fan and I genuinely hope it never does, than you need it)

Plus cant rely on Allies if you never give them anything back, otherwise you become that mate that never shouts a beer but expects everyone to buy him one.

[George1861]

Originally Posted by SantoAU

Technically, they're supposed to exceed both the F-111 and the Hornet. All the performance indicators so far point to something slower, less maneuverable and less capable for more $$.

Unfortunately, it's the way things roll in the military

Originally Posted by Moby Vic

Maybe you should load up on F-22s, also, just to be safe.

Originally Posted by DJR-351

You buggers won't sell them

Besides that, we couldn't afford them

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

I think the public wonders why...the old F111 was faster, could fly higher, had a higher bomb payload, has terrain following capability, and other goodies that the new F18's just didn't have. It's like selling your old Ferrari for a new Prius...yes it's full of more high tech, but really?

In the US Navy the F-18 replaced the F-14, A-6 and A-7, it was an improvement over the A-7 only, and that was only a faster exit speed after dropping its load. F-111 retirement was a loss of capability for the USAF also. From what I've read the F-22 was blocked from foriegn sale by a single Democrat US Senator who was trying to blackmail Bush into funding a Project he wanted. Out of production now.

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Yeah the Sherman was always going to be the biggest loser against a Tiger. By the time the US Army planners stopped their infighting about tanks, got their collective **** together and allowed tanks like the M-26 Pershing to be deployed, the war was basically over.

Originally Posted by wrongwaynorris

The Germans used to refer to Shermans s Tommy Cookers .

WWII was a time of rapid development of tanks and aircraft. From what I've read the Germans were impressed with the Sherman when it first showed up in the Egyptian-Libyan desert, but was badly outdated by '44.

[Dash_XR]

But it's insurance that's worthless.

Let's speculate on worse case scenario. Say China and North Korea decide they want to go halves in Australia tomorrow? In a few days they could have 100's of 1000's of troops here, aircraft carriers, warships etc. Aside from total all out nuclear war that would kill millions of innocent people (which they couldn't seriously take as an option) or sending the majority of their army (which they WON'T take as an option) here how could the US stop them? Or any allies? We sure as hell couldn't. Best we can do is keep up relationships with anyone we see as a potential threat through other means as well as military support, that was just an example the US could easily do it too if they wanted too.

[Kable72]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

But it's insurance that's worthless.

Let's speculate on worse case scenario. Say China and North Korea decide they want to go halves in Australia tomorrow? In a few days they could have 100's of 1000's of troops here, aircraft carriers, warships etc. Aside from total all out nuclear war that would kill millions of innocent people (which they couldn't seriously take as an option) or sending the majority of their army (which they WON'T take as an option) here how could the US stop them? Or any allies? We sure as hell couldn't. Best we can do is keep up relationships with anyone we see as a potential threat through other means as well as military support, that was just an example the US could easily do it too if they wanted too.

So you'd rather not have a stick and be friends with the kid in the playground who has a big stick but has always been a little sketchy and you've never really gotten along and at one stage hit each other with sticks for a few years at a time but because that was in the past he is suddenly okay to be friends with when he still has that stick and you've thrown yours away.

Pretty ****** analogy but that's what it sounds like you prefer.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

But it's insurance that's worthless.

Let's speculate on worse case scenario. Say China and North Korea decide they want to go halves in Australia tomorrow? In a few days they could have 100's of 1000's of troops here, aircraft carriers, warships etc. Aside from total all out nuclear war that would kill millions of innocent people (which they couldn't seriously take as an option) or sending the majority of their army (which they WON'T take as an option) here how could the US stop them? Or any allies? We sure as hell couldn't. Best we can do is keep up relationships with anyone we see as a potential threat through other means as well as military support, that was just an example the US could easily do it too if they wanted too.

Yep we can go with that,, we can even change China, North Korea to country X (so as not to offend anyone) Country X is looking to invade, first question is why? (chances are they after our resources, feel free to add another reason if you want) Anyway our resources are not unique and to successfully occupy and control Australia they need to bring material and troops by sea (you can do a little bit by air but not much) Australia does possess early warning indicators (JORN, radar system that can pick up objects in the South China sea, I beleive) So we will have a little bit of warning. Australia's military strategy (I believe) is based on hitting them whilst at sea. Now country X is aware of our capability they know we have a small but very capable force and they know they can bet us through attrition, but at what costs. To me this is the deterrent, its not that we can fight off an invasion on our own, its to try to make us an unattractive target. If country X does want resources, they are better off looking somewhere else (another country with less defences)

Nukes are a different story, if country X invades and uses nukes, then you can expect our allies to respond with nukes. However if country X invades with conventional forces, will our allies respond with nukes? I dont think they would, why because they wont want to risk a nuclear war. Remember as good as our allies are, they will look after themselves and their own citizens.

I dont work for Defence, nor do I have any knowledge apart from the stuff that is already out there, this is just my thoughts.

Our land mass is too big and our population is too small, to be able to successfully defend ourselves BUT, our troops are excellent and we have great equipment, so if you do mess with us, we will inflict pain, so you are better messing with someone else

[NickyN]

Originally Posted by SB076

Nukes are a different story, if country X invades and uses nukes, then you can expect our allies to respond with nukes. However if country X invades with conventional forces, will our allies respond with nukes? I dont think they would, why because they wont want to risk a nuclear war. Remember as good as our allies are, they will look after themselves and their own citizens.

You're right, if country X invaded with conventional forces, why go nuclear? Conventional forces would be sent in.

Re: your last sentence here.........I'm quite sure your country would do the same too. AU would look after themselves and their own citizens. That's not unique to any country.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by NickyN

You're right, if country X invaded with conventional forces, why go nuclear? Conventional forces would be sent in.

Re: your last sentence here.........I'm quite sure your country would do the same too. AU would look after themselves and their own citizens. That's not unique to any country.

Correct, all countries will do the same, Alliances are extremely important and all help with the deterrent and hopefully prevent war from occurring in the first place

I wouldn't expect any country to start a nuclear war, if Australia was attacked with conventional forces, as that would start something no one wants to think about.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

But it's insurance that's worthless.

Let's speculate on worse case scenario. Say China and North Korea decide they want to go halves in Australia tomorrow? In a few days they could have 100's of 1000's of troops here, aircraft carriers, warships etc. Aside from total all out nuclear war that would kill millions of innocent people (which they couldn't seriously take as an option) or sending the majority of their army (which they WON'T take as an option) here how could the US stop them? Or any allies? We sure as hell couldn't. Best we can do is keep up relationships with anyone we see as a potential threat through other means as well as military support, that was just an example the US could easily do it too if they wanted too.

We've done this thread before. I can't be arsed digging up my old posts on it but basically it is along the lines of political and economic risk for China and the global backlash against China that would be translated into grinding to a halt because the flow of foreign capital into China for consumer goods etc would cease.

[George1861]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

But it's insurance that's worthless.

Let's speculate on worse case scenario. Say China and North Korea decide they want to go halves in Australia tomorrow? In a few days they could have 100's of 1000's of troops here, aircraft carriers, warships etc. Aside from total all out nuclear war that would kill millions of innocent people .

With out going nuclear, can China even invade Taiwan at this point? A matter of if the Nationalists run out of bombs, shells, missles and bullets before the Reds run out of a large number of ships/boats & troops to just cross the Formosa Strait muchless anyplace furthur away. Something they are working for though.

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

But it's insurance that's worthless.

Let's speculate on worse case scenario. Say China and North Korea decide they want to go halves in Australia tomorrow? In a few days they could have 100's of 1000's of troops here, aircraft carriers, warships etc. Aside from total all out nuclear war that would kill millions of innocent people (which they couldn't seriously take as an option) or sending the majority of their army (which they WON'T take as an option) here how could the US stop them? Or any allies? We sure as hell couldn't. Best we can do is keep up relationships with anyone we see as a potential threat through other means as well as military support, that was just an example the US could easily do it too if they wanted too.

You’re taking the ****, right?

Australia is a bloody great island, many thousands of miles from the protagonists you suggest. Hence why it makes sense to be friends with the bloke who has the most powerful navy in the world.

They wouldn’t be able to land a cracker, the US Navy would cut them to pieces.

Chinese aircraft carriers? Bwahahaha. After we sold them the Melbourne for scrap, they kept it and studied it so they learn how to make one.

[tweeked]

The US would respond with not buying China's plastic trinkets that they make. That is worth a lot more to the China than what is in the ground here. Without US dollars going in China would grind to a halt.

[SantoAU]

Originally Posted by tweeked

The US would respond with not buying China's plastic trinkets that they make. That is worth a lot more to the China than what is in the ground here. Without US dollars going in China would grind to a halt.

Sounds like the plot line to Tom Clancy's book "The Bear and the Dragon". And accurate too.

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by SantoAU

Sounds like the plot line to Tom Clancy's book "The Bear and the Dragon". And accurate too.

Is that the one where China invades Russia? Which I think is a whole lot more plausible than them wanting this big hot sweaty rock....

[SantoAU]

Yes it is. Decent read - typical Clancy which is high on tech whiz-bang and low on actual character development.

[Kable72]

Originally Posted by SantoAU

Yes it is. Decent read - typical Clancy which is high on tech whiz-bang and low on actual character development.

Who the **** reads a clancy book for character development lol

[SantoAU]

Originally Posted by Kable72

Who the **** reads a clancy book for character development lol

[Kable72]

Originally Posted by SantoAU

image

Bad luck Brian, wants character development


Tom Clancy book

[NickyN]

Couldn't help but LOL...........
Thank you for starting off my Sat afternoon with a laugh!