F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by SB076

Abrams tanks arent bad they are a deterent, they also allow our troops to particpate and intergrate into global operations. They are not that easy to take out. As for transport issues, I followed a few trucks from Port Melbourne (just happened to be going that way) They seemed to tranport ok, most MBT's would have similiar issues. I dont think its the worse purchase MoD have made - Seasprites win that award. I think sadly going over schedule and over budget is almost the norm for military acquisitions.

If Australia was to try to repel a full on invasion our best bet would be to stop them before land - Use JORN and Wedgetail etc to spot track and then throw everything we have at them. Sadly once we have done that we are stuffed as we have only very limited ability to manufacture munitions.

thats what i mean, we would never be able to repel a full on invasion. we need to think and act like a guerrilla force.

speed and agility.

[mik]

i thought i would do some mining , interesting stuff this aviation , i found some couple of year old video `s with military experts bagging the crap out of the f 35 without mercy,

perhaps they have completely modified these that we are receiving, but some of the comments by these guys still seem to be relevant, apart from these 2 clips there where about another 3 or 4 clips also bagging them , the most recent clip 2012 the guy in the clip said the finished product more than likely won`t be up and running till 2018, so if i`m not mistaken every time they are upgraded the ones we currently have will have to go out of service to have the recall/modifications done so to speak??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kssZua8MVc
it`s very interesting that the original idea of the joint strike fighter was to have similar components, but apparently the different models are only similar in the skin and are very different underneath, so therefore very costly to maintain.

[mik]

found one more clip about the F35, goes into good detail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojPnp2hwqaE

[burnz]

i'v got a DVD from lockheed martin on the lighting II, naturally it paints a diffarent picture.

but it's clearly video'd doing thing they the media say it cant..

[mik]

yep, what did you think about the other the stuff the military guys where going on about? being slow, unable to turn as quickly as other planes, , being under powered, not climbing fast enough, radar not being able to tell enemy from ally, being able to easily be brought down by small arms fire?
I don`t know **** from clay about jets, but when they said max speed 700 knots my ears pricked up, the ancient old F111 was good for mk2.2 i believe?

[distortion]

manned fighters are already outdated... what they can do with drones now makes them irrelevant.

They can bomb from drones, shoot air-to-air with drones, to elint with drones... all at a fraction of the cost, and no risk to operators... Not to mention the advances with solid state lasers in large bombers that can fire accurately and fast enough now to cover vast areas... Australia would be much better served with a kick *** drone fleet than a small number of fighters with low capability anyway!

[PridenJoy]

Think we are buying some more super hornets to plug the F35 gap for now aren't we? Anyone going to the Avalon Air show this weekend?

[mik]

Would Like to go, but family commitments. :(.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by mik

yep, what did you think about the other the stuff the military guys where going on about? being slow, unable to turn as quickly as other planes, , being under powered, not climbing fast enough, radar not being able to tell enemy from ally, being able to easily be brought down by small arms fire?
I don`t know **** from clay about jets, but when they said max speed 700 knots my ears pricked up, the ancient old F111 was good for mk2.2 i believe?

all fighters are limited to around 700 knots when armed.

depending on "witch" F35 they are refering to, as there are three main variants.

[SteveJH]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

The F111 suffered from wing failures which were traced back to poor quality metal (from memory) in the wing box. Also the air intakes were redesigned due to flow issues. Mind you, there was no "super" computers back then so it did pretty well.

Both aircraft are right at the limits of what the technology of the day could accomplish.

The F-35 however is a "paperless" aeroplane fully designed using computers... sadly they got several major things wrong.

Like?

It is also the wrong plane for Australia as its really a CAS aeroplane and not really a fighter. Not to mention it has one engine... a very poor load capcity in the weapons bays (in the fighter role initially just 2 AIM-120 and just 2 Aim-9) and in the bomb role 2 large JDAM and 2 AIM-9 missiles...

It also has stealth capability, the best and most up to date electronics INCLUDING radar and air-to-air systems. As the systems information and flight test data is all classified to, its a big call to say its not the right plane.

Its a MULTI-ROLE aircraft, no different to the F/A-18A+ it is replacing.

Oh but people say... it can carry weapons under the wings... goodo, then you have a plane which has a bigger radar return thus negating its so called "sealthy features".

Different situations will require different weapons loadouts. Even ignoring the Stealth aspect, its system integration is a generation beyond anything else in service or under developement...and that includes the F-22!

Its the first day of the conflict, you send the birds in on internal payloads to maximise stealth and take out enemy birds on the ground with precision ordinance. Day 10: Full external war loads for A-2-A and A-2-G.

They will also have AEW&C support from wedgetail.

And better still is that it wont be cleared to carry drop tanks (EVER) so much for long range flying... itll need a lot of tanker support to go anywhere.

Why wont it be cleared for External Fuel? Plus you ignore the fact that it has a longer range on internal fuel then the F/A-18's and that the RAAF received the last of their new Tankers in December.

Our $200million non-refundable "buy in" (previous governement) was a total crock too as it didnt pay for a single plane, but just to be a "partner" in some 3rd level development of maybe the ciggie lighter or a landing light....

It got us a say in the development of the plane, plus gave local industry a chance to bid on construction work, work that they would likely keep now even if we didn't buy a single aircraft. It would surprise me greatly if that work gave a net profit of less than $200 million over the course of the entire F-35 program.

[mik]

that 4 corners clip paints a pretty grim picture of this thing, i wonder how many of these we will end up with,
this is what happens when pollies take it upon themselves to make decisions about stuff they know nothing about.

[SteveJH]

Originally Posted by mik

that 4 corners clip paints a pretty grim picture of this thing, i wonder how many of these we will end up with,
this is what happens when pollies take it upon themselves to make decisions about stuff they know nothing about.

Just remember that none of these programs (or myself for that matter) have access to the classified documents on these programs.

However, all the reports by pilots etc in the US are saying its brilliant. I'd be taking all this negative press with a grain of salt.

[TruBlu351]

What about the latest Iranian stealth fighter unveiled last month. Their answer to ward off any Western F22s and F35s?



Oh, that's right, it's a big propaganda machine!! When they said it was operational and flying, they forgot to photoshop the studio lights off the rear fuselage

[BHDOGS]

haha all i can picture is that comedian dressed as Saddam Husein trying to bomb topper harley

[Road_Warrior]

^^^ *** lol

[Pedro]

Originally Posted by distortion

manned fighters are already outdated... what they can do with drones now makes them irrelevant.

They can bomb from drones, shoot air-to-air with drones, to elint with drones... all at a fraction of the cost, and no risk to operators... Not to mention the advances with solid state lasers in large bombers that can fire accurately and fast enough now to cover vast areas... Australia would be much better served with a kick *** drone fleet than a small number of fighters with low capability anyway!

I agree with your theory, but why are we spending all this money on these things anyway?
What are they supposed to be defending us from?

The USA congress just passed a bill to spend $800 billion on re-equipping it's self with new fighters. What for? ... to shoot down the odd commercial plane taken hostage by extremists FFS?

[distortion]

Originally Posted by Pedro

I agree with your theory, but why are we spending all this money on these things anyway?
What are they supposed to be defending us from?

The USA congress just passed a bill to spend $800 billion on re-equipping it's self with new fighters. What for? ... to shoot down the odd commercial plane taken hostage by extremists FFS?

Defending us from? We are equivalent to a bank full of cash, with one guard with a pea shooter at the moment... To think the current balance of power will remain indefinitely, and the other countries do not want our wealth, is a bit scary... China may 'say' they are building up their military just to 'defend' itself, but then why would they need aircraft carriers and all the other offensive hardware they are purchasing? Not saying China wants to invade us, but I know I would if I were them...

Did you know the biggest source of hacking in the world is China? Did you know they spend a significant percentage of their hacking time on Australia's military and commercial interests?

Not to mention we use our military for other missions overseas, which like it or not, have merit. For example, if we cannot support our ground troops in a peace keeping mission, such as in East Timor etc, then our troops lives are in danger. The whole system is needed for a myriad of uses.

Its true, there is no way we could repel any significant force in our country, however we can contribute to international missions, and we can offer support to our friends, who in turn, can defend us.

Sure its been 60 odd years since the last world war, but there are two certainties in life. War and taxes.

[BHDOGS]

nuclear weapons has made war redundant except between ****** 3rd party countrys

[mik]

perhaps , but there is always some silly little dictator or pollie with screwed up idea`s with huge army`s just itching for some glory, if we where all " civilized humans in the computer age there would be no need for military, you can tell the level of trust and goodwill between country`s by the size of their military........
http://www.globalfirepower.com/activ...y-manpower.asp

need i say more....... Edit, some of these country`s are a stones throw from us.

[cheap]

Couple of points.

F22's we (Australia) never asked USA if they'd sell the F22 to OZ, my guess is they would.

We (Australia) due to our large land mass and close proximity to friends and non-friends really need a large multicraft airforce just like the US. To be serious we need a bunch of fighters (F18 or F16 or F22 and so on) and we need a bunch of bombers, B2's for example.

Instead we now insist on a hybrid aircraft F35, jack of all trades master of none.

We had a good mix with the F111 and FA18 which had enough firepower to ward off the non-friendlies. In my opinion we should look for a bunch of purpose built bombers or bite the bullet (to hell with the greens) and develop tactical nukes.

In this day and age Si vis pacem, para bellum never held more true.

[mik]

heheh, i just looked up that quote, (if you want peace prepare for war) sadly there`s probably a lot of truth in that.

[distortion]

tactical nukes make a lot of sense for Australia... in fact, renting them from the states makes more sense... keep them there, already developed, we just have control over the 'button'... That said, Australia is more than capable of producing nukes itself, and has plenty of locations to hide and maintain them that would be just about impossible to detect or destroy if push came to shove.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. Pity our military budget is being slashed by juliar.

[2011G6E]

There was a report that came out some years back that said Australia could "very quickly" build at least two nukes if we really needed to. That's not the point though...anyone who has seen "Tomorrow when the war began" or read the books will get a pretty realistic idea of how an invasion would go down...very very quickly, in big numbers, probably by surprise, and our tiny military wouldn't stand a chance.
Therefore we actually need something to put the odds more in our favour...and nothing does that like being able to say to an aggressor massing to the north "Hey...hey look at this", and blowing up a small nuke way out in the middle of nowhere in the desert where it won't hurt anyone, then saying to them "And now...do you really want to push us...?"


Won't ever happen though. If an invasion did happen, our government, just like the books I mentioned, will bend over so fast it wouldn't be funny. The uncomfortable truth is that we'd have to rely on allies like the USA to come and help...if they did...

[cheap]

Originally Posted by distortion

tactical nukes make a lot of sense for Australia... in fact, renting them from the states makes more sense... keep them there, already developed, we just have control over the 'button'... That said, Australia is more than capable of producing nukes itself, and has plenty of locations to hide and maintain them that would be just about impossible to detect or destroy if push came to shove.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. Pity our military budget is being slashed by juliar.

First Australia would have to rip up our agreement to the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) http://www.dfat.gov.au/security/npt.html

Second the USA would have to rip up its agreement to the NPT.

Bottom line Australia missed its "opportunity" to self defend itself in 1973 (back then we had another incompetent, left leaning, irrational thinking, socialist government in power).

We now totally rely upon the USA to provide significant deterrent/support. That's why we side with the USA in every war that they enter into and why we buy their kit. The irony is that the same left leaning government which made us dependant upon the USA hurls stones at the USA at almost every opportunity. If you think we've been white-anted by our own government - you're right.

[distortion]

NPT doesn't mean squat when a large aggressor is killing your civilians...

And yes, we have been white anted to a large degree!

I agree, supporting the usa is our 'meal ticket', we need them and they are bound to help us in any military matter, however big or small, its in writing.

[mik]

i`m sure they would help us if they could , unless they where tied up in some conflict of their own, but it would be nice to be a bit more self sufficient in our own defence, they should bring back compulsory national service imo. But it will never happen though, the bleeding hearts would not allow it, and the pollies in this country would not do anything good for the country if that means they get less votes................... unless they gained something out of it.

[Nikked]

Just go to russia and buy some MIG-35's

Or one of these...

[Pedro]

Originally Posted by distortion

Defending us from? We are equivalent to a bank full of cash, with one guard with a pea shooter at the moment... To think the current balance of power will remain indefinitely, and the other countries do not want our wealth, is a bit scary... China may 'say' they are building up their military just to 'defend' itself, but then why would they need aircraft carriers and all the other offensive hardware they are purchasing? Not saying China wants to invade us, but I know I would if I were them...

Did you know the biggest source of hacking in the world is China? Did you know they spend a significant percentage of their hacking time on Australia's military and commercial interests?

Not to mention we use our military for other missions overseas, which like it or not, have merit. For example, if we cannot support our ground troops in a peace keeping mission, such as in East Timor etc, then our troops lives are in danger. The whole system is needed for a myriad of uses.

Its true, there is no way we could repel any significant force in our country, however we can contribute to international missions, and we can offer support to our friends, who in turn, can defend us.

Sure its been 60 odd years since the last world war, but there are two certainties in life. War and taxes.

If you think China is vaguely interested invading us for our "big bank of cash" you just believe the hype spread by military interests. Global powers like China don't need to invade us or anyone else. Their own treasury is holding more gold, USD and other currencies than any other nation. World powers like China take over countries by buying up their assets and that's just what they are doing in our agricultural sector now. Fat lot of good an expensive squadron of fighters is going to do to repel that.

[mik]

i think they probably have the US by the jewels as far as money goes, probably us too for that matter, but if push came to shove it would probably be a walk in the park for any serious army to over run us, for our land mass and population we have about 3.35 people(mostly unarmed) per kilometre, how easy would it be?

[TruBlu351]

Went to a JSF capabilities brief today with Lockheed Martin and got to play with some gucci toys!!!

The only thing I didn't like was the HOTAS, which is modelled after an F-16.....it's like trying to play with an xbox controller after someone has inverted the controls......just takes a while to get used to.

I watched all those 4 Corners and other vids last night and there was so much BS on there it wasn't funny. There's been issues with the project and huge delays and they will still continue to find new gremlins, but that's par for the course when building a clean sheet aircraft. You know that whatever the engineers and project managers promise from the start, that you always double it on these types of items!! Some of the people they reeled in for the interviews have their heads in the sand. However, there is merit in some of the points that were made, but when you stop looking at those points in isolation, but rather stand back and look at the capabilities the JSF can deliver as a whole package, then those other smaller issues go away.

It's no Su-35 when it comes to airshow demonstrations, but I know which jet I'd rather be strapped into!!

All the electronic gizmos onboad are quite amazing.....more than most people would appreciate.