Jump to content
fly_tornado

Can't turn, Can't climb, Can't run: F35 problems

Recommended Posts

Australia NEEDS YOU people. ALL the answers are here. But when was war a good idea? Oh I know. It gets you out of a depression...Nev

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The days of the dog fight are over, so to argue the F35 is useless because it will lose a dog fight doesn't mean too much. It's all about designing an aircraft with a low radar profile and good electronic countermeasures and weapons systems so you can shoot down the enemy long before they are in visual range.

 

I wonder, HF. They said the same before WWII, in Korea and again in 'Nam but somehow or another dogfights between fighter aircraft continued.

 

We haven't had a major armed air conflict between large powers since then and Desert Storm, Syria and the like have not seen real contests between fighters.

 

It will be interesting to see what the future holds if we survive it.

 

Kaz

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We haven't had a major armed air conflict between large powers since then and Desert Storm, Syria and the like have not seen real contests between fighters.

 

It will be interesting to see what the future holds if we survive it.

 

Kaz

 

From what I hear, the insurgency in Afganistan and Iraq, just trudging along looking for ragheads with guns and nothing more sophisticated, has apparently bred some bad habits in the current crop of soldiers and their brass hats.

 

Constant use of radios to keep in touch, no comprehension of can the chatter.

 

 

Come a war against a first or even second line oppodent and the troops are going to have a very expensive first few lessons on comms discipline. PFC Parts lights up the airwaves to bitch to PFC Parks about how PFC Peaches turned him down in chow hall, Gospodin Gorsky several miles away gets a hit on the RDF circuit and 10 seconds later a triangulated 122mm is on the way to remind PFC Parts it's a good idea to keep things private around this part of the world.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We haven't had a major armed air conflict between large powers since then and Desert Storm, Syria and the like have not seen real contests between fighters.

 

It will be interesting to see what the future holds if we survive it.

 

Kaz

 

A very good point, Kaz. In that context, it does make you wonder what the best fighter type would be for Australia, considering there's very few options.

 

The likelihood of a major armed air conflict between large powers is probably very slim in this day and age. The only large powers not completely in our club are China, India and Russia. India doesn't seem to have a problem with East or West (except Pakistan), China is too economically tied to the West for anything other than a small mis-understanding to occur, and NATO and Uncle Sugar, for all their sabre rattling, wouldn't dream of taking on Russia.

 

Probably the only direct future threat we would have would be the possibility of a small or medium skirmish with regional near neighbours. So unless that happens, our requirements for fighter aircraft are what they are now - being our big buddy's little buddy in their global adventures so we can pay our alliance dues. In that case, it wouldn't matter what we had, as we would be in that role as a token force only. And compatibility with the US would be a big issue, hence the F-35.

 

In the case of possible conflict with near neighbours, maybe the Su-35 would be the best option. The problem there is that politics and support logistics wouldn't allow us to have them.

 

The US, for the first time in history, only has one product on the shelf, so failing the F-35, the only other option is European.

 

But powerful friend or not, it would be disturbing in a few years time to lose air superiority in this region. We've certainly put all our eggs in one basket.

 

Cheers, Willie.

  • Agree 2
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We haven't had a major armed air conflict between large powers since then and Desert Storm, Syria and the like have not seen real contests between fighters.

 

It will be interesting to see what the future holds if we survive it.

 

Kaz

 

A very good point, Kaz. In that context, it does make you wonder what the best fighter type would be for Australia, considering there's very few options.

 

The likelihood of a major armed air conflict between large powers is probably very slim in this day and age. The only large powers not completely in our club are China, India and Russia. India doesn't seem to have a problem with East or West (except Pakistan), China is too economically tied to the West for anything other than a small mis-understanding to occur, and NATO and Uncle Sugar, for all their sabre rattling, wouldn't dream of taking on Russia.

 

Probably the only direct future threat we would have would be the possibility of a small or medium skirmish with regional near neighbours. So unless that happens, our requirements for fighter aircraft are what they are now - being our big buddy's little buddy in their global adventures so we can pay our alliance dues. In that case, it wouldn't matter what we had, as we would be in that role as a token force only. And compatibility with the US would be a big issue, hence the F-35.

 

In the case of possible conflict with near neighbours, maybe the Su-35 would be the best option. The problem there is that politics and support logistics wouldn't allow us to have them.

 

The US, for the first time in history, only has one product on the shelf, so failing the F-35, the only other option is European.

 

But powerful friend or not, it would be disturbing in a few years time to lose air superiority in this region. We've certainly put all our eggs in one basket.

 

Cheers, Willie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We've certainly put all our eggs in one basket.

Cheers, Willie.

And as we can't afford many eggs, we'd probably find ourselves running out pretty soon in a serious conflict. Less expensive eggs and a much bigger basket seems like a smarter idea to me.

rgmwa

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We've certainly put all our eggs in one basket.

Cheers, Willie.

And as we can't afford many eggs, we'd probably find ourselves running out pretty soon in a serious conflict. Less expensive eggs and a much bigger basket seems like a smarter idea to me.

rgmwa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest SrPilot
Fighters are a prestige item, shoot down the tankers and they are ground targets.

 

Not good, FT, not good!

Tankers are impervious to cannon fire and missiles. (At least I think that's what they told us when we were briefed on how lucky we were to be in a KC135 unit rather than a C130 squadron). :thank you:

 

I remember a takeoff weight approaching 300000 pounds with 4 struggling Pratt-Whitney J57 engines with full or almost full fuel tanks underfoot, fore and aft, and in both wings (capacity about 191000 of fuel) as we rumbled down the runway dumping water into the engines to increase mass to get more propulsion while asking ourselves, "Hey, what could go wrong?"

 

And the USAF told us not to worry about the J57s either. We were going to (as in "not quite yet") upgrade to KC135Bs. Those puppies would have turbofan engines like the B52G/H birds had/have. Heck, the B-models might even outrun those Su9 and Mig 21 on the other side of the line of scrimmage.

 

Of course, with more power comes more fuel. (Gee, that sounds like something Spiderman would have said). But that is what tankers do, you know - haul fuel. So instead of just 191000 pounds of fuel, they were planning to go to 258000 pounds, IIRC.

 

I moved on. :whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest SrPilot
Fighters are a prestige item, shoot down the tankers and they are ground targets.

 

Not good, FT, not good!

Tankers are impervious to cannon fire and missiles. (At least I think that's what they told us when we were briefed on how lucky we were to be in a KC135 unit rather than a C130 squadron). :thank you:

 

I remember a takeoff weight approaching 300000 pounds with 4 struggling Pratt-Whitney J57 engines with full or almost full fuel tanks underfoot, fore and aft, and in both wings (capacity about 191000 of fuel) as we rumbled down the runway dumping water into the engines to increase mass to get more propulsion while asking ourselves, "Hey, what could go wrong?"

 

And the USAF told us not to worry about the J57s either. We were going to (as in "not quite yet") upgrade to KC135Bs. Those puppies would have turbofan engines like the B52G/H birds had/have. Heck, the B-models might even outrun those Su9 and Mig 21 on the other side of the line of scrimmage.

 

Of course, with more power comes more fuel. (Gee, that sounds like something Spiderman would have said). But that is what tankers do, you know - haul fuel. So instead of just 191000 pounds of fuel, they were planning to go to 258000 pounds, IIRC.

 

I moved on. :whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure someone will know. When was the last time one fighter jet shot down another jet with guns not missiles?

The Israeli Air Force prides itself on using canon to shoot down other aircraft. Last one I heard about was an Israeli F15 shooting down a Syrian Mig 21 in the late 80's. Otherwise there was an A10 Warthog which shot down an Iragi Mil Mi 8 in 1991.

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure someone will know. When was the last time one fighter jet shot down another jet with guns not missiles?

The Israeli Air Force prides itself on using canon to shoot down other aircraft. Last one I heard about was an Israeli F15 shooting down a Syrian Mig 21 in the late 80's. Otherwise there was an A10 Warthog which shot down an Iragi Mil Mi 8 in 1991.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as when the superpowers had rough parity in nuclear weapons (Mutually Assured Destruction) the U.S. and we, its allies need to maintain the other team's respect for our fighters. Otherwise, emerging powers will start flexing their muscles and we know where that will lead...

 

A cynic would assure us that we'll be okey because the U.S. and Russian weapons industries regularity get to test their products in actual combat. Korea, Vietnam, India/Pakistan, Iran/Iraq, Chechnya, Middle East... Crickey it's depressing, there's too many to list https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1945–89.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as when the superpowers had rough parity in nuclear weapons (Mutually Assured Destruction) the U.S. and we, its allies need to maintain the other team's respect for our fighters. Otherwise, emerging powers will start flexing their muscles and we know where that will lead...

 

A cynic would assure us that we'll be okey because the U.S. and Russian weapons industries regularity get to test their products in actual combat. Korea, Vietnam, India/Pakistan, Iran/Iraq, Chechnya, Middle East... Crickey it's depressing, there's too many to list https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1945–89.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest SrPilot
The Israeli Air Force prides itself on using canon to shoot down other aircraft. Last one I heard about was an Israeli F15 shooting down a Syrian Mig 21 in the late 80's. Otherwise there was an A10 Warthog which shot down an Iragi Mil Mi 8 in 1991.

 

Well, lprigan1, there are some of us who hold to the proposition that the USAF should consider tweaking the F16s, the A10s, and the F18s in significant numbers rather than busting the bank with a couple of cost overun projects. We always can use the 21st Century stealth stuff, but we also can use sheer numbers of proven steeds too. In the Gulf War, for what I hear, it may be that the F16 Wild Weasel guys went in first to hit antiaircraft guided missile control sites ["Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD)"] before the F111s etc were turned loose. Stealth is good but why take a chance? If stealth fails after you have air superiority and control of the battlefield, it's not fatal. But, hey, my name's not "Chuck" Horner and I am not a retired 4-star general. (So I wouldn't know).:coffee:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest SrPilot
The Israeli Air Force prides itself on using canon to shoot down other aircraft. Last one I heard about was an Israeli F15 shooting down a Syrian Mig 21 in the late 80's. Otherwise there was an A10 Warthog which shot down an Iragi Mil Mi 8 in 1991.

 

Well, lprigan1, there are some of us who hold to the proposition that the USAF should consider tweaking the F16s, the A10s, and the F18s in significant numbers rather than busting the bank with a couple of cost overun projects. We always can use the 21st Century stealth stuff, but we also can use sheer numbers of proven steeds too. In the Gulf War, for what I hear, it may be that the F16 Wild Weasel guys went in first to hit antiaircraft guided missile control sites ["Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD)"] before the F111s etc were turned loose. Stealth is good but why take a chance? If stealth fails after you have air superiority and control of the battlefield, it's not fatal. But, hey, my name's not "Chuck" Horner and I am not a retired 4-star general. (So I wouldn't know).:coffee:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes and then of course you throw in the wildcard raghead terrorist that manages to buy a couple of nuc's and because they are just crazy detonate them on some major city or cities and then who needs multi million $ aircraft then...we will all be living in caves again...if they spend half the amount of money trying to kill everyone, the US included, we might have spaceships that can go out and explore the universe and do some good things for mankind but I suppose we need to kill ourselves first to work all of this out...and it's not the normal person that decides all of this it is the governments that are supposed to protect and serve our best interests...yea right...back to the thread...sorry I will get off my soap box....

 

David

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes and then of course you throw in the wildcard raghead terrorist that manages to buy a couple of nuc's and because they are just crazy detonate them on some major city or cities and then who needs multi million $ aircraft then...we will all be living in caves again...if they spend half the amount of money trying to kill everyone, the US included, we might have spaceships that can go out and explore the universe and do some good things for mankind but I suppose we need to kill ourselves first to work all of this out...and it's not the normal person that decides all of this it is the governments that are supposed to protect and serve our best interests...yea right...back to the thread...sorry I will get off my soap box....

 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, lprigan1, there are some of us who hold to the proposition that the USAF should consider tweaking the F16s, the A10s, and the F18s in significant numbers rather than busting the bank with a couple of cost overun projects.

 

They could do a lot worse, SrPilot. Those are three good capable aircraft that could live on with a bit of a tweak. I could never understand why the powers to be spend most of their time denigrating Russia instead of actually learning from what the Russians are doing. They have their state of the art stealth fighter, the T-50, in the pipeline, and the formidable Su-34, but they also will have a large force of upgraded and modernized aircraft types as well, going into the future. The MiG-31 modernization programme is one good example, and the basic Su-27 platform just keeps popping up in new versions all the time.

 

One problem is how to keep costs down; it seems to have blown out of all proportion. It's a bit hard to compete with Russia when they can turn out an Su-34 for $36 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, lprigan1, there are some of us who hold to the proposition that the USAF should consider tweaking the F16s, the A10s, and the F18s in significant numbers rather than busting the bank with a couple of cost overun projects.

 

They could do a lot worse, SrPilot. Those are three good capable aircraft that could live on with a bit of a tweak. I could never understand why the powers to be spend most of their time denigrating Russia instead of actually learning from what the Russians are doing. They have their state of the art stealth fighter, the T-50, in the pipeline, and the formidable Su-34, but they also will have a large force of upgraded and modernized aircraft types as well, going into the future. The MiG-31 modernization programme is one good example, and the basic Su-27 platform just keeps popping up in new versions all the time.

 

One problem is how to keep costs down; it seems to have blown out of all proportion. It's a bit hard to compete with Russia when they can turn out an Su-34 for $36 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To realise how silly we are, in being USA's lap dog, consider: 1) Australia vs Japan 2) Australia vs Indonesia.

USA claims to have all three countries as it's allies. Therefore, why would USA defend us against another of it's allies?

So many possibilities, such as: We are under attack. In desperation, we accept China's offer to base modern fighters and missile defences on our soil, while USA is paralysed with indecision. Post conflict, we feel secure in our new military alliance with our new best buddy....China.

 

Best buddies aren't needed if a nation accepts the cost of being ever vigilant and prepared. We could easily build all our defense equipment 'in house' but the bulk of our population and political class do not accept the premise of being strong and independent in our defense thinking and planning.

 

We could build a much better aircraft than the F35. Even building a copy/update F111 airframe as a fast, long legged and high flying munitions truck would be pretty useful and survivable. High and fast tends to defeat stealth. Maybe licence build a chosen Sukhoi model.

 

Surely we could design and build a tough battlefield aircraft, in the A10 mold.

 

Too expensive? Nah. No more costly than what we are proposing to waste on the mission incapable F35.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To realise how silly we are, in being USA's lap dog, consider: 1) Australia vs Japan 2) Australia vs Indonesia.

USA claims to have all three countries as it's allies. Therefore, why would USA defend us against another of it's allies?

So many possibilities, such as: We are under attack. In desperation, we accept China's offer to base modern fighters and missile defences on our soil, while USA is paralysed with indecision. Post conflict, we feel secure in our new military alliance with our new best buddy....China.

 

Best buddies aren't needed if a nation accepts the cost of being ever vigilant and prepared. We could easily build all our defense equipment 'in house' but the bulk of our population and political class do not accept the premise of being strong and independent in our defense thinking and planning.

 

We could build a much better aircraft than the F35. Even building a copy/update F111 airframe as a fast, long legged and high flying munitions truck would be pretty useful and survivable. High and fast tends to defeat stealth. Maybe licence build a chosen Sukhoi model.

 

Surely we could design and build a tough battlefield aircraft, in the A10 mold.

 

Too expensive? Nah. No more costly than what we are proposing to waste on the mission incapable F35.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same kind of argument applies to the new submarines. We're scouring the world looking for a submarine that we can modify to try and make it do what the Collins class already does (and then on top of that, get the other country to build it for us), when after all the effort it took to finally get the Collins working properly, you would think we could just design and build an improved model here. And when we finally get the new ones, I'll bet they won't work properly and we'll go through the whole expensive saga again, except that this time we'll have to pay someone else to fix them up because we probably won't be able to do it ourselves.

rgmwa

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same kind of argument applies to the new submarines. We're scouring the world looking for a submarine that we can modify to try and make it do what the Collins class already does (and then on top of that, get the other country to build it for us), when after all the effort it took to finally get the Collins working properly, you would think we could just design and build an improved model here. And when we finally get the new ones, I'll bet they won't work properly and we'll go through the whole expensive saga again, except that this time we'll have to pay someone else to fix them up because we probably won't be able to do it ourselves.

rgmwa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Register for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×