BBaldwin09 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 13 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7273 times:
In the Australian media down here, military aviation specialists have been writing off the JSF saying it would be stupid for the RAAF to buy to replace our F-111 and F/A-18C squadrons.
But can someone please tell me why the JSF is getting written off compared to say the Raptor? I dont see the RAAF having any choice considering the US won't sell the F-22?
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2529 posts, RR: 6 Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7127 times:
Foor for thought - the USAF, USN, and USMC all tried using the same aircraft once before in teh F-4 Phantom and for the most had little complaints as the F-4 was a great and highly successful aircraft. But the USN and USAF soon realized that they had different needs and the USAF went with the F-15 and the USN went with the F-14, supplemented by the less expensive F/A-18's which the USMC also bought to replace their F-4's with.
When the USAF and USN were lobbying for funding for a replacement to their F-4's they tried to say one platform just could not suit all the different services. But with the JSF they seemed to change their minds and think that if they took a relatively similar aircraft type but slightly modified it for each of the three services, they might be able to make it work. Too bad they choose to base the aircraft off of the least potent variation in the STOVL based F-35B, though. You think the USAF would like to trade in their F-16's for a modified AV-8 Harrier?
The big push with the JSF is pollitics - they involved enough companies and countries so that regardless of how fat, dumb, and lazy the program got bureaucracy would ensure the success, or at least the guarantee that the program wouldn't be cancelled. Now whether all three variants come out with happy customers remains yet to be seen - oh it will fly, but will it accomplish the goals as set forth by the customers at the prices promised by LM?
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10452 posts, RR: 20 Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7068 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 2): the USN went with the F-14, supplemented by the less expensive F/A-18's
Actually the USN tried to go with the A-12 to replace the A-6 but was forced to go with just F/A-18's when they fouled up the A-12 program.
The F-35 is suffering from what pretty much every aircraft suffers from at this point in its development: it's too heavy, it's late and it costs too much. But I have faith that LM will get it right. They darn well better: we can't afford a "do over".
Bottom line to me is the big winner in the program seems to be the USN. They haven't really been able to develop a new aircraft program themselves in a long time, and they are getting most of what they want while having the USAF and other foriegn services paying for the bulk of it.
BBaldwin09 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 13 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6883 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 3): The F-35 is suffering from what pretty much every aircraft suffers from at this point in its development: it's too heavy, it's late and it costs too much.
By it being too heavy, does it have a shorter combat range than whats desired? From what I read about the F-35 it "should" be superior to all the 4th Generation Russian fighters in all warfare aspects.
Is the F-35 seen to compliment the F-22 or supercede it?
I have read some articles about the politics behind the Lightning II and the F-35s failure in some simulations. Can these be trusted?
If our "future" fighters are getting defeated in simulations by the 4th Gen Russian fighters, should we be worried about future russian fighters like the Sukhoi 5th Gen PAK FA?
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6852 times:
Quoting BBaldwin09 (Reply 4): s the F-35 seen to compliment the F-22 or supercede it?
It is supposed to complement it, in the same way the F16 complements the F15. The main concern now is that the early planes may approach the cost of later F22's. The F35's alleged cost advantage may take a long time to realize if it is ever realized at all. The problem, as AIrRyan said, seems to be the same as that plaguing the ISS. The program tries to do too many things for too many different people, all the while growing too big too cancel. These factors all combine to force long delays and high costs.
SCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6806 times:
The F35 is becoming a case of too little for too much $. The fact that the price is approaching that of the F-22, an aicraft that outperforms it by a wide magin in almost every significant measure of performance, is rediculous and very dissapointing. Additionally, there is no evidence that the F-35 will be able to hang with 4th generation Russian fighters. All the technical specifications points to is that in air to air combat it will only maintain F-16C performance levels, that is, 32 year old performance levels.
Texl1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 239 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6611 times:
In what performance measure, other than stealth, would the F-35 outperform an F-16E with an AESA?
SCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6599 times:
Quoting Texl1649 (Reply 7): In what performance measure, other than stealth, would the F-35 outperform an F-16E with an AESA?
Good point; it wouldn't, and f-35 stealth is only partial.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12707 posts, RR: 80 Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6571 times:
It's worth remembering that the USN, USMC and USAF had a great incentive in having the same basic platform for a new aircraft.
They had no choice.
Such is/was the logic of the post Cold War world.
SCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6340 times:
Ozair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 661 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6298 times:
Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 11): The F-35 (anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong) does not have Full Aspect Stealth like the F-22, (or the F-117, for that matter)
All stealth aircraft are optimized to deflect specific frequencies. Whether you wish to call this full or partial stealth I guess depends on what frequencies you’re worried about.
Mortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3228 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6106 times:
The media in Norway seems to have serious doubt about the F 35 too and how it can fit Norway's needs.
We need a plane that has a fairly long range ( the same as an F16 , preferebly longer ) to cover Norway's wast ocean areas and to possibly go up against watever the Russians are sending at us.
The question is, will the F35 be able to play the role as defender of our airspace and intercept Russian fighters, or will the Russians fly right past us and even around us, showing us the finger....
The media here in Norway argue that the F35 is more of a bomber than a fighter. A multirole aircraft yes, byt 70 % bomber and only 30 % fighter. They feel it don't have the speed, range or manouvering capabilities that Norway needs and that it is more an aircraft designed for missions abroad, like Afganistan.
The F35's competition in the bidding in Norway is the Swedish Gripen fighter.
Norway will only have one aircraft. So we don't have anything in adittion to an eventual F 35....
Personally I would want an american plane. It is what the Norwegian fighterpilots have flown for 70 years. But I have to admit that I'm sceptical to the F 35 and it's capabilities.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2529 posts, RR: 6 Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6028 times:
The next U.S. Presidential administration has basically been punted the decision for the fate of the F-22 line for the USAF.
In addition to what they may do with the USAF F-22 line, perhaps an Obama Admin would be more open to letting others take a look at the F-22 which in turn would cause a lot of F-35 customers pause for a moment? Japan and Israel would certainly like the F-22, and the RAAF might even take some F-22's even though they are committed to the F/A-18F.
Brendows From Norway, joined Apr 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5907 times:
Quoting Mortyman (Reply 13): We need a plane that has a fairly long range ( the same as an F16 , preferebly longer ) to cover Norway's wast ocean areas and to possibly go up against watever the Russians are sending at us.
Unless they fail to meet the specifications by a wide margin, the F-35 should have a much longer combat radius with internal fuel only compared to the F-16, so range should not be a problem at all.
Quoting Mortyman (Reply 13): The media here in Norway argue that the F35 is more of a bomber than a fighter
Is the average Norwegian journalist in the mass media capable of comparing the two candidates? No way. So where do you think they got this information from?
Remember what Airbus Military did when the Norwegian DoD were to choose between the C-130J and A400M? They hired several PR agencies to spread a lot of false information about the competitor to the media, and the Norwegian media published this information regularly.
Cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 44 Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5898 times:
Quoting BBaldwin09 (Thread starter): In the Australian media down here, military aviation specialists have been writing off the JSF saying it would be stupid for the RAAF to buy to replace our F-111 and F/A-18C squadrons.
But can someone please tell me why the JSF is getting written off compared to say the Raptor? I dont see the RAAF having any choice considering the US won't sell the F-22?
It's more that the F35 is too this, too that, not enough of this, not enough of that, too late, too difficult, too costly..
And the "pig" has turned out to be legendary.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 14): and the RAAF might even take some F-22's even though they are committed to the F/A-18F.
We most certainly won't be going for F22's. I extremely doubt that any budget would be allocated to this.
Maybe back when the USA economy hadn't yet imploded, it was still on the cards (even if just as a election stunt), but since USA economy imploded and took everyone else's with it, we've had to spend all our dollars bailing out the finance market.
TexL1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 239 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5885 times:
The F-22 is a great air dominance aircraft, but the secrecy of the software/systems/integration will deteriorate over time anyway (there's nothing secret left in the F-15/F-16, for instance). It's well engineered, and nearly as cheap if produced in quantity as the F-35. Australia and Japan should get it. I'm still hacked over the Israeli's Lavi/F-16 espionage treachery, but if it's an R. administration Israel should get it too.
(The other qualification in Norway has got to be what plane would be more exciting screaming down the fjords. Those F-16's are the best videos on youtube, bar none.) The Gripen NG looks to be a pretty darn formidable foe. Is it really "less American?"
SCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5771 times:
The problem with the F-35 is, other than the U.S., how many of the JSF partner nations really need a bomb truck? I don't see any European countries interested in fighting pre-emptive wars. Air defense should be the number one priority, not offensive strike capability. The F-35 is simply not competitive as an air defense fighter.
Mortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3228 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5756 times:
Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 19): The problem with the F-35 is, other than the U.S., how many of the JSF partner nations really need a bomb truck? I don't see any European countries interested in fighting pre-emptive wars. Air defense should be the number one priority, not offensive strike capability. The F-35 is simply not competitive as an air defense fighter.
My thoguhts exactly
Quoting Brendows (Reply 16): Is the average Norwegian journalist in the mass media capable of comparing the two candidates? No way.
No, but neiter is our politicians. We have ofcourse a group of pilots and people in the " know " who gives advice to our politicians on this issue. However in the end it is our politicians that decide and politics and politicians are politics and politicians... I am not convinced that they will make the correct desicion.
Jutes85 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5728 times:
Soon the Canadian government will have to find a replacement for our 82' Hornets. I think it will come down to the F-35 and the Superbug. The biggest problem I think we have is whether or not two engines are ultimately safer for those long patrols in the Arctic.
Playloud From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 53 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5693 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 14): The question is, will the F35 be able to play the role as defender of our airspace and intercept Russian fighters, or will the Russians fly right past us and even around us, showing us the finger....
Considering the Russians won't know where your F-35s are (stealth), they would have a tough time flying around you. In order to fly around something, you first have to know where it is. By the time they saw you, they would either be dead already, or at least have an AIM-120 heading their way.
F27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1113 posts, RR: 5 Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5677 times:
Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 11): The F-35 (anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong) does not have Full Aspect Stealth like the F-22, (or the F-117, for that matter)
the question still stands, on what do you base this statement?
Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 19): The problem with the F-35 is, other than the U.S., how many of the JSF partner nations really need a bomb truck?
well, since the second world war the Royal Netherlands Air Force has shot down one enemy aircraft (1999 Kosovo campaign - serbian MiG 29) but in the last 13 years has flown thousands (if not ten thousands) strike missions and is delivering the backbone in CAS every day in Afghanistan.
So yes, in an assymetric conflict (the one we are always in) we do mostly bombing of ground targets, this applies for any NATO member.
Nevertheless the suggestions made in several media are not really fair to the truth anyway.
"...It is worth noting that the F-35 is not an all-aspect stealth design like the F-22A and YF-23 which have carefully optimised exhaust geometries and thus excellent aft sector radar cross section."
...and From Defense Industry Daily:
"...The F-35 has also been designed from the outset to feature less stealth than the F-22A, though it will be stealthier than contemporary 4.5 generation European and Russian aircraft."
...and from the Sydney Morning Herald;
"A crucial aspect of the fighter's "stealth capability" - radio frequency signatures - has been downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", according to the US Defence Department website."
25 Johns624: So it's till stealthier than any projected opponenet. What's the problem? So it's less capable than the F22...so what, it's NOT an F22. The F16 is le
26 F27Friendship: ha! per definition I don't buy anything from an Australian newspaper considering their recent horrible demonstrations of amateur journalism. Since it
27 Oroka: Perhaps the F-35D kit would fit the RAAFs budget a bit better. F-35D Lightning II kit
29 EBJ1248650: If you're on the defensive only, your enemy has an advantage over you. If you can hit him offensively and be effective about it, he's going to have t
31 SCAT15F: Whatever happened to "the best offense is a good defense"? I believe that if your military is defensive only, your'e going to have a lot fewer enemie
32 Oroka: That is one of the stupidest sayings of all time. In sports, you dont score with just defense, and in war you eventually run out of supplies (or publ
33 Johns624: What? Even if your aircraft are on the defense they'll still have to fight enemy fighters and do ground support for your troops. What is the differen
34 Alien: Do you have any clue about what you write? The proper saying is the best defense is a good offense. The F-35 being fielded by the US and the nine par
35 SCAT15F: that's right, I stand corrected. No need to get your undies in a bundle. However, I still think a dedicated air defense version of the F-35 would be
36 Johns624: Uhh, isn't that what we have the F22 for???
37 SCAT15F: I meant for JSF partner countries that are not allowed to buy the F-35
40 Mortyman: See this is the problem Your partner countries in the JSF program is not allowed to buy the F22. It's not the USA who has a problem. You have designe
41 Max Q: I think the -B version is a fine Harrier replacement, and that's where they should have stopped !
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 13 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2529 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12707 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1113 posts, 
From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3228 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
