A.R.S.E.

Yeah but the problem here is that they are relying too much on technology to win.

The recent history of air-to-air combat - since say, 1965 - has been that it has never met expectations and yet this jet was designed around what we expect our opponents to do. The trouble is that we have always advocated BVR combat as the holy grail but it has rarely been achieved. That's why the gun was taken out of the F-4 Phantom. Nobody expected it to go to guns range and against highly manoeuvrable MiG-17s it had a pretty hard time. I don't think the USAF has scored a guns kill since Vietnam but BVR is not yet an all-singing-all-dancing reality. Studies show that the vast bulk of air-to-air combat still takes place in the WVR environment. The trouble is that in recent times, pilots have only used missiles. Whatever it takes but the counting has been skewed. Only a few AIM-120 and AIM-7 shootdowns have been BVR. But BVR advocates prefer to think of a BVR shootdown in terms of which missile is used. AIM-120s have been used in WVR combat more often that in BVR.

That means the whole assumption behind the F-35 is flawed but that's only half the story.

The aircraft lacks the basic performance specs it was supposed to have. It was supposed to be - in the words of Lockheed-Martin - 400% more effective than the F-16, F/A-18 and any of the Sukhois it might be expected to face. This has not been the case. I'm probably alone in not being overly concerned about the wing loading. The F-35 uses a measure of body lift in the same way as the F-14, F-16, Su-27/35 and PAK-FA do. But a lot of that depends on combat load and how much of the actual load carrying is expected to be picked up by body lifting outside of what is used for combat.

Instead it relies on systems like "sensor fusion", etc.. Again, that's fine...as long as it works. So what if you're about to engage with a J-10B and you get a BSOD or some other malfunction? You still need to fight your way out so the jet must be able to fight on its own merits or it has no business being there. Too much reliance on technology to save the day. A mate of mine has always liked Ferraris because, as he says, he prefers performance that is built in, not bolted on.

In pure T/W terms, it's still underpowered. When we ask this we're told "Oh yes, but the new ADVENT engines will take care of all that". That's fine but they're at least ten years away.

The Hornet isn't as fast as the Mirage was, nor does it fly as high. The Superbug doesn't have anything like the payload/range performance the pig had and in some ways, is quite vulnerable. But it could not be said of either "can't turn, can't run, can't fight".

Lockheed-Martin have pointed out time and again that the F-35 pilot didn't have a helmet mounted sight. They did not point out that the F-16 was carrying external tanks! Then there was the question of mission. Because the F-35 has no side weapons bays, it must carry the AIM-9 externally, meaning it is no longer stealthy.

The point is that Lockheed-Martin will not decide the future of air combat. That will be decided by pilots. You can't trade on assumptions except to assume that your opponent is not going to be a nice guy.

The F-35A in question was one of the earliest airframes off the production line, As such, it wasn't equipped with much of the fused sensor suite that F-35 supporters point to as one of the jet's big leaps forward (this combines data from radar and infrared sensors to give the pilot increased situational awareness). The F-35A was up against an F-16D (a two-seat version of that plane) that should have been at a disadvantage, encumbered as it was with two external fuel tanks hanging off its wings. Even if we accept Lockheed Martin's explanations for the F-35's poor performance, the fact that it couldn't best the much older plane should be worrying.

Which part is worse?

Two seat means bugger all in this context. They can carry less fuel but that's about the only real limitation (maybe why it had external tanks!). by the way - they weren't conformal tanks were they?

The two seater is heavier anyway and yes, it had external tanks, rather than conformal.

It doesn't really matter. The F-35 was supposed to beat it handsomely. That's what the brochure says and it what the contract required of it but the fact remains that the only way it could defeat an F-16 was to use a "Hail Mary" move, sacrificing speed. If you do that in combat it has to work. Without speed you're as good as dead.

That's a fail in anyone's book. And if it can be bested by the F-16 in fighter manoeuvres then it has no chance against the F-15, the F/A-18 or the Su-27/35 or any of the Eurocanards, all of which can basically out manoeuvre an F-16. That's a disaster.

The money and politics involved beggar belief. How the USAF and USN, not to mention the pragmatic USMC and on the home front our quaint little RAAF can allow themselves to be saddled with this worthless dog of an Aircraft... Tis beyond me.

Do we know if there is a "get out clause" if it doesn't perform as the so called "brochure" states...?

I wish this thing had a bit more internal fuel. I'd take 100 of them now:



Basically, it has been trouble free and is now battle proven. It's what's affectionately known as "a tits fighter" (a pilot's aircraft).

The Sierra Su-35 was the way to go. Perfect for us, absolutely so.
Because it's a Ruski job people cannot and will not see it.

Interesting.

Number 1 through 5 candidates in my opinion. JSF wouldn't even figure in a top 10 I reckon.

1. Sukhoi T-50 (PAK-FA) - Fucking phenomenal aircraft, makes me a little hard. *
2. F22 Raptor - The fogs bollocks from the western side. *
3. Sukhoi Su-35S - The perfect choice as mentioned, a quantum leap beyond anything currently in our inventory and in the region. Faster, Super Maneuverable, Longer Range, More Payload on and on.
4. Dassault Rafale - Next best choice, not as good as the Flanker Echo but still infinitely better than JSF.
5. Eurofighter Typhoon - Much as above.

* Neither are a realistic choice as we cannot afford them.

I think everyone knows what I think about this.

If we were to stick to the original AIR6000 requirement of one airframe to do all jobs, the only one which can do it really well is the Sukhoi. The Su-35 would have been a formidable fighter in the hands of the RAAF and the Su-34 an excellent choice with which to replace the Pig.

The trouble is, it was never going to happen. There is no way the Sukhoi could ever be successfully integrated into the ADF. There are just too many differences. South Korea considered it and the US threatened them with sanctions. That's how the dice are loaded.

The Eurocanards are all good, though I would not be all that keen on the JAS-39. It's just too small. The problem is that they are compromised by their range. Both Dassault and the Eurofighter consortium have offered them with conformal fuel pallets (a la F-16 Block 50) but the penalties are probably not worth the trouble.

On the other hand, IMHO, they are the only realistic option if we are to stay with manned fighters. I'm for the Rafale. It's cheaper than the Typhoon for similar capability and battle proven. It also has excellent dispatch reliability rates. Both can supercruise.

The F-22 would be great but I think that unless the US was prepared to sell us an "export version" it would be too expensive, too heavy and too complex. I would be happy with an "F-22 lite". IMHO, they will never see combat in the way in which they were intended (at least, I hope they won't). They have so far, only been used as bomb trucks in low threat environments.

The Greens have secured a Senate Inquiry into the JSF

I disagree JD it could be done. Theoretically it would be no different then the liason with the Frogs in the 60's. Totally foreign to the RAAF, handled and for the better. The impediment is the Yanks, that would be hard but again with competent leadership could be handled.

re: The Hippies. Bugger me can those useless maggots actually achieve something/anything for a change? Sadly, probably not. Thinking further, where on Earth would that leave The RAAF if they do... Christ what a mess.

Excellent.

Labor did the same thing when they were elected in 2007. You probably remember they looked at both the F-35 and the previous government's shock purchase of 24 F/A-18Fs (actually, both were shock purchases; neither was properly tendered or evaluated). The only good thing which came out of it was the EA-18G "Growler" aircraft we are getting from the yanks. They're working up the squadron now in the US.

As long as we remain a customer for that aircraft (via Boeing), I suspect cancelling the F-35 (Lockheed - Martin) will not have any negative effects.

The thing which bothers me most is the lack of openness about it. Senate committee hearings are fine but there are too many people who, when called, refuse to answer questions because they say something is a secret. Personally, I think it's more likely a commercial in-confidence thing. Some of the bully boy tactics have included former fighter pilots basically saying that unless you have flown against 5th generation jets you wouldn't know what it's about. That clearly answers no questions and taxpayers are presumably obliged to take these people at their word.

Unless an inquiry has the power to press for answers to specific questions it's a waste of time. And unless some of these witnesses give some very good reasons, other than "I can't tell you, you have to take me at my word", I see no reason to continue with the purchase. That is simply not good enough and it's been going on for years. Meanwhile, our costs are going up, our numbers are going down and the longer it goes the longer the lead times take. Don't forget: Howard committed to these things in 2002 but the final aircraft to arrive here is expected in 2023. That's if things go according to the current schedule.

From my point of view, that is simply not acceptable either.

Jamo wrote:Christ what a mess.

Blame Howard. Then blame Rudd.

I'm fed up with a huge company like Lockheed - Martin sucking off the public tit. The longer it goes, the more money they Hoover out of our pockets.

http://arstechnica.com/information-tech ... d-by-f-16/

Here is David Axe's story:



The quotes from the test pilot are frankly scary. I know that something like 75% of air combat engagements never get as far as dogfighting. It's been that way since the Boelke Dicta and the Five Phases of Air to Air Combat*. It doesn't matter. The F-35s advocates say this can't happen because of "Sensor Fusion". I'm sorry but I don't share their faith.


* The Five Phases of Air to Air Combat are:
1) Detection
2) Engage
3) Attack
4) Manoeuvre
5) Disengage

You want to be at 5 when your opponent is at 1.

Agree with the last part totally.. long range warfare as come a long way.

This entire thread has just kept me entertained for about 35 mins.

I think there needs to be some serious investigation done. Surely someone with enough credibility to demand an explanation could get a result but I can't think of who?

Not quite what I meant. The theory of air-to-air combat has not changed appreciably since 1915. What I was actually alluding to was that the notion that it has is not the reality and has been severely coloured by weapons manufacturer who have been proclaiming the end of WVR combat since the early 1960s. The practical reality of it is that even weapons like the AIM-120 have had the majority of their successes WVR. Only a small percentage have happened in BVR.

You keep mentioning the UAV aspect. I am probably going to share information here that may or may not get me arrested at some point but anywho...

On my first operational deployment we had one asset for the entirety of the deployed force. Skip 3 years, On my second one we had one asset for every patrol, and if it wasn't working we would only operate within Indirect fire support range. For the purpose of staying out of prison I will share no further than beyond 65kms.
I took a hiatus and when I returned to my former employer we operated with multiple assets. Skip 4 years, And the ones that kill people became a normal part of the Plan B - Plan F orders. And they are quiet, fast and even when lying down on your back and seeing one, you only have to look away once and you'll lose it.

They carry everything an infantry commander would want without having the hassle of going through a repeat-repeater to in order to finally get a boom boom or an image. Although in some cases waiting still seemed to take a long time. Magazine after magazine of long time if you catch my meaning.

I am against the remote killing that has become a part of the normal "Mission". You can't just pull the trigger from a beach in Miami and claim it as collateral. But when they are operated locally, and in support of the ground effort they are a game changer. Initiative is key and they can turn the tide when a smaller force finds itself bumping into a larger one.

my 2 cents. Go on with your air jargon

Sorry c.j., I was referring to Wobbler's post.

I will re-read your post more closely when I get home tonight.

Okay, I reread this and from my understanding of it, you're safe. I looked fairly closely at one of these at the Australian International Airshow at Avalon back in 2013 and they showed us a lot more than that. They didn't get too specific about any missions but the vehicle was on display and the control box was right next to it. You could go inside it.

Imagine an SU-35 getting a growler avionics package? Not sure if it would be possible but it would be a hell of thing.

Or the gun from the A-10 I'd love to see a drone kitted with dual 30mm guns.

I've been under one doing a run and wow... It's simply spectacular. Even the F18, I've been real close under a gun run and you can't help but stop and watch. I have an F18 gun slug and when you consider the velocity of the round, and the weight, you know it's going to do some proper harm to anything it touches.

Edit - My support of any such hardware is for CAS only. Not assassination.

There's a video on YouTube of a MiG-29 over Syria. It's taken from the point of view of someone on the receiving and of a strafing pass using the 30mm auto cannon. I'm reluctant to post it but you might want to check it out. as far as i know, nobody dies.

Anyhow...

An EF-35G would only make sense if the jammers could be carried conformally, as was the case with the EF-111A Raven. Any other way would compromise its stealth characteristics (which are marginal for other reasons anyway). But I don't think anyone would trust that role to a single engine jet somehow.

Among the more recent criticisms of the F-35 are those aimed at the sensor fusion helmet, which is quite large. The test pilot found there was simply not enough clearance between the canopy and his helmet to be able to turn his head. Good grief. How is anyone expected to fight in this thing? The Russians have been using a helmet mounted sight for 25 years. Why did we try to reinvent the wheel?

On top of that, Lockheed-Martin persist in comparing apples with pears. They talk about a loaded F-35 carrying all weapons internally and having a dash speed of M1.6. This, according to them, gives them the upper hand in air to air combat. What they don't tell you is that in that configuration, the F-35 has terrible combat persistence. An Su-35 can carry about 10 missiles of various capabilities, including the superb R-73 heat seeker, which is roughly analogous to the AIM-9X. That is combat persistence. The F-35 in clean configuration carries two AIM-120 medium range missiles. Now, I know these things can be used WVR (in fact, the vast majority of AIM-120 kills have occurred WVR) but once you've fired your two shots, that's it Bubele. You have to resort to shootin' irons or turn and run. Given that we have seen how poorly the F-35 performs in close in dogfighting against the F-16, it would be a very brave or foolhardy pilot who would attempt to dogfight with only the gun.

The fact is that the F-35 cannot carry the AIM-9 internally, a hopeless situation. To carry it externally compromises its stealth. Also, the AIM-120 is not all that good at off-boresight attacks, in the way the R-73 is. That means that it's not ideal for anything other than BVR or long range WVR shots.

Lockheed-Martin don't talk about this. They want you to think another way. The brochure says it will work... The trouble is that this thing is being marketed with rose-tinted optimism as its biggest selling point.

Dr. Pain wrote:Imagine an SU-35 getting a growler avionics package? Not sure if it would be possible but it would be a hell of thing.

I don't think they're going to need it Doc. If these reports are true - and so far they seem to be - the Growler will be old technology by the time we get it:

http://sputniknews.com/military/2015030 ... 42643.html