It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

A Push in the Australian Senate to Reexamine the Purchase of the F-35

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 11:05 AM
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

for a hefty mark up of course
also well only sell you things we know we can defeat.... you know just in case....buddy

posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 04:28 PM
What capability in real the F-35 can do to have the enormous support of the pentagon , over all the programs ?
In the paper F-35 have poor air to air capacity for dogfight and no real great perfomance mach 1.6 top speed when SU-35 can flight mach 2.25 and be a beast in manuver so what ?? , is not abble to supercruise like a F-22 and have a less modest range than a Strike eagle. We read all the time just the F-35 can penetrate the enemy defense, realy!! Ok for launching bomb in discret mode but for the rest ??
edit on 30-11-2015 by darksidius because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 04:43 PM
a reply to: darksidius

On paper the Hornet is an amazing airplane. Talk to the pilots and they all agree that the range leaves much to be desired. Paper is worth the cost of the ink printed on it. Real world performance is what matters.

posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 04:44 PM

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Forensick

Not only is Indonesia looking at Su-35s, but they want S300s too. They're not as advanced as the 400, but they're dangerous enough to legacy aircraft.

G,day mate you are write BUT
and i no longer can prove this to you
think it was in on of my pacific defence reporter mags
after our mob with your backing went into east timor
indonesia purchase a s300 system
plonked it down on their part of timor and promptly faced it toward the aussie mainland
plus this info never went mainstream and i have not been able to find it with a google search
never the less it was discussed at length by myself and several ex RAAF mates at the RSL
history is not always what we are told. what.

posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:14 PM

originally posted by: CovertAgenda
a reply to: anzha
What a dog. And they made us bury OUR pigs (after 40 odd years of tweaking to get right) so there was no turning back....
I say we buy the old plans for the TSR-2 off BAE and start almost from scratch and build something that's actually suited for our conditions/requirements.
Does anyone remember the arguments against a single engine from back in the f16/f18 selection days?
Obviously no-one in the RAAF does.
Still..... its not as if we actually had any choice in the matter....

G,day mate
several points
ONE. our f111/pigs we stripped of their wiring and digitalized
making them a lot lighter and improving their capabilities
a sparkie in gawler was involved in the job (hop in electrical) and informed me that they ended up being better than the USAF ones
TWO. when the mirage started falling out the sky due to no upgades israel offered to help up upgrade their systems
the clowns in canberra said no
more fell out the sky and pilots were lost and some went down over water on the way to butterworth in malaysia
the govt. finally agreed to a new plane as the media could smell a rat about the death of pilots
so the RAAF was told you can go pick a replacement
SO the blue orchids (riffraaf) picked out a plane with TWO engines that could fly across the country and engage in a donnybrook.
fronted canaberra with the choice and cost and the wankers in canberra flipped they collective wigs.
NO. too expensive to buy and maintain choose again
needless to say the RAAFIES were really pissed orf
so they chose again
that is why we have the failed F17 er sorry the best plane for australia according to RAAF PR and the DOD
I was in at the time

posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:24 PM
a reply to: pronto

Things have changed a great deal since then with regards to single vs twin engine. Modern engines have a MTBF that almost exceeds their planned life cycle. They have the usual Depot checks, but some engines run 6-8,000 hours without a failure.

posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:26 PM

originally posted by: C0bzz
Oh good, anther inquiry into the F-35 in Australia. What is this now? The 3rd?

The F-35 has been discussed in extreme detail in Australian Parliamentary Hearings. Multiple times. Transcripts are online.

DoD and RAAF have reiterated multiple times that the F-35 is the right aircraft.

Why not actually listen to them?

Greens defence spokesman Peter Whish-Wilson on Friday has urged the Senate's standing committee on foreign affairs and trade to inquire into the suitability of the stealth jet for Australia's strategic interests.

Peter Whish-Wilson really needs to stop wasting time and trying to get attention. This is what he is really doing.

G,day mate
cast your mind back a few years
canberraa told us that the F111
THE F35 would be able to do all that the f111 could do and also be able to replace the f18 in all aspects
piffle poppycock and rubbish
mate youorttoknow canberra is full of it
dont get me wrong i dont like tree hunggin green pollies struth we shoulld ringbark the bugga's
but the bloke is on track here and i dont like to admit or agree with that but i do
oorroo bloke

posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:33 PM

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: pronto

Things have changed a great deal since then with regards to single vs twin engine. Modern engines have a MTBF that almost exceeds their planned life cycle. They have the usual Depot checks, but some engines run 6-8,000 hours without a failure.

G,day Zapper.
yep i'm RGR that. but if you are flying over aussie most of it is empty 3 Million square miles of stuff all. two donks are better than one
if the crocs dont get you the joe blakes are mongels and the drop bears and bloody toggles are fairdinkum
little sh*ts and that is not taking the spring snake into contention. crikey

posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 05:38 PM
a reply to: pronto

I can understand the point of saying two is better, but it's like the 2 vs 4 commercial debate
For years it was four is best, for all the reasons you gave and more. Now, there are only like 3 four engine types flying, and the two newest aren't selling well at all, because of the engine advances.

Yes, they're not military engines, but many of the advances in civil engines came from military advances.

posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 09:19 PM
a reply to: Zaphod58

G,day again Zapper
yes i agree. if i remember correctly the rule/law/international agreement was no less than three engines for crossing the atlantic which in fact flies in the face of WW2 practices.
then again do you not think that the wrong engine is in the F35.
also the goal posts keep being moved lockheed said 60,000 feet
then 50,000 feet
what is it now 42 or 45
stone the crows mate the australian built avon sabre 1954 build is listed with the RAAF as 55,000 ceiling
now granted the sabre does not have the legs to catch an F35. but why would anyone want to buy a plane that can only just out height a glider and can be shot down by a plane from 1954
yes when the 35 is in a gaggle it has out done the 16.
word round the net is that the grippen does it better.what have you heard ?
we dont have any F22's and USAF Gen. hostage has stated that without the 22 the 35 is irrelevant
so does this mean that the 35 is an over priced bomb truck
helmet probs, no rear vision, cant turn sideways to use helmet sighting. ejector seat prrobs
cant go within 25 miles of a thunderstorm
mate you ort to see the wet season in northern aussie. no more than one sortie every 12 hours
what was it the pilot from italy and one aussie pilot said.
its much like the F105. how well did that plane go
I could go on but i figure i have just given you a big enough headache for the day
here take 3 of these and call me in the morning

oorroo bloke
edit on 30-11-2015 by pronto because: left out a word and a beer

posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 09:39 PM
a reply to: bally001

G,day Bally yer old Bugga
if you remember we built a better mosquito than the poms in WW2
We took the yank sabre threw out the guns and engine and put in better/bigger bangsticks and a better engine
it would be interesting to see just what we could do with an su35
whilst i have your attention
the F18 costs us about $17,000 an hour whilst the figures given for the F35 come out at approx $31,000 an hour
stuff that for a joke
over priced
over marketed
over tight fit in cockpit
but hopefully not over here
one plane does not fit all situations
too many people in canberra, washington and
lockheed are playing pocket billiards
including lockheeds PR companies.
2 hired to sell the 35 to the public
and internet bloggers paid for by lockheed to shape the online discussions
me bethinks the 35
is about as potent as a fractured fart in a wind tunnel

edit on 30-11-2015 by pronto because: Hmmm cant spell

posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 10:07 PM
a reply to: pronto

A number of those problems are being resolved, or have been resolved. All aircraft have issues during testing, this one is no different. It had a few more than most, but it's also the most complex aircraft ever built.

posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 02:16 AM
a reply to: pronto

Well strike me pink and dot me eyes, G'day cobs. You just get out of the sack after discoverin yer fridge and esky were dry. Oh well, a trip to the bottlo and pick up a paper for ya. Ohhhh and better check yer flappy top for any banter!!! Crikey mate, you've left me here on me lonesome since Pat retired.

On topic, you know where I hale from intially so I must point out I preferred the twin rotarys' as opposed to single engine. (Old saying, "2 screws >S2E Tracker< beat a blow job anyday >A4

posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 02:22 AM
a reply to: pronto

Part 2. Sorry pronts, for some reason my text cut out of my first reponse so here's a copy/paste tagged for the original.

More time to check the old silk so to say.

Purchasing new Aussie kit albeit, fighters, bombers, ships, subs, tanks will always be reviewed. Dunno how much austwal we've spent so far with regards to the F35 but I'm sure it's too late to pull the pin. As a deterrent I guess they're way up there. But a deterrent to who?

We have the US entrenched in the Top End, China has just leased Darwin Harbour (and secured large tracts of land) and Indonesia is one of our high profile trading partners who regularly excercises in the Top End. So domestically we're well backed up in that arena. I'm sure the smart tech will enable the RAAF to be on par with other advanced countries but what comes after the F35 purchase at this stage. Will they be 2nd rate or obsolete in a decade.

Leastways a good sound Boomerang comes back. Wirraways didn't. Guess I'm getting old.

Keep in touch cobs,



posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 02:57 AM
a reply to: bally001

Ha ha you and Pronto you old timers . Well i am sneaking up there as well . Anyways this bit i don't share you enthusiasm about .

Indonesia is one of our high profile trading partners who regularly excercises in the Top End.

Exorcises or practising . I guess i never got over an Indonesian tour guide telling a few of us Aussies how their government umm ... dislikes Australians .

Now for the important stuff . Pronto if you read this . Blue swimmers on the munch yet . Got a bit of time on me hands since SAPN cut their budget . Pretty much hangin out for a feed of crabs .

posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 02:59 AM

originally posted by: C0bzz
Can we get real here?

Relative to the RAAF, the Indonesian Air Force is a joke. They aren't much of a threat.

Can we stop with the paranoia?

RAAF has currently 72 Hornets, 24 Super Hornets, 6 Wedgetails, 5 A330 MRTTs. Armed with the latest weapons (i.e. JASSM-ER). Our pilots are probably better too. We also have a OTH-B radar - JORN.

In the near future we will get 12 Growlers, 2 additional A330 MRTTs, and begin F-35A deliveries. The F-35As will likely be warmed with AMRAAM, ASRAAM, and a version of JSM built to our own requirements. We will also have SEA1000, SEA5000, SEA4000 coming up. We also have two Canberra Class LHD's to help provide stability to the region.

We don't need the US to plug holes.

If Indonesia obtained Su-35's and used them offensively they would be shot down. Then we could bomb their airfields using a variety of assets, including the strike ability of the F-35.
These f-35's were put to the test against a 1970 f-16 and lost lol. Doesn't matter how many missiles u strap to it.. Should we compare prices Su-35 vs f-35. You could buy Double the sukies

posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 03:08 AM
If they don't get the sukies KEEP THE HORNETS ! Years of tuning and engineering would be wasted if the war turned up the day we receive the f-35's buy a couple use them for bombers.

posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 03:11 AM

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: Zaphod58

Question . Indonesia launches SU-35s against us . Australian radar picks them up with plenty of time . Who wins , given that the F35s have all their bugs ironed out . Thats the bottom line .

Well, first thing you don't do is send a strike aircraft up as an interceptor...

posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 03:12 AM
Has anybody heard of Russia's new T-50 supersonic bomber ? His massive number of sukies and a few of these T-50's would be a very nice package :p

posted on Dec, 1 2015 @ 03:47 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in