F-35 Clubbed like a baby seal by Russians and Chinese

Source

The federal opposition has dismissed new doubts about the capacity of the multi-billion dollar Joint Strike Fighter to perform against jets used by Russia and China. The JSF jets, for which Australia is likely to pay $16 billion, were comprehensively beaten in highly classified simulated dogfights against Russian-built Sukhoi fighter aircraft, it has been reported. The war games, conducted at Hawaii's Hickam airbase last month, were witnessed by at least four RAAF personnel and a member of Australia's peak military spy agency, the Defence Intelligence Organisation, The West Australian said.

I have no idea why Australia is wasting their money on this plane. We could probably buy 10x the number of Sukhoi's for the same price...not only that but we could be forfeiting air superiority in the region to Malaysia and Indonesia. No doubt our pilots are better trained, but all the training in the world won't save you if you don't have the technological edge.

[edit on 14-9-2008 by Snappahead]

Meh. Dennis Jensen. More importantly, Jensens reputation is crap - he made a fool of himself at the Hearings last year and hasn't got over the fact that the RAAF JSF team made him look like an amateur...

www.geocities.com...

www.aph.gov.au...

Australian F-35 is going to walk over any projected threat in South East Asia for the foreseeable future. It only doesn't when you listen to loons who give unrealistic fantasy scenarios, which have been shot down years ago. They are now desperately trying and sway public opinion on the matter.

Even if you give the F-35 an unrealistically high price of 100 million dollars a pop, you cannot buy 10 Sukhois for that. You cannot buy 5, either - perhaps 1.5 - 2, tops, for an aircraft that is positively inferior to the F-35, for an aircraft which has life cycle costs an order of magnitude higher than F-35, for an aircraft that cannot integrate with our existing infrastructure, for an aircraft that is incapable of using our weapons we have already procured. In the end, it is likely to be billions of dollars more expensive, and inferior to the plan we've already got.

I wish I had a megaphone and I could yell into the following peoples ears - Jensen, Goon, Kopp. "AUSTRALIA IS NOT GETTING THE F-22!!!". It cracks me up, all the people who have been given classified briefings on the JSF support it.

[edit on 14/9/2008 by C0bzz]

Despite your opinion of Denis Jensen, how about he accuracy of this article?

The opposition Defence spokesman seems to believe it is real, and the report quotes representatives of the RAAF and DIO attending the test.

I have no idea when it comes to aircraft, and I don't really care what we buy as long as it is the best for what we can afford. There's been a lot of reporting in the media that suggests its not the best option for us. Could you please explain to me why this report should be discounted? Have you had the classified briefing that gives you the inside information, and negates the claims in the article (not from Denis Jensen)?

"This is based on a computer game, computer modelling of the aircraft," he told Sky News."

"This is not real life."

This is nothing but a hash article that proves absolutly nothing but one simple point. That point being that Australia wants to have our best aircraft, the F22. Sorry fellas, it's not going to happen. Not without a serious change in Australian policies and spending.

He said the government should demand that the US Government sell it the F-22 which was already in operation instead of the JSF.

Hey Australia, if you want to use Russian or Chineese planes against your enemies…Oh wait a minuet, those enemies would be Russia and China, right? Har Har Har. Sure, go ahead Australia, and buy your aircraft from your future enemies. That’s a briliant stradegy.

Look, I know you put some money up for the JSF, and I know that your defense needs are real and that is why you want the “Best” fighter, the F22. But lets face it, you didn’t pay for the bulk of the program. The American taxpayer still has too.

I recommend that if Austrailia wants to gain access to our “best” military hardware then they should spend more time and money in helping to develop and build it. The entire world wants American technology and industry to protect them but then they don’t do squat to help us pay for it all.

I love Australians, don’t get me wrong. But these issues are serious and money talks and bullcrap walks. America is in serious debt. If you want the F22 then you need to poney up some serious support for American interests and military projects.

Originally posted by Hot_Wings
I love Australians, don’t get me wrong. But these issues are serious and money talks and bullcrap walks. America is in serious debt. If you want the F22 then you need to poney up some serious support for American interests and military projects.

What, you mean like participate in every war America has been in since Korea, no questions asked? Like support the US unequivocally, only to be shafted on trade deals down the track? Or be rewarded with "free" trade agreements that want to get rid of the PBS scheme and bombard us with American TV? If the US treats its friends like they treat us, then maybe we need start looking for new friends.

There are no facts about the article, so it's hard to talk about the accuracy of it. It was 'highly classified', why would they have knowledge about it? The report never quoted anyone from the DIO or RAAF. Furthermore, here's what defense opposition had to say,

Opposition defence spokesman Nick Minchin said he was taking "with a grain of salt" the validity of the report.

Here's what Fitzgibbon had to say.

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon has demanded details on the performance of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) following a report the jet had performed poorly in war games against a rival plane.


The JSF, for which Australia is likely to pay $16 billion, was comprehensively beaten in highly-classified simulated dogfights against Russian-built Sukhoi fighters, The West Australian reported.

"I've asked for a full report from defence and I'll rely upon that report to come to some conclusion about whether there is merit in the newspaper article," Mr Fitzgibbon told ABC TV tonight.

www.thewest.com.au...

Here's a picture of the simulator:
www.pacaf.af.mil...

Do you really think a report of a 'classified simulation', with no quotes, no citiations, no facts, goes against all the long discussions that have been held about the subject that have decisively shown that the F-35 is the best for Australia? Visit the APH link I sent you.

Have you had the classified briefing that gives you the inside information, and negates the claims in the article (not from Denis Jensen)?

Were you there for the classified simulator that gives you inside information, and negates the research with classified information by the 'Strategic and Defence Study Centre'? See it works both ways. Now, priorities. Are you going to beleive the Strategic and Defence Study Centre.. or... a non-existant report on sensationalistic news?

What, you mean like participate in every war America has been in since Korea, no questions asked? Like support the US unequivocally, only to be shafted on trade deals down the track? Or be rewarded with "free" trade agreements that want to get rid of the PBS scheme and bombard us with American TV? If the US treats its friends like they treat us, then maybe we need start looking for new friends.

Dr Gumley—There is range of prices that the F22 might be sold to us for. No negotiations or discussions have ever been had on price, but we get some indication from US congressional data on how much they are paying for their aeroplanes. The range is anything of the order of $US105
million to $US115 million per copy.

But additional to that, if we were to acquire planes like that, we would be paying substantial update costs. The aeroplanes coming out now are already in need of update in some areas because they have been out for many years.

There are FMS costs, which is the charge the US government charges Australia to process the orders. Sometimes they waive those fees; sometimes they do not. We have not had the discussion yet but there is always the question of: do we have to pay our share of the past research and development and bringing it into manufacture? What is our share of the amortisation?

The Americans will have about 183 or 184 F22s by the time they finish their program. If we were to get 40 or 50 then we would be paying probably 20 per cent of the R&D costs of that aircraft. Maybe that will be waived it; maybe it will not be—we do not know—but that would add up to an extra $100 million per aeroplane.

www.aph.gov.au...

50 aircraft, 215 million a pop - and that's getting the best end of the stick. In total the F-22 costs over 300 million each for the USAF. Given 215 million & 50 aircraft, it's 10.75 billion dollars for the aircraft alone. 24 Super Hornets cost us $2.9 billion for the aircraft alone, total program cost was 6 billion. Given the same ratio, total program would be upwards of 20 billion dollars. For 50 aircraft, half the tactical aircraft we have now. For an aircraft that doesn't even fulfill the role required.

That point being that Australia wants to have our best aircraft, the F22.

Australia doesn't want the F-22. It has never wanted the F-22. It doesn't fit the role we require & it's vastly too expensive. Only people we want the F-22 are a bunch of self proclaimed 'experts'.

Air Marshal Shepherd—I will ask the expert members to address that point but I stress again: the F22 will not do all the jobs we need it to do. It is only part of the cost equation.

www.aph.gov.au...

[edit on 14/9/2008 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by Hot_Wings
This is nothing but a hash article that proves absolutly nothing but one simple point. That point being that Australia wants to have our best aircraft, the F22. Sorry fellas, it's not going to happen. Not without a serious change in Australian policies and spending.

The F-22 is NOT going to be given to ANYBODY else. Not the British, not the Australians, not the Israelis, NOBODY. The US taxpayer didnt pay through his nose to give our trump card all over the world for the highest bidder. The F-22 guarantees National Security and they are not going to sell away that guarantee for a few bucks no matter how good a friend they are.

Hey Australia, if you want to use Russian or Chineese planes against your enemies…Oh wait a minuet, those enemies would be Russia and China, right? Har Har Har.

No Russia and China are NOT their enemies. China gets most of its uranium from Australia. (Australia has over 40% of the worlds uranium deposits!) And Australia also has a huge population of Chinese immigrants. One of their largest immigrant communities. They are pretty cozy with China.

As for Russia, Australia is too far for them to care or bother.

Australia is a nation that has very few enemies and nobody who wants to do them any real harm. Most of their paranoia is manufactured. Indonesia, Malaysia etc are all bogey men for them while those nations have no real ill will.

So the JSF is merely a token aircraft for them. I dont think Australia has ever seriously been under the threat of war and destruction since WW2. Moreover they are too isolated to be of much strategic importance.

Don’t fool yourself my friend. China is a hungry beast. You said it yourself; China gets most of its uranium from Australia. But don’t stop there. China gets most of its steel from Australia as well. What about food, I would bet that China gets a lot of food from Australia as well.

I hope you can now see the picture of why China is your largest enemy, not your friend. If war broke out, Australia would be one of the first targets that the Chinese would take over.

Your government knows this all too well. Why do you think that they want the F22 so badly? China is a communist country, it is the new Soviet Union.

reply to post by Hot_Wings


Kay.

That's been discussed.

But also in terms of the most speculative parts of the crystal ball that I can see, it is one that we do not plan for—that is to say a fully networked air force attacking Australia where Australia had no access to the kind of network capabilities that we have been touching on, where Australia’s alliance had completely disintegrated for political capability or whatever reasons is something that exists in a parallel universe.

www.aph.gov.au...

Fantasy scenario which won't happen.

Never wanted F-22 badly. Read my above posts again.

Air Marshal Shepherd—I will ask the expert members to address that point but I stress again: the F22 will not do all the jobs we need it to do. It is only part of the cost equation.

www.aph.gov.au...

Only people who wanted F-22 was Jensen, Kopp & Goon. If you don't know who they are then I suggest you familiarize yourself with them.

One last thing.

“In just a decade, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has acquired about 25 Song, Kilo and Yuan conventional and two second-generation type 093 Shang nuclear powered attack submarines, with more Yuans and 093s to come.” Defence Today; "Australia and Maritime Power", John Armstrong and Paul Johnstone, March/April 2007, p. 12

We have a limited budged. In summary, buying the F-22 would only counter a non-existant threat, & distort the budget, taking money away from far more, useful, realistic, needs & programmes, such as the P-8 Poseidon.

[edit on 14/9/2008 by C0bzz]

Well, I can understand the reticence to export the F-22 - considering how badly the US screwed the pooch by giving the F-14 and I-Hawk to Iran. You just never know when a predominantly muslim country like Australia is going to revolt. Oh, hang on...

As for China being a threat, how many invasions has China lauched in the last 40 odd years? Ok, their human rights record ain't the best, but I wouldn't be holding up some of the US's recent efforts as international best practice either. Simple fact is China is the emerging regional powerhouse, and the US is (quite rightly) scared of losing the conventional war fighting advantage (and regional relevancy). While China might have the ability to hit Australia with long range missiles, it certainly doesn't have the force projection capabilities to be a true threat, and won't have for some time. At the end of the day, why wouldn't Australia look to more effectively partner with China, rather than label them as the enemy? Such labels are an over-simplification of international relations.

As for the report itself, a couple of observations:

1. The leak should be relatively easy to trace (if there was a leak).
2. There are no details on what the scenario and setup was for the simulation. If it was purely within visual range (WVR) I wouldn't be at all surprised if the JSF getting smacked was the outcome. It isn't a WVR fighter.
3. Nick Minchkin needs to learn more about modelling and simulation if he equates it to a computer game. And needs to learn even more if he listens to gunrunners about how good their product is.

These are interesting times for Australia's air combat capability. Somwhere between the extremes of left and right is an answer that should provide some measure of value for money for the Australian taxpayer. I think there are a lot more twists in the tail (tale) before we find the answer...

Originally posted by Hot_Wings
Don’t fool yourself my friend. China is a hungry beast. You said it yourself; China gets most of its uranium from Australia. But don’t stop there. China gets most of its steel from Australia as well. What about food, I would bet that China gets a lot of food from Australia as well.

I hope you can now see the picture of why China is your largest enemy, not your friend. If war broke out, Australia would be one of the first targets that the Chinese would take over.

Your government knows this all too well. Why do you think that they want the F22 so badly? China is a communist country, it is the new Soviet Union.

Couple of points, China doesnt get a lot of food from Australia compared to the amount it produces domestically. The ain meat the Chinese eat is pork. Also the main crop in China is rice. Both of which Australis is not a leader in. But processed foods and beverages like beer etc could be considered significant.

Also Australian companies also do a lot of business with China, from mining to engineering and construction.

With so much interdependence it makes NO sense that China would want to jepordize that relationship in some sort of invasion.

Your perspective is naive if you think that a country the size of China would want to add more territory to it. Especially territory so far away from its mainland and without any significant Chinese historical claim.
Your comparision with the Soviet Union is also utterly naive. First the Soviet union never wanted to "conquer the world". Its aim was rather to further the spread of the Communist ideology. China on the other hand is trying to gain dominance in what it sees as its tradition sphere of influence. They dont really care about ideologies at this point .

The F-22 is wanted by everybody, not just Australia if they can have it. But that is not the case.

Finally if war broke out with China, the USA would be the one to start it and Australia would not necessarily have any stake in it. In all likelihood, the Australians would choose a position on neutrality as it would hurt them a lot to take sides. Militarily speaking, the first major flash point would be in the straights os Taiwan and the Korean Peninsula.

Originally posted by Willard856
Well, I can understand the reticence to export the F-22 - considering how badly the US screwed the pooch by giving the F-14 and I-Hawk to Iran. You just never know when a predominantly muslim country like Australia is going to revolt. Oh, hang on...

As for China being a threat, how many invasions has China lauched in the last 40 odd years? Ok, their human rights record ain't the best, but I wouldn't be holding up some of the US's recent efforts as international best practice either.

Firstly, the sale of the F-14 even in those days to the Shah of Iran was not the same version that the USN flew. It was an inferior version. Also at that time the F-14 did not present any new or critical technological leap should the F-14 be used against the US like the sale of the F-22 would. This is also the reason aircraft like the F-117 and B-2 have not been sold to other nations, allied or not.

As for "how many invasions China has launched", that question is easily launched. The most famous being the invasion of Tibet in the 60s. Then we have their failed attempt into Vietnam, where they were soundly beaten. Not to mention their open support to the North Koreans through out their war with South Korea and in developing long range missiles. Might I also add the fact that they are responsible for secretly testing a nuclear device for Pakistan in 1991 and also the ones to initially provide them with the know-how to build a nuclear device.

The Tibet tragedy itself would surpass any US/NATO involved civilian deaths in the wars around the world.

Well said, Willard. Just a quick note on one of your points as well:

Originally posted by Willard856
2. There are no details on what the scenario and setup was for the simulation. If it was purely within visual range (WVR) I wouldn't be at all surprised if the JSF getting smacked was the outcome. It isn't a WVR fighter.

Interestingly enough, in some configurations it's not a vastly superior BVR fighter either. Well, maybe not as much as they'd like us and potential buyers (Australia) to believe. Check this out:

An air-to-air load of eight AIM-120s and two AIM-9s is conceivable using internal and external weapons stations, as well as a configuration of six two thousand pound bombs, two AIM-120s and two AIM-9s.

Even though it's an article from Wikipedia it's something you can find elsewhere and that I've known for some time, so if you don't believe me I'm sure we can all use the Google button . Did you catch the important part of that excerpt? I direct your attention to the part saying "using internal and external weapons stations," noting that there's some weirdness here. You're probably all saying "Wait... External? Wouldn't that compromise the stealth characteristics of this proclaimed 'highly stealthy' platform?" and you would be right. While its RCS is no doubt still smaller than a Flanker's (as would be a bird, a flying toaster, and probably a large asteroid's), it will take a hit from the ordinance.

If you consider the fact that the JSF is a multirole (and in the United States, will probably focus more on the ground aspect with its bigger brother around to take care of the skies), it'll probably seem evident that it should be carrying some A2A and A2G mixes to take advantage of the capability to switch quickly from one role to another (hence, multirole). One idea that I believe was brought up by Westpoint in a long-lost thread was the idea of fitting out part of an entirely F-35 force with A2A munitions, and the remainder with nothing but A2G ordinance, thus allowing the anti-air part to defend the probably more mission-critical anti-ground force. This will boost its particular capabilities, but if a group of enemies turns to engage while the rest stay on course to target, the OpFor will have fewer targets to concentrate upon, and thus gains a bit of an advantage over engaging the entire group. As well, if one of the defenders is lost, the group takes a higher loss to the overall anti-air capability. In the event that all the defending force's anti-air section is downed, then the remaining anti-ground group is done. Game over. AIM-9s versus R-77 does not go well for Mr. Sidewinder. Overall, I'm not sure this strategy is as effective as mixing it up on each a/c.

From this large mound of annoying logic, it could be reasonable to assume that F-35s will run with at least some A2G ordinance. As you can see, this will decrease the amount of available space for missiles. If that's true, then the F-35s may or may not have been at a disadvantage since Sukhoi's jets are massive missile boats. IIRC Su-35 has 12 rails for missiles, versus F-35 topping out at 10, both mixing up WVR and BVR missiles. I believe that some specific variants of flankers also have 14 rails, but I can't remember which ones at this point. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm aware that the difference between pylons is small, but consider the fact that while JSFs would likely have A2G ordinance, Flankers wouldn't. They have other planes for that, like Su-34 or its predecessors. Thus, you've got a fighter made entirely for this: fighting other jets. So it would be reasonable to assume that the Flankers are carrying as many missiles as they can, a respectable sum. Can anyone say "ripple-fire"?

I know that speculating that F-35s to be at a disadvantage is unfair, but combat is never fair. In fact, to my knowledge, weapons are designed solely to make combat more unfair. But if they thought the same way I do, it wouldn't be difficult to see why the F-35 may have had difficulty in the event that these claims about the exercises were true.

But if it was a WVR situation, I agree with Willard. Not surprised.

Sorry for the rant .

Its amazing the near mythological status some fo these Soviet weapons systems attain.

Could a Su-XXX hand the F-35 its lunch? It would depend on the scenario. Given the right conditions even the F-22 might be at risk ie. Dog Fighting etc. Is the F-35 configured for ground attack? Does it have external stores, whats the C3I situation, etc etc etc.

BVR engagments would give the edge to the F-35 because of its stealth. Without it its a 4.75 gen multi role fighter. A nice one to be sure but as vulnerable as anything else that is not stealthy.


For Australia the F-35 would be a great fit unless the range of the F-35 is far worse than advertised. Yes its not as good as the F-111 in terms of range but that would have been marginal for most threat environments these days anyway.

reply to post by IAF101


(quote!) "As for "how many invasions China has launched", that question is easily launched. The most famous being the invasion of Tibet in the 60s. Then we have their failed attempt into Vietnam, where they were soundly beaten. Not to mention their open support to the North Koreans through out their war with South Korea and in developing long range missiles. Might I also add the fact that they are responsible for secretly testing a nuclear device for Pakistan in 1991 and also the ones to initially provide them with the know-how to build a nuclear device.

The Tibet tragedy itself would surpass any US/NATO involved civilian deaths in the wars around the world." (unquote!)

You might also include the infiltration of Africa. The Chinese have a whole bunch of troops there now and are stiring things up in Nigeria and playing games in Zimbabwe and a few other countries. Libya and Momar Q are said to have a few 'Parties" for the diplomatic corp of China!!
Their need for raw materials are going to drive the Chinese to be much more involved in unrest in Africa in the next few years. Oh and as for anyone wanting Aurstralia as a conquored continent? you might want to read just how bad Japan wanted Aussie land for their own during WW2!!

Zindo

Come on blokie, you are giving too much credence to the gaming industry. Simulators can be programmed to do and show whatever you want them to. The Chinese have been busy trying to hack into everything they have no business in, just ask your closest IT admin security folks and have them check their firewall logs. I'll bet they'll see Chinese IP's by the handful making all sorts of connection attempts.
They've probably hacked and tweaked the simulators in their favor.

Maybe ATS should also check fw logs for attacks from China.

reply to post by ZindoDoone


Japan wanted Australian land so much they never seriously considered invasion and completely shelved plans by early 1942.

Its not an all out invasion that Oz needs to be bothered about. Its the swing of power and influence that China can and is trying to do so in SE Asia.

We are not in the days of WWII where someone mounts invasions from distant lands. Nowadays its more about encroachment and setting up of favorable situations.
China can very well try to persuade Indonesia etc. to be host to permanent Chinese military assets. The same with east African countries and some Diego-Garcia-esque island nations in the Indian/Pacific Ocean.

Already China is employing a string of pearls strategy in the Northern Indian Ocean to try and deny naval superiority to rivals in the area.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by ZindoDoone

 

Japan wanted Australian land so much they never seriously considered invasion and completely shelved plans by early 1942.

Exactly what this "anonymous" poster said.

Territorial expansion for resources is an outdated concept in a world of globalism and free trade. Why bomb and loot a country and face international scorn and reprisal when you get what you want on the open market or negotiate a profitable deal.

as soon as you rip the tabs off a stealth aircrafts wing hard points and mount anything under them - the RCS of a flea goes straight out of the window;

all those missile racks with square edges throw back a return , all those stores on said racks throw back a return

the F-35 is no A2A fighter like the F22 - the raptor was designed from the ground up as an air supremecy aircraft ; remember it was designed in the cold war - now that its over , those 183 A2A airframes need to earn its wage , which is why they are trying to get it to bomb;

where as the F35 is a stealthy bomb truck that can defend itself , and yes it could do the A2A mission - but you`ll see 90%+ of them running as bomb trucks - which is what aircraft seem to be doing alot of nowadays


as for the SU-XX - why do you think the IAF won`t use the PESA radar in red flag? there are rumours that it is really rather good.

but 1 component does not make for a complete package.