OK, so Australia's ABC news service posted this about 20 minutes ago.......

"A US think tank has declared the joint strike fighter aircraft that Australia is set to buy is inferior to the Russian made Flanker jets used by China and Indonesia.

The RAND Corporation's experts compared jets in a wargame and the ABC has obtained the results.

In bad news for the Air Force, which is set to buy 100 of the joint strike fighters, the results say the strike fighters have inferior acceleration, climb, turn capacity and a lower top speed than Russian and Chinese fighters.

In short it says the strike fighter can't turn, can't climb and can't run. It says the US fighter which could outdo the Russian made flankers is the F 22 raptor, which the United States bans from foreign sales.

The fighter's defenders argue it is not designed for close combat. But the RAND Corporation says a plan b is necessary and points out that if the strike fighter is seen or has to engage an enemy at close range then it will be no match for the Flankers.

A spokesman for the defence minister says he is convinced the strike fighter is the best aircraft available, but the minister has not released the air combat capability review which studied the options."

So previously in this thread it appears that such comments or interpretations were being ascribed to certain Australian 'sceptics' (for want of a better word) or who have a particular axe to grind.

But this report appears to come from the Rand Corporation ..... comments........?

I read with interest the counter argument as posted by Midav, but immediately a couple of things came to my attention.... 1. the document is a Lockmart press release and 2. It also claims that the F-35 is 400 per cent better A2A than any in service opponent (presumably this does not include the F-22 on the basis that it would never be an opponent).

So let me get this straight.....(that clatter is the sound of me opening my mind to allow the facts to enter freely)..... am I to believe (on the basis of a Lockmart press release) that the F-35 - a STRIKE fighter, whose primary purpose is STRIKE (or have I missed something here?) is just coincidentally a better A2A fighter than the Flanker in it's latest incarnation or, indeed Typhoon, Rafale, or indeed anything else, by the whopping factor of 4.

That's one F-35 defeating 4 Flankers simultaneously (presumably while still fulfilling it's primary function of STRIKE!).

Somebody has been watching the SciFi channel way, way too much. Get a grip people this is clearly BS of a major magnitude. I cannot believe that anyone could take such a claim seriously! Think about it! Man, that's like saying the Vulcan was 400 percent better as a fighter than the Hawker Hunter!

Deny ignorance, indeed - you have to be joking - a little common sense please!

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 23/9/08 by The Winged Wombat]

So what should the RAAF have gone with then? I'm not convinced that the F-35 can be that inferior to planes that are already flying. Tech (stealth,radar,powerplant) alone mean the planes will have an edge that when coupled with training.

I'm not convinced that the 35 is that bad of an aircraft. my one concern is that it may not be fast enough.

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.

Snappa, if you can remember... Kevin07 canceled a 100 Billion dollar deal Litttle Johny Howard had with the US, Kevin07 spent 40 billion. I am sure the deal-trade was for tanks, planes and other stuff for Australia's defence force.

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.

Thanks Hot_Wings. If you really must know: America's debt is at 11.3 Trillion. What? If Australia-Kevin07 would spend more money, we could buy some of America's "Ufo- Philadelphia Experiment Technology"??? And...Notice how US would use nukes? They have the technology knowledge to use "ufo technology" in WW3. Strange how the US could, but wont. *shrugs*...

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 do not want to scare you, or anybody else...Russia is spending $$$ to buy Australia's uranium. The sad part is that Kevin07 has already screwed Australia, allowing China to "take over" Australia.

Without having access to what the RAAF tested and (like, who really knows) what they would really prefer, it's almost impossible to say.

But this is very clear....... I cannot see any (and I mean ANY) aircraft designed to be a strike fighter being 4 times more effective A2A as near current technology aircraft designed specifically for A2A.

This simply beggars disbelief!

IMHO, there is far too much BS simply being absorbed by 'the public, the media, and even contributors to ATS' without at least applying the filter of a common sense test.

But now we have a report that the RAND Corporation (who apparently, if I read the report correctly) conducted the simulations, saying that if the F-35 get's seen, it's dead and has no 'Plan B'.

On the other hand Lockmart says the Rand Corporation is totally wrong and the F-35 is 4 times better than a Flanker, any day. Perhaps Lockmart got it wrong - perhaps the F-35 is ten times better A2A than a Flanker !!! Oh, why stop there, why not 100 times better or 1000 times better - makes about as much sense!

The Winged Wombat

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
But this is very clear....... I cannot see any (and I mean ANY) aircraft designed to be a strike fighter being 4 times more effective A2A as near current technology aircraft designed specifically for A2A.

This simply beggars disbelief!

I have not read the particular report so I cannot comment on it specifically. However I have to ask; who has access to more information about the F-35 other than Lockheed and the Pentagon? Which entity in the US has more information about foreign aircraft capability other than the Pentagon? All this speculation and conjecture which lacks facts is pointless. People were saying the same thing about the F-22 before it entered service. It's not this, that, etc... When the Raptor entered service however and started dominating in both BVR and WVR people had to swallow their words. And I've only been around long enough to remember that. Yet history shows the F-15 was doubted, the F-16, heck even the M1 Abrams had it's doubters and criticism. Based on the perspective of all those involved in the program, and the information which has been released so far from it's limited tests. I have no doubt the F-35 will be a

But we all know now that the F-15/16M1's have been doing nothing but taking on weapons platforms that were in it's self substandard, and not what Russians would employ on the battlefield.

Common sense dictates that one should read the actual report before jumping off the deep end with assumptions regarding its content. Given the ABC's recent track record, I'd prefer to make my own judgements on the report's content than rely on what an ABC writer thinks the report said. I've had a look at the RAND homepage and can't find anything about these particular "wargames".

And as for the 400% claim, I agree that it is an ambit claim with little merit if you aren't going to provide the reasons (and context) that led you to came up with such a figure. Somewhere between the two extremes lies the truth, I doubt the general public is going to know precisely what that truth is for some time.

Willard,

Sure, the ABC is at the very best a 'non-expert' source, however the initial report does quote the Rand Corporation with some pretty damning phrases.

My point is that these reports have been ascribed to Australia's vested interest military fringe, rather than the organisation that conducted the simulations. Here, at least is prima facia evidence (agreed let's see the actual report) that the simulations did not show the F-35 in a glowing light.

Rather the opponents to this line of thought appear to be quite happy to base their F-35 support on ludicrous 'ambit' claims on the part of the manufacturer while dismissing any criticism of the aircraft.

Finally, the ultimate getout for F-35 'supporters at any cost', is that it is not intended to be primarily an A2A platform - indeed, if my memory has not completely failed, it will not have it's full A2A capability when it enters service. Yet these same correspondents are willing to believe, on the basis of a Lockmart drivel release, that it is the best A2A platform of all time by a factor of 4!!

OK, I'll believe that the F-35 is a strike fighter with a secondary A2A capability, and no doubt a very good one at that - but remember this - if Australia goes ahead and replaces it's Hornet force with F-35 then it is making F-35 it's PRIMARY and ONLY A2A platform and as such it must be able to match or be superior to potential opponents for the projected life of the aircraft in Australian service (or at least have the upgrade capability).

So if the simulation reports and doubts are correct, then you would have to agree, I'm sure, that the F-35 would be of little use to us.

Which brings me back to what I was saying in the first place ..... way too much BS (or if you prefer ambit claims - spin for lies!) and no way of knowing just who's lying the most.

Look at it this way Willard, regardless of how close you are to the centre of RAAF power and decision making, I'll bet that even you have to believe one side or the other and that you are relying on second and third hand information. Beware that you are not believing the wrong set of 'ambit claims'.

In a world of incremental development, I simply cannot believe that anyone would accept, even for one moment, a sudden improvement in A2A capability (especially as a secondary capability - sorry, I'll use the appropriate spin - even in a 'swing role' platform) of a factor of 4!

Defense by Disney!

The Winged Wombat

PS:- Actually Willard, an ambit claim is something tendered as the initial basis for negotiation. What is contained in that Lockmart document does not fit that description in the slightest - it is a simple statement of fact, therefore it is (if incorrect) simply a lie! Dress it up and call it 'mis-speak' or 'spin', but a lie is still a lie.


[edit on 23/9/08 by The Winged Wombat]

Hey a new quote from Australian Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon.....

"But why would we sign on the bottom line before we know what is the cost, what is the schedule for delivery and before we are absolutely sure that the JSF will deliver all the capability that has been promised."

Wow, Willard, does that mean that Lockmart (or indeed any military equipment supplier) is going to have to make good on all those 'ambit claims'?

Are you willing to guarantee all those capabilities WestPoint? (of course you are, mate)

Now that I WOULD like to see.

The Winged Wombat

The F-35 will need to meet the warfighter requirements defined in the AIR6000 Operational Concept Document, and the AIR6000 Function and Performance Specification. Pretty simple I would have thought.

And again I'll say I reserve comment until I see the actual RAND report. A reporter's summary isn't worth diddly. We need context, set-ups, scenarios, what types of force level assets were involved, and where they sourced their perfomance data from (hopefully not Air Power Australia, although I notice that Carlo has finally acknowledged that the baseline R-77 has a shorter range than the AIM-120). No point blustering and being agitated until the facts (as much as they can be) are presented and considered.

As to what I believe, I doubt it would make any difference to you WW. Remember, I'm just a poor, low level sap who is stuck in Defence because I'm not smart enough or good enough to make it in the commercial world. Sigh. Guess I can get another couple of rounds of Minesweeper in before arvos....

Originally posted by Willard856

As to what I believe, I doubt it would make any difference to you WW. Remember, I'm just a poor, low level sap who is stuck in Defence because I'm not smart enough or good enough to make it in the commercial world. Sigh. Guess I can get another couple of rounds of Minesweeper in before arvos....

Ah, Willard, I have got you all wrong.......

Here's me thinking you were what those that will follow you in your Defense position will call a dinosaur who never understood anything about the problem...... no offence, it's a time honoured position in any defence structure - ask Peter Criss !

Or do you really think you will be thought of differently ?

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 24/9/08 by The Winged Wombat]

Well Willard, you just can't generalize like that you know, because I'm into 60s and my digital photographic gear is top of the line and continuing to be upgraded (but then you'd have to fully understand the limitations of the Polaroid system).

It would be your right if the same mistakes were not being made over and over again - and trust me on this one - they are - and generally speaking by the people in the same positions, and generally because they thought they knew better than those who had gone before - or worse still, failed to even comprehend what had gone before.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 24/9/08 by The Winged Wombat]