It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
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.
Davis countered that the exercise at issue, Pacific Vision 2008, did not even address air-to-air combat effectiveness, dealing instead with logistics issues around the Pacific Rim.
Link
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.
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
UA=SAF is not going to get as many 35's as people think: www.flightglobal.com...
Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
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
Well what I'm saying is it's going to be like 50-70 planes, not 100 or more.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by wantawanta
And you got that where? The CSAF wants to INCREASE production after FY2012 from 48 to 110 a year. Buried way down in the article is a bit about ONE option being DISCUSSED is to cut production of the F-35. Nowhere does it even hint that they aren't going to be getting as many as people think.
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....
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Davis countered that the exercise at issue, Pacific Vision 2008, did not even address air-to-air combat effectiveness, dealing instead with logistics issues around the Pacific Rim.
Just to add to what Westpoint offered:
Regarding the claim now circulating in the Australian press stating that the F-35 was “clubbed like a baby seal” in a classified US Air Force exercise, Maj Gen Charles Davis has said that the “basic wargame did not even involve an air-to-air scenario.”
“How that got translated into ‘clubbed like a baby seal’ I have no idea other than somebody used a comment made in the room or in a dinner that night and brought that back to Australia,” Davis said.
Davis also said that the F-35’s turn-rate and maneuvering is no different than the F-16, but the F-35 has stealth and far more advanced sensor fusion capability.
Source: F-35 programme officials bash critics, suspect hidden agenda
[edit on 9-24-2008 by intelgurl]