Except that the F-35 is planned to replace 3-4 different airframes, performing all their missions. The F-22 is ONLY an air superiority fighter. The air superiority mission is "done" according to so called experts. The F-35 is replacing the F-16, some of the F-15 mission, and supposedly the A-10. That means that they are going to HAVE to have it in large numbers or they won't have enough equipment to fight a war.

what do you expect guis,russians take theyr military seriously,they planes may look old,but are filled with modern tech even more advanced sometimes then the americans.
plus they keep a tight control on theyr government secrets.they kill traitors..
we all know about aurora and other americans stuff?
how about someone show me some inof on russian secret aircraft?

What do you know about Aurora? Nothing. No one even knows if it's real or not. All you have is speculation and rumor. US projects stay secret, except for leaks of minor information that doesn't prove anything until they want them leaked. Aurora has supposedly been around for a couple of decades now and not one confirmed picture exists of it.

I never want to hear any criticism of our Australian cousins, not even smart-aleck remarks. These brothers fought alongside of us time and again, and our co-mingled blood has stained many a territory. We have much more in common than most folks would care to admit. After all, both our countries are nothing more than British cast-offs, mutts you might say. Some mutts, huh?

I was talking to an F15 pilot who is awe-inspired by the F-22, our high-end replacement for the F-15, and of course many common elements are integrated into the F-35, which is the replacement for the F-16.

You may be able to buy entire squadrons of other planes from China or Russia, but each one of these F-22/35's will likely bring down entire squadrons of other planes. Of course we've had a bit more experience with the F-22, but a single F-22 consistently "brings down" four, five, six or more F-15's flown by highly experienced pilots who are looking very hard for the F-22. Most are "dead" and never see their opponent. And they want so very badly to be able to claim the "downed" an F-22.

The F-35 is great right out of the box. And in the hands of skilled pilots, well, most of its opponents will likewise be dead before they even knew the F-35 was in the neighborhood.

You can't just go by numbers. This is a quantum leap in combat capability. You gotta see something before you can kill it. Or be one lucky SOB.

I believe you Aussies will love the plane. And I'm glad you're getting it.

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!!

The '400% as capable' 'statistic' has been used many times over now, it should always refer to it's superiortiy over 'legacy aircraft'. Legacy aircraft would likely include F-16 Block 30 & F-18, obviously. In this case, I suspect they used the 400% in this case just to throw the media a bone, or, perhaps the media used it out of context - it's the media you know, it doesn't need to be accurate. Furthermore, no one claimed the F-35 is going to be 4x as effective while in the strike role. It is designed to do more than one mission.

[edit on 24/9/2008 by C0bzz]

Don't blame 'the media' for that one.

The document in question is the one linked on page 1 of this thread and it is a Lockmart press release !

So exactly when are we - 'the public', or indeed the 'customer' (remember the air force is only 'the operator', the taxpayer is 'the customer') - supposed to know when Lockmart is serious or just 'throwing the media a bone' (yet another euphemism for a lie).

Isn't it more a matter of when is a lie not a lie?

Or perhaps, can you believe anything at all in a press release?

The Winged Wombat

So what you are saying is EXACTLY what I'm saying.......

The RAND document isn't worth the paper it's written on and neither is the Lockmart press release. The next questions are 'is any other document on the subject worth the paper it's written on?', and 'why are the government and opposition arguing about a document that isn't worth the paper it's written on if they have 'real' information?'

So unless one has access to the no sh*t classified reports then you might just as well shut up and as a taxpayer, pay the price.

Well I'm afraid that doesn't wash very well these days, my friends. The taxpayer is getting pretty darn pissed about programs that don't produce working hardware (like Seasprites), appear to line former politician's pockets (SH) and are getting less likely to elect politicians who are going to continue to waste money on crap that doesn't work! And the 'industry professionals' say no problem - trust us! Yeah right!

It will be very interesting (but also very sad) to see whether the US taxpayers are willing to tip $2000 each into the Wall Street bailout or whether they will just let the whole system sink into oblivion. Can't have no Socialist Economy ya know, son.

But never mind, as W said this morning - Democratic Capitalism is still the best economic system - CRAP!

Let's start buying and selling in Euros and let the American Empire sink into its own sludge, otherwise the greedy lying ***** will take us all with them!

Finally, if F-35 'wasn't designed for that' (a point upon which I completely agree), how the hell can it be 4 times better A2A than those aircraft - are they saying it's 400% better, but only in a single scenario?. OK, presumably when engaged as an A2A asset it has stealth attributes that enable it to get off the first shots, but can Australia afford (tactically and strategically) to employ a platform that relies (presumably) on the ability to get off the first shot as its ONLY A2A platform - something that the US won't be doing (because it wasn't designed to do that!).

I find it, at the very least, unfortunate that one's enemies have an annoying tendency to want to set up scenarios somewhat different to one's own strengths - I would have thought the US might have learned that from Vietnam. How foolish of me to use 'US' and 'Learn' in the same sentence.

So you 'industry professionals' just keep chatting among yourselves, while we taxpayers consider who we'll be voting for at the next election.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 25/9/08 by The Winged Wombat]

Until this aircraft actually starts flying test combat missions with it's full array of avionics, virtual helmet and weapons systems then all of this bickering and arguing is meaningless.

If Oz doesn't want the F-35, fine - get the Eurofighter, the Rafale or SU.
That will not deter the US from having the aircraft and probably won't cause the price to go up very much either.

Originally posted by intelgurl
Until this aircraft actually starts flying test combat missions with it's full array of avionics, virtual helmet and weapons systems then all of this bickering and arguing is meaningless.

And equally, it appears, the 'over-the top' claims of the manufacturer are just as meaningless - but the taxpayer is still expected to pay up for development on the basis of these 'meaningless claims' (in this case) before even ordering the thing.

Here is a question that (perhaps) nobody here can answer, but I'd be very interested to know.

It appears that current 'best' business practice is to be leveraged to the hilt (presumably otherwise you aren't actually trying). So just how leveraged are major international defense companies? How much business confidence can one have in a company that either can't meet a schedule or a budget, or cannot meet their own claims for a product.

I sure hope that companies such as Boeing and Lockmart are working with their own money - I would not want to see what little is left of my retirement funds being invested in such unreliable businesses.

Under present financial circumstances I'd like to be as sure as you are, intelgurl, that ....
a) The F-35 will ever be produced,
b) Lockmart will exist in 12 month's time, or
c) that you will have a job in 12 month's time.

Without doubt, if the Wall Street bailout doesn't happen, or worse, doesn't work, then the situation in the US in particular (but generally worldwide) will resemble what happened in Russia when the USSR economy collapsed (you know, what America describes as defeating the Evil Empire). There won't be money for any new high-tech defence toys for anyone to play with. But that will depend on the integrity of the traders and their ability to work for the common good rather than for their own greed, or the imposition of regulation to the market - hmm that gives me hope - NOT

But of course, this sort of catastrophe could NEVER HAPPEN in a country as intelligent, loved by God, and technologically advanced as the good old USA - so why should I worry!

One thing is for sure (and you don't have to be Einstein to predict this). In 12 month's time the US economy (and the World Economy) is not going to look anything like it did 12 months ago - nothing in the way business is done (in all spheres of life) will be as it has in the past - there will be ramifications for EVERYONE.

If any of you believe that the US Government can give away (what is the figure at this moment $750 billion - it seems to get larger by the hour - and you can insert your own thoughts regarding who the money will go to) and it not affecting government contracts, then you are living in Disneyland.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 25/9/08 by The Winged Wombat]

Originally posted by GT100FV
No Flanker is gonna fly with 12 or 14 AAMs due to -

A- the drag/range penalty

An unmodified Su-30 has a range of ~1600 nautical miles, which is more than any of the F-35 variants. Unless of course, you were willing to carry external stores, thereby increasing drag, weight, and RCS on the F-35. But, as you've pointed out, that may not be so smart. Right?

B- a scenario where it would have that many foes within range to engage/enough fuel to stay engaged long enough to use that many missiles

Why would you go into a combat situation assuming you know exactly what is happening where? Would you risk forces on a bet that you know how many aircraft there actually are in a given zone? Particularly an aircraft which is hailed as being invisible to radar and could therefore hide from your sensors, thus giving you no clear idea of how many there are? If you are going to engage foes, you might as well equip the aircraft fully in case the whole stealth strategy implemented into the F-35 actually works.

The JSF suffers no drag penalties with its internal carriage, and due to its low RCS/AESA/advance ESM, is gonna be able to pick and choose when to engage. This means in all likelihood the Flanker will still have be carrying its missile when it gets hit.

The F-35 can only carry a max of 4 missiles internally and retain that aerodynamic "advantage". Which means you're going to have F-35s running back to their mothers very early in an engagement if that's all you choose to equip them with. By comparison, if for whatever reason the Flankers aren't down in the engagement as you're suggesting they will, chances are that they will still have missiles. That means they're still useful, whereas the F-35s who spent all their missiles will have some trouble doing much of anything.

If the JSF carries external AAMs, it'll have a similar load but considerably less drag,

And less thrust. A JSF has at max 40 000 pounds of thrust. Basic Su-30 can manage up to about 56 000 pounds total. Granted, it weighs more, but the thrust-weight is still better. Let's not go into anything newer than the Su-30, it goes less optimally for the F-35.

and still have a lower RCS/situational awareness.

I'd be distracted, too, if I had to fly something as ugly as the Lightning II

[edit on 9/26/2008 by Darkpr0]

And less thrust. A JSF has at max 40 000 pounds of thrust. Basic Su-30 can manage up to about 56 000 pounds total. Granted, it weighs more, but the thrust-weight is still better.

SU-30 T&W ratio is similar or inferior to the F-35 unless you give it uprated engines with terrible TBM which no-one has bought.

[edit on 26/9/2008 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by Willard856
Well now, one has to ask how the ABC (our most respected and neutral public broadcaster ) got things so totally and utterly wrong? Following on from the blatantly one-sided 4 Corners report, it looks more and more likely that someone is pushing an agenda. Can't trust anyone these days, can you? Lockmart is talking it up, ABC is talking it down. Lucky my advice was followed to wait for the report to be released otherwise we would have been pontificating based on false assumptions!

You're right Willard, absolutely right. The ABC IS the best on offer to Australians - commercial sources are worse by more than that magical factor of 4.

So there is just no way at all that anyone can learn the truth about anything in this country - you have achieved single source information - whatever the manufacturer says must be true. Of course someone who wants to sell something to you would never lie to you, would they.

Hey mate, want to buy a good used car - I've got just the thing - never been pranged, one careful lady owner who only ever drove it to the Grand Final - and a special price, just for you!

The Winged Wombat

Originally posted by intelgurl
Until this aircraft actually starts flying test combat missions with it's full array of avionics, virtual helmet and weapons systems then all of this bickering and arguing is meaningless.

Which it won't actually get (for radar guided AAMs) until 2016 I believe.



So, yeah... at the moment, a MiG-21 Bison could club a JSF "like a baby seal" I suppose.

But bickering and arguing is half the craic of this place, remove it and it would be boring.