JSF for RAAF

[vanir 0]

I can't help feeling a little concerned. We've decided on the JSF where ranking servicemen mention in the RAAF magazine fewer of the F-35 for just a couple of Raptors or even switching over to a fleet of Flankers would be better, safer, more suited to our needs (and rather expansive territorial interests and isolation).

 

Indonesia, for example, a Muslim government who could manage to put up an interesting argument about our oil operations (and hence general political/ADF involvement) in Timor, a regional territory we lay century old British colonial claims to, have been reportedly snapping up Fulcrums with a view to a fleet of Flankers by the proverbial shipload.

 

A widely publicised simulation was run for a scenario F-35/tankers versus opposing Fulcrums, which had us losing every which way but loose the entire force.

 

We could really use an extended range and good weapons loadout for our relatively small force, yet large territory RAAF operations. Personally I think the Flanker is the best choice all round, given the deployment environment. I'm with those "breakaway" or "controversial" RAAF spokespeople who've cited the JSF as totally inadequate, if nothing else but for its limited range. Personally I don't like the maximum 1.8 Mach dash design in any case, considering the distances which need to be covered quickly in the worst case scenario, which let's face it defence forces get paid to consider, do they not?

 

So being thusly concerned:

I appreciate the largely ~restricted~ nature of fairly new defence technologies and I don't want anyone to go compromising the honour or integrity of respected members of the site who're in defence force service.

I am nevertheless highly interested in some authoritive appraisal of the capabilities of the F-35 (B I think, the air force version), what kind of strengths are our pilots going to be relying on? Somewhat aside from the high survivability "stealth" (ahem) technology, which I think may be muted by a datalinked Flanker force with mulitple signal receivers for the firing aircraft anyway, at least in your classic BVR approach. Them Russian radars have been getting pretty good from what I've read, to compound that issue.

 

So is it going to be a case of being outdone by Flankers at BVR and then outdone by Fulcrums up close?

[macelena 1,070]

Well, if you want an air superiority fighter (guess you are an aussie), get Typhoons. But i don´t think that a russian aircraft is a good choice .

 

At F-35,B is the vstol version. You could get them for the light carriers LHD we are making for you. We have plans to

use this version to replace our Harriers and Hornets, making a British-style vstol-joint-force. Perhaps the stealth tecnology is

not capable to make you invisible, but makes the aircraft harder to find.

 

The worst threat you could face is Su-30s and J-10s together - imagine chinese agreement with Indonesia. Both the JSF and

EF2000 are able to get rid of them.

[JediMaster 451]

Unfortunately, as the F-35A has yet to enter production, it's all speculative as to what exactly it can or can't do.

The truth, though, is speed doesn't matter too much anymore. Sure plane "A" can go Mach X and plane "B" can go Mach Y, but what does it matter if you burn out all your fuel doing it? Range is helped with tankers and EVERYONE uses them now, so there's no point in leaving them out of the equation. Ideally you'll have them based close to potential trouble areas, not clustered far away from everything.

 

The F-35 will have an AESA radar, which means it sees farther, sooner, and with less chance of being noticed. Other nations are developing them, but none have them in service yet. Only some F-15Cs, F-22s, and some Super Hornets have them. It also allows other things like jamming and electronic attack. Disabling enemy planes/SAMs without firing a shot is an awesome capability.

The F-35 is stealthier than any other plane but the F-22. That negates the supposed advantage of range of whoever's firing a missile at it. If you can't get a lock until you're under 10 miles, does it matter if the missile can fly 30 or 50? Against SAMs you can get closer, close enough to knock them out without being knocked out yourself under many circumstances.

While the F-35 has a limited payload when "stealthy" due to the size of the bays, it can carry a lot more when it doesn't need to be. So stealth them up to attack SAMs and enemy fighters, then load them up with bombs and missiles under the wings when that threat is eased and take out the enemy. Even with stuff under the wings it will be stealthier than a Flanker anyway.

 

The Flanker first flew in the 1970s. Its EW equipment is not as advanced, its radar is not as advanced, and it makes a big target. Of course, it's not in the same class as the F-35, it's in the F-22 class, and there it gets beat.

The F-35 is 20 years newer. Designed to replace the F-16 and F/A-18, and it beats them.

 

The Typhoon might have been as good a choice, but for whatever reason it didn't win.

 

The Flanker is also an Eastern design. The infrastructure for maintenance and armament is 100% different from Western fighters. Any perceived cost savings goes up in smoke when you have to create a new one from scratch to support it. All new missiles and bombs, tools, carts, diagnostic equipment, etc. It's a great plane if you've got Fulcrums, Floggers, etc already in your inventory, which is why China and India got them. They were already setup to use Russian stuff.

Oh, and forget trying to "Westernize" a Flanker. The amount that would cost, plus who knows what kind of resistance you'd get from the Russians, make it a moot point.

[scouserlad13 0]

Well, just a small thing, i think Australia might just be sticking with the Superhornet, but its just a thought at the moment, no final plans have been Laid out. Personally i think they should stick with the Superhornet, i mean, yeah its two seater, and no it hasnt got any flashy gadgets on it, but it gets the Job done. All the RAAF needs is something to replace the Rellic that is the F-111.

Edited December 19, 2008 by scouserlad13

[JediMaster 451]

The Super Hornet isn't a bad choice. AESA, good EW, decent range (if not great), stealthier than everything but the F-22, F-35, and possibly Typhoon and Rafale (whose RCS isn't really known). It also carries a bigger payload and is available today.

 

I do think, though, that in any conceivable conflict, against air or ground, more Super Hornets would be lost than F-35s. It may not be a big deal, but in the public eye even 1 extra plane can be seen as "too many."

[macelena 1,070]

The Flanker is also an Eastern design. The infrastructure for maintenance and armament is 100% different from Western fighters. Any perceived cost savings goes up in smoke when you have to create a new one from scratch to support it. All new missiles and bombs, tools, carts, diagnostic equipment, etc. It's a great plane if you've got Fulcrums, Floggers, etc already in your inventory, which is why China and India got them. They were already setup to use Russian stuff.

Oh, and forget trying to "Westernize" a Flanker. The amount that would cost, plus who knows what kind of resistance you'd get from the Russians, make it a moot point.

 

Good point. Eastern Europe ex-Warsaw Pact air forces are getting (EDIT: Lot of) troubles trying westernization.

 

@ Vanir :If what you mean is to get easternized,it would be as troubly, let alone politics.

 

2nd EDIT: I mean it wouldn´t be a good idea. Stay awest

Edited December 19, 2008 by macelena

[+Typhoid 231]

I thought you guys were also buying the Super Hornet?

 

I would think the combination of F-18F(A?) and F-35's would make a pretty potent mix for your neck of the woods. (married up with a big tanker fleet of course.....)

[JediMaster 451]

I don't recall if it was a "buy" or a "lease until whatever we pick gets here."

[vanir 0]

One of the big problems is the need to marry such a force to a tanker service, something only the Flanker and Raptor (or triple-one) doesn't require for extended off shore operations (ie. force interdiction).

 

Hands down the Raptor with strike software is the go. Flanker is a close second overall. Infrastructure is sure an issue, it's an expense and you're right, whilst an AN/APG-65 and AMRAAM package can be slotted into a Fulcrum like the German Phantom's ICE package (Czech Republic does something like this iirc), a Flanker is a slightly different story with its somewhat more specialised and quite powerful avionics suite (current update reportedly has a search range 400km, track 15 targets and can identify a periscope at 200km [source probably Korchagin] though it must be mentioned such claims would be in the American style marketing concept of under very specific test conditions).

 

The main thing here is unrefuelled range and supersonic cruise. This isn't the Middle East and there are tremendous distances over water which need to be covered in short order for effective antagonist response, leaving enough fuel to fight or strike and fight, and even then you might not get a lazy cruise home. It could be another supersonic cruise to support engagement #2 because fellers, we can't afford to have many birds to work with and have to squeeze everything from a handful. Virtually all engagements over water will be BVR and at altitude, whilst naturally all strike conditions will be at low altitude with a transonic emphasis.

 

The problem with tankers is they're an easy target when you don't have a big air force to protect them with. Australia can't put up an escort force and an effective strike force with fighters and attack aircraft. For example, the RAAF typically has around 30 serviceable Hornets and two or three serviceable F-111s period. We fight tomorrow, that's what we've got to work with. Insofar as the suitability of the Hornet for developing style engagement concerns today, it had been among RAAF intentions to use the F-111 as a fighter. The Hornet can't get where we need to go and isn't fast enough and doesn't carry enough fuel to try, plus we don't have enough of anything to lose one.

All of the simulations with the JSF versus Fulcrums resulted in complete force loss primarily due to the need of tankers. In one simulation iirc two or three F-35s made it out of the combat zone but crashed into the sea because the MiGs did the smart thing and painted the tanker as a priority target.

 

One thing I do know is technologies, and stealth is a misnomer. Once again Flanker style datalinks mute low observability by spreading points of reception across the squadron. Low radar observability works by spreading the signal around like a kisses from your drunk aunty at christmas time, anything to keep it from heading back to a concentrated source like a seeker head or a (mobile) ground station. It does this so beautifully the damn thing interferes with radios and television sets on a low flyover in a pop centre (in Iraq a civilian tech accidentally tracked the F-117 using mobile phone coverage). One Flanker has no problems seeing it but definitely has issues targeting one. Put three or more in the air and our "stealth" fighter now has serious issues.

 

I do like the SuperHornet, it has a good weapons suite and an okay range. I personally think we still need either the supercruise of the Raptor (but can't afford it) or the circa.4000km and great supersonic figures of the Flanker. My main concern with either US platform would be the transonic design emphasis, great for policing the Middle East but not precisely suited to overwater/long distance response style engagements, which the Flanker is specifically designed for (regarding Russia's massive overland distances and formery imperial nature).

I think personally the Australian environment is more like the Russian environment than Americans in the Middle East environment (ie. US "European deployment" doctrine in air superiority requirements, typically using massive locally based support infrastructure we would just not have available). Though the Raptor is close due to that supercruise and penetration ability.

 

So all this again, definitely has me curious about the JSF (the A is the air force version, is it?). Considering the real world use of the F-35A is going to be like an F-16 you can just about toss low radar visibility right off the bat anyway, and anything more than a marginally supersonic dash at the best of times. Air defence would be within the shoreline. Response capability in securing regional interests would be neglible or tentative at best. I think the entire strategy/proposal involved kick backs and renewed (industrial) treaties. I do prefer the SuperHornet to this, being it was at least designed with an air superiority emphasis and the dual strike role without compromising aerial combat effectiveness. If one is going to be stuck with transonic doctrine they could do much worse than a Hornet and the technology is good.

 

Still think about 40 Flankers for the price of 25 Raptors is the go, and worth the extra expense of conversion training and infrastructure. It's a capitalist world, didn't you know, buy today and fund tomorrow. The quality of day to day tech relies upon the size of your market base to fund it. Technology itself is dependent upon nothing else at all, and 40-50 more Flankers sold means more of those godzilla specials in Russian service, which means more of their tech development kicking back in updates...

Maybe the Berkut could see the light of day.

Edited December 19, 2008 by vanir

[+Viggen 523]

The Super Hornet isn't a bad choice. AESA, good EW, decent range (if not great), stealthier than everything but the F-22, F-35, and possibly Typhoon and Rafale (whose RCS isn't really known). It also carries a bigger payload and is available today.

 

I do think, though, that in any conceivable conflict, against air or ground, more Super Hornets would be lost than F-35s. It may not be a big deal, but in the public eye even 1 extra plane can be seen as "too many."

 

 

Wouldn't it be cheaper to train the Legacy Hornet drivers to fly the Super Hornet, than to train them to fly the F-35 as well?

[kct 5]

Though I would still think that if this is the first time that an air force is going to be flying Russian fighters, they would need a lot of time just to integrate this fighters into service. And considering the maintenance levels and logistics consideration associated with maintaining a mix of aircraft from both sides (something we regularly faced here), it is still better to stick to designs from one side, not mix around.

 

Take Indonesia for example. Before the Flankers went in they could barely fly their F-16s at any rate, and the Flankers simply made it worse (in a lot of aspects, especially systems integration and the fact that they have nothing to fire with).

 

F-35s could probably still penetrate our airspace (there was a story about one of the test aircraft or something flown over SEA airspace, and Indonesia is the only one to make a full intercept because the rest knew what it is, or simply don't bother), but it would take a lot of effort to send them over (unless it is a carrier-deployed aircraft). No matter what, for long-range operations a tanker would still be needed (this is why our Fulcrums and Flankers have refueling capability).

 

JA 37 Viggen: Probably, but one can't simply jump into the Superbug and expect it to handle like a Hornet. It is a completely different animal (something like the Strike Eagle to the normal Eagles, except that the differences are far more pronounced, due to the new airframe).

Edited December 20, 2008 by kct

[+scrapper 0]

I say go with what is proven in combat. What planes have been more proven in combat than the F-15 and the F/A-18 family. The flanker is a good plane, but many have been OWNED by older fulcrams, around the world. The Flanker has the RCS of a small office building. Flanker owners put all of their faith on jamming, but jamming has not caught up with modern AESA technology. That being said, I would rather have an F-22 than an F-35 any day, if stealth is what you are looking for. I does seem like the better fighter is already in service.

 

Scrapper

[eraser_tr 29]

What if australia bought F-35Cs? Those are meant for naval useto begin with and should have better range than the A or B.

 

I wouldn't trust those simuations though, so much about the JSF and how it all works is classified. Getting an accurate sim of unknown data is impossible. From the little JSF_aggie is allowed to say, it sounds like the public and other governments are missing out on alot.

[vanir 0]

Agreed, eraser_tr. I'd like to think the FedGov knows something we don't in the decision, but since it's not universally supported within the RAAF that has to make me wonder. Indeed the purpose of this thread was the big question mark about the JSF, I don't really know what info is reasonably available and without getting anyone into trouble, if people here might know a bit about it. I can put together a basic prospectus on structure, comp avionics, weapons and obvious design features but that's about it. Maybe someone here's flown one?

 

Truth is if I know anything about the FedGov the idea of their being well informed about anything is like contemplating where Ivana Trump got her degree in economics, "at the store baby, at the store." My instinct tells me the JSF got chosen wholly because it looks like a cheap F-22, tell them its great features are things like STOL rough field operation and high turnaround and they'd go, "huh?" I'm just thankful the RAAF has been harping on things like range to keep at least one Oz-relative marketing benefit in present mind. To me it looks custom made for US-Middle Eastern ops and that's just not what we need.

[JediMaster 451]

It depends on your outlook. If it's to replace the F-111, it's not a perfect match. If it's to replace the F/A-18s Oz already has, it's better all the way around.

However, the 111 is a Nam-era plane. In a low-threat environment it's great, but not against modern fighters and double-digit SAMs.

 

Oh, that story about the F-35 being interecepted is crap. No F-35 has flown outside of the US yet, so unless they were flying in the US, there's no way.

The only thing unusual flown in that area recently was the Global Hawk, which was being demo'd to Australia. It's possible they ran an intercept on that, and I can see why the other nations around might not have bothered.

[vanir 0]

Hm, I'm not really evaluating it as a replacement but from a fresh perspective. The Hornet worked because its best competition at the time was downgraded export Floggers (Jaybird 5km ranging radar and IR AAMs), or F-4 Phantoms. The story changed all over the place with the Flanker, due to its fantastic unrefuelled range. One flew from Moscow to Farnborough without refuelling on internal juice, you know.

 

A Hornet replacement won't really work for us and to be perfectly honest I'm not in the slightest convinced the F-35 is in any way a step up. With no parts commonality to draw from I'd say that about removes any advantages it has over the SuperHornet, which whilst far more expensive is pound for pound a better machine in the South Pacific environment and still not what we need in the recent technological environment.

 

The more I think about it the more I see an outlay retrieval program packaged into an export rip off. To be blunt. Different story for the V/STOL variant for the USMC, wow, a supersonic Harrier, great buy. I think that's as far as the design goes, other than that it's an F-16 with a newer sales brochure.

 

Eurofighters would've been much better, but have similar unrefuelled/internal range issues.