Truth About the F-35 RAAF

[MAKO69 186]

Not sure if this was posted yet thought Id share. The whole purpose of the stealth is to destroy the enemy without getting into a dogfight.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M

[macelena 1,070]

ouch! it loops into this page again 

[usafphantom2 19]

Haven't read any positive reviews of this aircraft yet. Most expensive military program so far.

[smokey799 1]

Nice Commercial....

 

I wonder how much Sukhoi paid to have it made?

[+streakeagle 864]

As a one-trick pony (i.e. relying almost 100% on stealth for survival), the F-35 better remain very stealthy for the duration of its entire career.

I have never been a big fan of stealth.

All it takes is a technological breakthrough in sensor technology to waste both the money spent and performance trade-offs made to accommodate stealth.

Just as there was a hi-lo mix of F-15s and F-16s, perhaps the strategy should have been to have a useful number of F-22 quality aircraft to support a much larger cost-effective force rather than trying to build an all-stealth force.

[macelena 1,070]

Stealth is the way to go, but not as an invincible tool. Like the armour versus gun race. In the end, i think it will all be up to networked, integrated systems, both within the own aircraft and the different platforms, and the way they work together. It is not such a new trend but the same situation with new technologies. A Mirage 3 is not inherently better than a MiG-21, and the MiG-29 could take on an F-15 in a dogfight anytima, however, what made the Israelis win in 1967 and 1982, and the F-15 to dominate in 1991, was teamwork and trickery. 

[JediMaster 451]

Haven't read any positive reviews of this aircraft yet. Most expensive military program so far.

 

It's not in service. Who could write such a thing? Carnak the Magnificent?

 

What's funny is how much the people who do not have stealth love to down play how important it is...as they desperately try and build their own.

 

No B-2 has been shot down, and they've been used a lot. They're a LOT larger than an F-35 and far more vulnerable, being subsonic and heavy.

 

However, the truth is people forget the classified stuff. Stealth isn't classified. Particular methods to achieve it are, but the idea is not. Yet the B-2 was NOT the "stealth bomber" according to the USAF. That's what the press called it. It was the ATB, the Advanced Technology Bomber, and stealth was just ONE of those techs. The F-35 likewise is not relying "just" on stealth. It's just the thing that can be talked about. So it's also easily refuted.

 

Yet EVERY nation still uses camo. Why? It doesn't stop radar, or IR, or even the eye most of the time. Ergo it's a total waste of time, yet EVERYONE still does it. So stealth is just radar camo.

Edited October 3, 2013 by JediMaster

[+WhiteBoySamurai 1,092]

Rant incoming.

 

The "journalist" in the first half of the video sites an email by Peter Goon. He is the co-founder of the infamous Air Power Australia website, a moonbat sky-is-falling scare-mongering nuthouse masquerading as a "military think-tank." They are well-known for spreading misinformation about Western weapon systems and proclaiming any and all Russian/Chinese gear as invincible. This whole thing has zero credibility, made by someone with a profound misunderstanding of military exercises (or anything military related, really) and is essentially free propaganda for Russian defense contractors.

 

Most people misunderstand stealth. It's not a simple trick. It is a force multiplier that reduces the ability (the range and the likelihood overall) that an enemy can detect and engage the friendly unit. Historically the vast majority of air-to-air kills occurred when the target did not become aware of his attacker in time. That is to say, if you see the enemy before they see you, you will more often than not kill them first. If you discount the value of stealth, you must logically then discount the value of camouflage, cover and concealment, attacking in the dark with night vision goggles, and so on. I'm sure the enemy would love it if we marched toward them in large formations in broad daylight, but that's not how war works anymore.

 

Further, stealth is not a binary value of "completely invisible" vs. "clear as day." It always remains an advantage. There is no magic radar system that will come out one day and completely negate the ability of stealth. You can't get around the laws of physics. Certain countries and weapon manufacturers sometimes make hand-waving claims that their systems can detect and defeat stealth, but if that were true, why is every world power racing to catch up with the US in stealth aircraft?

[MAKO69 186]

Some patterns work, some you look at them and think what were they thinking. The dark grey of the retired RAAF F-111s and Malaysia's F-18s reflect that heavy humid tropical air that hangs low over jungles, that one works.

[MigBuster 2,861]

Id agree the video lacks credibility because I have a copy of that RAND report - and despite having RANDs name on it appears to show amateurish comparisons and a total lack of understanding - even goes as far as showing the F-105 as having better wing loading.(hmmmkay)

 

btw if that EODAS thing works you wont want to be dogfighting against the F-35 in anything - and its touted as having FA-18 handling anyway so I'm really not seeing why people think its going to be bad close in.

[JediMaster 451]

That's another thing--sure stealth isn't invincible, and it doesn't make you invisible, but to claim that it's worthless is totally sidestepping the fact that if an F-35 could be seen at X miles, an F-16 will be seen at 2X, 3X, 4X, or more! An F-15 would be seen at 4X, 5X, or more.

 

There's no such thing as a radar that can reduce the stealth advantage that isn't ALSO more effective against unstealthy planes. The SA-2X series can reach for HUNDREDS of miles. The development of these super long-range SAMs is why stealth was implemented in the first place! An F-16 or Hornet would be seen and swatted down long before it could fire a weapon against the site. If an F-35 can close to a dozen before it's seen, that's GREAT! It's not a "fail" because it can't fly directly over the site without being seen.

 

The prevailing anti-stealth argument seems to be "because of these advances in radars like X, Y, and Z, stealth only lets a plane close to within striking range of the enemy before it can be shot down. So let's instead buy more of the older cheaper planes that will be shot down LONG before they can get in striking range and hope they run out of missiles before all our planes are shot down!"

 

If the F-35 is vulnerable, the F-16 is dead as soon as it's wheels up.

[+streakeagle 864]

Haven't seen a whole lot of F-16s go down during over a decade of continuous warfare.

Even an F-35 can be destroyed on the runway.

Numbers will overcome technology when the tech costs so much that the odds become outrageous.

MiG-21s equipped with modern heaters and directed by AWACS/GCI are still a viable threat aside from their short range/endurance.

There are not and probably never will be enough stealth aircraft in the US inventory to overcome the numbers we would face in a real all-out war.

F-15s and F-16s have been adequate if not superior for anything less.

Consider the money lost when an F-35 tries to do the A-10's job.

F-35s will go down to AAA performing close air support.

A-10s are about to be axed to keep the budget for the F-35s.

[Derk 265]

Very different scenario's ask for very different planes. Afghanistan or African type wars need something relatively simple (even an F 16 is probably too complicated for it, has a lot of unneeded capacities), a Hunter with some electronics could do a usefull job there, an AMX could, let alone the A 10, and the F 35 and / or the F22 are needed for other things......... 

Edited October 6, 2013 by Derk

[MigBuster 2,861]

Haven't seen a whole lot of F-16s go down during over a decade of continuous warfare.

Even an F-35 can be destroyed on the runway.

Numbers will overcome technology when the tech costs so much that the odds become outrageous.

MiG-21s equipped with modern heaters and directed by AWACS/GCI are still a viable threat aside from their short range/endurance.

There are not and probably never will be enough stealth aircraft in the US inventory to overcome the numbers we would face in a real all-out war.

F-15s and F-16s have been adequate if not superior for anything less.

Consider the money lost when an F-35 tries to do the A-10's job.

F-35s will go down to AAA performing close air support.

A-10s are about to be axed to keep the budget for the F-35s.

 

 

Numbers can make a difference agree there.

 

The MiG-21 is a viable threat against a radar significant target only in the situation you have described - otherwise not sure what you think they are being directed onto. 

 

Actually I would say the F-35 and F-16 are far more survivable against AAA than the A-10 on account of speed. The A-10 flying low and slow will get hit and can soak up some small arms fire - but its no match against a 23mm Shilka.

 

The A-10 is the best for CAS in insurgency type wars - but in that regards its almost become a modern day Stuka

[JediMaster 451]

Haven't seen a whole lot of F-16s go down during over a decade of continuous warfare.

 

Against enemies equipped with nothing but MANPADs? I would hope so.

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

From an Australian perspective, we screwed on this from the beginning for several reasons. It was discovered some time after the decision was made that the government of the day had close ties to LM. Some off-the-record statements were being leaked to the press that it was LM who'd pressured the government with incentives to not go to tender for our Hornet replacements. The decision to go with a single fighter type was against RAAF doctrine of having more than one type for operational, tactical and logistical reasons. It was considered to be former Air Chief Marshall Angas Houston's pet project that he was to retire on. Our leaders were sold on the stealth aspect and that somehow stealth equated to a 'super fighter' and, after the debacle of the Super Seasprite*, were determined to ensure they didn't fall on their respective asses, again. I particularly liked it when, in 2006/7, when prompted by journalists who'd done their homework, rather than immediately going to the non-peer reviewed articles of Peter Goon and Carlo Kopp and Nigel Pittaway (They're like Australia's version of GlobalSecurity.org), and asked about why advanced F-15 Strike Eagle proposals or F-22 didn't fit the RAAF/MoD's criteria, the response from defence minister Robert Hill was that it was on grounds of cost. It seemed that, at the time, AUD$100 million for a Mudhen that wasn't too dissimilar to what became the F-15SG was "too much" as was AUD$200+ million for the F-22. Yet now, we're potentially looking at $230-$250 million per copy for 75 F-35s, down from 100. Yeah, so that worked out well then. Maybe they'll do something smart, like keep the Super Hornets and AusGrowlers... But I doubt we'll have the good fortune to have someone in the MoD... or government who knows what they're doing. I had the fortune of working at a defence contractor in 2007 when a defence minister at the time, Robert Hill, was on-site and, in the process of responding to journalists, referred to our new fighter as the "F-35 Wedgetail", not once, but 4 times. This is the general calibre of Minister of Defence that we have. PM Rudd should have axed it when he had the chance, but I think he was too busy abusing RAAF cabin crew for not stocking vegetarian options on the VIP flights (look it up, this actually happened!).



(*where a new patrol ship was selected requiring a new multi-role helicopter, but was eventually cancelled, except, they forgot to cancel the helicopter, and after realising the mistake, decided to use them attempt to turn them into mini-AP-3C Orions, complete with EW capability, but failed miserably, after wasting $1 billion and ten years on) 

Edited October 7, 2013 by SayWhatt

[MigBuster 2,861]

The cost thing is a bit muddy because most costs you see don't say what's included - $230 - 250 million you say (what do you get for that? - A free F-35 T shirt?)

 

The US might be getting them cheaper:

 

Latest F-35 Deal Targets Unit Cost Below $100 Million

 

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_30_2013_p0-602401.xml&p=1

 

 

Problem is production run 

 

F-22 = 187

F-35 = ~2500 (projected)

 

Even though the F-35 has a superior avionics capability (and probably range in internal Fuel) - I would be surprised if the unit cost didn't fall significantly for all buyers with those numbers.

Edited October 7, 2013 by MigBuster

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

The cost thing is a bit muddy because most costs you see don't say what's included - $230 - 250 million you say (what do you get for that? - A free F-35 T shirt?)

 

Even though the F-35 has a superior avionics capability (and probably range in internal Fuel) - I would be surprised if the unit cost didn't fall significantly for all buyers with those numbers.

 

The $230-$250 is in Australian dollars, and that's the number of the projected unit cost if the official build numbers remain relatively static, assuming there are no more reduced orders. That's not including training systems, through life support, minor upgrades, etc-- that would come under the AUD $16.1 billion we were considering paying for 100 aircraft, now down to 75. 2500 is a number that seemed legit some time ago, but that number now seems optimistic given the current economic climate and with sequestration given the significant issues LM and it's subs are having, along with the crisis with the US government (that's going to bite the US in the arse for some time to come!). If more buyers sign on, if intended orders stay at current levels or increase, then, when the full production rate starts, you'll see the eventual economy of scale come into effect and the unit prices will drop significantly if the total build numbers 2500 or more. Remember 2500 units was the projection way back before countries started reducing orders and committing to small numbers, rather than committing to replace entire fleets of aircraft currently serving, and in regards to the US aircraft, back before the USAF was facing reducing it's size. And part of that initial projection figure was based on replacing F-16s on a one for one basis.

 

Then again, once it gets into service (assuming all goes well operationally), much of this will be forgotten and new customers will be found, extending the production life. But right now, there's a lot of hype, and not a of runs on the board lot to back it up.

Edited October 8, 2013 by SayWhatt

[JediMaster 451]

I wish I could go back to the 70s and start the arguments about how much the F-15, F-16, and Hornet would cost over their ENTIRE lives and start throwing fits. "We'll STILL be building them 40 years from now! The cost will be TENS of MILLIONS PER COPY!!!"

Two of them are still in production while one of their successors is already done! That's never happened before in the history of successful programs (plenty of failed successors of course that kept the predecessors going.)

 

Of course, the history of "interim" programs is generally brighter, such as the interim F-102 and B-1B producing more units than the "final" F-106 and B-2 programs. Even the Super Hornet was pretty much considered a stop-gap till the JAST/JSF showed up.

 

The problem is combat losses became politically unacceptable. Accept say 20% losses in a given conflict and you can make your planes a lot cheaper as well as less survivable. Not sure how that would hurt pilot recruitment and retention numbers, though.

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,545]

This sounds familiar... B-52 and successors... result = B-52 still in use

[JediMaster 451]

Yes, the successor to the B-52's successor is out of production while the B-52 is still serving.

 

However, they DID at least stop building them before they built the B-1B...and they stopped building those before they built B-2s. They just never replaced their predecessors fully.

[MigBuster 2,861]

First Aussie F-35 in production

 

 

 

http://www.f-16.net/news_article4793.html