Forum: F-35 Lightning II

http://the-diplomat.com/flashpoints-blo ... 35-gamble/
but the case for Australia and Singapore, for which defensive rather than offensive capabilities are the priority, is less compelling.

Nobody is going to fly tac air from their country all the way to the population centers of Australia, simply because nobody is that close.

The threats to Australia more or less have to arrive by ship and the surface attack optimized F-35 is a good fit for that role.

Hopefully the vast majority of operation missions for the F-35s of Oz will be to fly out to sea, use the radar to locate a ship or boat and then close in to use the visual and IR cameras to check it out.

And in almost every case this will just be a fisheries, customs or immigration violation and surface forces can be vectored in to deal with the situation.

F-16.net Sponsor

Unfortunately, anti-surface warfare is one of the more badly neglected aspects of western weapons development. Oz should probably get cracking on its own program in this area (well within its indigenous capabilities) instead of waiting around for the US or someone else to build something. The Kongsberg NSM is a step in the right direction, but it's too small and too short-legged for the Pacific theater.

Covered for the F-35 --
JSM
JASSM
JASSM-ER
JSOW
JSOW-ER
LRASM-A
LRASM-B

Plus whatever anyone wants to make via UAI

Seems like the P-8 would be a good fit for the Ozzies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-8_Poseidon

And they have apparently shown interest: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/mil ... index.html

Poseidon

hcobb: Jindalee Radar is good at seeing above patrol boat size vessels (but not wooden people smuggler fishing boats apparently but I don't claim to know this - was a newspaper report recently). Submarines are also useful at shipping choke points (where ever they are).

hcobb said: "...Hopefully the vast majority of operation missions for the F-35s of Oz will be to fly out to sea, use the radar to locate a ship or boat and then close in to use the visual and IR cameras to check it out...." What the F-35 does in this regard will depend on rules of engagements such as they might be at the time. Here is a useful thread about F-35 capabilities:

F-35 'Does its Block' III Virtually - Northern Edge Exercise
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... laska.html

"...The AESA also investigated the whole operating area of Gulf of Alaska, searching for surface vessels and precisely detecting and tracking them in a negligible amount of time...." With a target dictionary the target could be identified without any visual need to do so.
_______________

RAAF have Wedgetail also: http://www.airforce.gov.au/aircraft/wedgetail.aspx

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/03/ ... 30x298.jpg
________

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jindalee_O ... ar_Network
BIGPIC:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... RS.svg.png

Hi Guys, My first post after reading this forum for last year or so. Thanks for the informative and at times entertaining discussions especially on the F35 which I am particularly interested in. Just for interest I know a lot of people do not particular respect (if that is the right word) the APA guys. One thing I keep hearing is that some "offical" simulations were done which suggested that the F35 was not 4-6 times more effective than current Gen aircraft. Anyone know what that simulation is or is based on? i know it was discussed on a forum a while ago.

I am Interested as I was posting on forum on "australianaviation.com.au/2011/10/australian-f-35-program-review-underway/" and a Guy called Peter was trashing the F35. It could not be Peter Goon ...could it? If so his argumentative skills are not flash. (mine ain't either). Bu this simulations kept on been refered too.
Thanks anyway

'thebigfish' could you provide links or be more specific please. There are a lot of claims out there. Thanks.

Oops - OK I see the link you provided is a forum. Thanks. Frankly I don't have the time to be on top of whatever goes on in other forums. I have enough interest here. Perhaps some one else will be able to help. If you can be more specific about your question that would be helpful though. Various internet people make lots of claims. Probably best to use newspaper reports or other official sources rather than claims without attribution on a forum IMHO. But that is me. Twisted Evil

Combat-simulating computer programs do what they're programmed to do. You could program a simulator to have your nephew shooting down fighter jets with ten-pound remote-control toy planes with sticks of dynamite on them if you wanted to.

But aside from that... the thing about F-35s being defeated by current Russian & Chinese planes in a "simulation" dates back to some "reports" in the Australian press about an American military thought experiment called "Pacific Vision" which was done several years ago. It was a series of "what-if" scenarios concerning a hypothetical large war involving various Pacific-Ocean countries. Some of the scenarios they considered were actually considering what the consequences would be if things went wrong in ways they aren't really expected to, like what if certain kinds of missiles had a certain success rate at hitting their targets even though that rate is lower than those missiles have had in reality. It was more a series of calculations than a simulation, taking in large-scale data like how many planes/ships of a given type each country has, where they could be based or how long they could stay at sea, how far that means they are from targets and threats, and what their support/logistical requirements would be, but not pitting individual things against each other like plane versus plane or tank versus tank. Also, it apparently only considered things that were in service at the time, so the only stealth planes mentioned are F-22 and B-2.

Somehow, some schmuck in an Australian aviation magazine took that and called it a war game or exercise (the kind we do sometimes without firing actual weapons, like Red Flag) in which actual F-35s had flown against and "lost" badly to actual current Russian & Chinese planes. Everybody who had actually been involved in Pacific Vision responded by pointing out how many different lies that claim had wrapped up in it. The perpetrator and his repeaters then backed off to claiming that it was a "simulation" or "simulations" instead of actual flights (to deal with the simple matter of realism that some readers had noticed that there were no F-35s available for such a thing yet) and starting to omit the details about exactly where, when, how, and by whom the alleged simulation(s) had allegedly taken place (to avoid having it traced back to the real Pacific Vision project and what it really had and hadn't done).

There are several things to keep in mind about the JPO's 4:1, 6:1, etc claims:
1. They are NOT based on current, TOTL (Top-Of-The-Line) 4th gen assets like Rafale, EF, F-15SG, etc
2. They are referring to "Legacy" aircraft, eg the planes that it will replace.
3. Specifically they mean F-16Blk40/50,F-18C, etc

Here are some slides from various PDFs.
Notice that the 4:1 claim is vs upgraded Legacy (F-15E/K, F-18E, F-18Blk50+) while the 6:1 is vs baseline Legacy (F-16Blk40/50, F-18C)

Last edited by cxxtxx on Dec 22, 2011 - 09:06 PM; edited 2 times in total

I'm lovin this slide. F-35 acquisition costs being 1:1 to a F-16! F-35 O&S costs being .8:1 to F-16 costs!!

And that was presented with a straight face no doubt. If anyone in any other industry presented a patently fraudulent slide like the one above in a sales presentation, they would be going to jail. The FBI and SEC would be ransacking their office and confiscating their computers. My God, with slides like that the F-35 might really be a scam.

Chad

That is a fully upgraded F-16 (tanks, pods, etc), not a baseline F-16.

Slide one shows Relative Loss Exchange Ratio Air-Air as 4:1 while slide two shows Relative Loss Exchange Ratio Air-Air as greater than 6:1.

Apparently the F-35 is evolving so fast it improves between slides! Very Happy

You did not read the notes.

Slide one (4:1) is vs "The Best of Legacy Aircraft: F-15E/K, F-18E, F-16 Blk50+" while the 6:1 slide is vs older legacy "F-18C, F-16 Blk 40/50" fighters.

ANY fighter would improve its ratio in that condition. As they say, the devil is in the details.

Ah! OK, thanks.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Australia needs surface attack