Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Oh my gosh...I needed a good laugh. Well your entitled to your opinion but you have Raptor drivers who will disagree with you any day of the week. 'Confidently' huh...I doubt that seriously. I'd love to see a F-35 be more effective in AtA than a Raptor...not ever going to be, but I'd love to see it. Since were on the subject of the F-22 though, if they thought they could use it, I'm sure they would have requested it just like Japan did.

I disagree pretty strongly with that. Especially when you take the time to read the transcripts at the Joint Standing Committee on Defence's enquiry and the budget estimates hearings into these matters, which are about the only place where Defence personnel are questioned publicly on these issues, besides the odd magazine interview.

Every transcript I have read from these hearings shows to me that Defence is well aware of the issues raised by APA and are convinced they have been addressed.

To suggest in the light of RAAF's on-going excellent operational performance that they are incompetent, is simply untrue. The ANAO has conducting an examination of RAAF's support arrangements for it's air combat group and related upgrades to those platforms and found them to be excellent and generally providing the capability required of them.

RAAF's training program is comprehensive and delivering excellent results in major airex's. RAAF is clearly meeting the budget and capability outcomes required of them by Government as shown in multiple defence annual reports.

Relatively recent operational performance including strike and DCA/OCA operations over Iraq have proven that RAAF's managing of it's air combat capability is adequate and so on. It simply doesn't stand to reason that because they feel the Super Hornet and JSF are the better future options than F-111 and F-22, that they are wrong.

I have no idea why Dr Nelson mentioned the 5% issue. Does this mean that 95% of the F-35's capability is available publicly? I find this statement a bit hard to swallow the F-35 hasn't even STARTED it's weapons program, let alone finished it's basic flight testing program, so how 95% could be known is simply beyond me.

Still, he being a politician is OBVIOUSLY going to be out of his depth when attempting to talk about these issues and he should really have AM Houston, AVM Quaife, AVM SHEPHERD or AVM HARVEY addressing the critics if he truly feels they need to be addressed.

As to how uninformed these gentleman are, I think it a mistake to doubt their understanding of the airpower issues at stake. One of the biggest issues I have with APA is their arrogance that they are "right" and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong...

Apparently they are going to be starting a similar campaign to the F-111 soon too, in relation to the AP-3C, which Government intends to replace with the P-8A, it was announced recently...

Once again the basic ideology behind is that AFTS should get the upgrading contract....

If true, it would be a truly pathetic attempt.

<i>
Fact of the matter is that F-22 is NOT available. The best available option is the F-35 period. </i>

Even if the F-22 is available, the F-35 is the better aircraft. This is so not just on the virtues of its superior multi-role capability, more advanced sensor fit and lower maintenance schedules, but also because it is 1/6th to 1/3 the price of the F-22 depending on the degree of R&D waver in an F-22 sale. I can confidently say that even in A2A, 3~6 F-35s are much more effective than one F-22 and certainly far more effective against a larger number of 4th generation adversaries than a single F-22 will ever be. Most importantly, with a budget enough for 100 F-35s only 16~33 F-22s can possibly be acquired. This is a grossly insufficient number of airframes to meet Australia's defense and offense requirements.

Hi Conan. Those field ops things you mention are due to the hard working pros that are out in the field that know their GD job. Hardly anything some career politician had much to do with. The professional soldiers/sailors/airman will do their best to get the job done even if you have senior officers that go political to go along to get along. Mentioning AVM Shepherd isn't especially useful. He advised Dr. Nelson over and over that a stop gap jet wasn't needed.

Then when Nelson decided Australia was a Kingswood Country and ordered the Supers anyway. AVM Shepherd came back with some weird sycophant response that he backs the decision ( well here he would have no choice would he?) saying: "We didn't think we would get a minister who would be prepared to actually embrace it and a prime minister and a government that would make it available to us and to fully fund it. We strongly support it and believe in it". -Huh?... after telling Dr. Nelson several times that it wasn't needed. Hardly an example of the DM being well advised. But heck it's only $6.6 billion over a 13 year period.

That works both ways. Stating an unknown quantity doesn't make it so. JSF and all the software have to actually work and that is a long long way off. One may ask-"Do you think the customer (DOD-Team JSF customers) would knowingly accept a lesser performance product?" My answer would be: Anything is possible if you lower your expectations. I.E. the SWAT event where STOVL lost it's 2000lb weap internal carry ability thus goofing up the whole production line for the three variants ( reduced some of the commonality between variants and production cost went up ). So a huge software program that has to deliver (more lines of code than F-22) and any number of future airframe changes yet to be seen in testing. I am saying the program has to prove itself, as opposed to someone seeing something in a PowerPoint brief of what they hope it's ability will be. And of course the recent getting the story strait on JSF cost thing. With our congress over here doing everything possible to screw up the original production schedule, this idea that JSF is on track is a wait and see. Cost will be what ever we goof JSF with as we are bleeding $12 billion a month give or take on Iraq alone. I wouldn't put my name on something stating confidence in the program to that degree.

-Someone came up with the idea in Defence (see the DM's webpage), that they knew something about the F-15E abilities. I can tell you that F-15E people have laughed at that as being wrong. Down select F-15E for any good reason ( you don't like the cost of ownership or some other logistical reason). However for combat ability, it can't be down checked. So the idea that Defence actually said they looked at it's ability makes one wonder with all the false statements on that subject. (btw, I am not saying RAAF should get F-15E, however, putting out basic correct information would be appreciated of why it was not considered)

The idea that F-111 couldn't be sustained well past 2010 was dead wrong. Again here, retire F-111 for any reason you like ( you don't like the operating cost, you want something with a new car smell, you think it is a combat risk...whatever... but at least get the story on it correct. Some people that work for Dr. Nelson should have known better instead of creating reasons that just were not so.

The latest public statement on HUG Dr. Nelson made I really felt sorry for the guy. Saying that the barrel replacement on that 900+ million expense for some of the Hornets would bring back 100% of their airframe life. If that was so they would be good for another 20 or more years. Good grief. Who prepared that press release for him to say?

Those are only a few examples. There is more but you get the idea. So again I would say we would have to agree to disagree on how well Defence senior leadership is making decisions.

Well, if you can afford a Hi/Low mix its the best solution. Just like the current F-15/F-16 and the F-22/F-35. Which, just doesn't make sense in the case of Australia. Why spend Billions for 24 Super Hornets. When you could have a good mix of Raptors and Lightnings??? Ah, politics is alive an well!

A senior military person toeing the political line. Gee, what a surprise...

RAAF generates it capability from the top down. Shepherd for instance is the senior airman in RAAF and has the most experience of F-111 operations out of ANYONE in RAAF.

He knows a thing or 2 about air combat and strike missions in particular...

Like telling the DM a stop gap wasn't needed and then fawning all over the decsion afterword. Hardly very useful for the taxpayer. He should consider retirement.

No, but then you don't have to. You are not responsible for delivering a next generation air combat capability within a budget and within politcally mandated parameters.


Which means exactly what? So far I'm not impressed.


DSTO did the assessment comparison between the various types considered for BACC (apparently coming down between SH, F-15E/K/SG and Typhoon). If you'd care to argue they lack the necessary expertise (as Carlo Kopp does) feel free, but I think you might be in for a rude shock.

Yet the DM's comments on the F-15E on his webpage are laughable. Big disconnect there just on that one issue. I doubt I'd be in for a rude shock. Defence knowledge on airpower issues are lacking and it is scary. The complete oversell of claiming netcentric warfare will be a panacea is really illuminating to what they don't know.



Big deal. It's their job to manage. Besides, like I mentioned, I have only shown a few examples.

Pretty much Ive been saying - Ive voted for F-35's, but why spend billions on Super Hornets when, really the two options should be F-22's (24 - my opinion only) or just keep the F-111's flying until they can be replaced by F-35's?.

The trouble is, as Conan has pointed out, is that the RAAF and DoD can't present the public with the evidence that they are right (as I'm sure they would love to be able to) because given the inherent secrecy of what they do, particularly in regards to the F-35, it easy for people like Carlo Kopp to say the F-35 can't do this or that based on open source information as opposed to the full technical briefings the RAAF gets on the Lightning.
(See here for a classic example http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-160707-1.html)
While I agree with you on the DefMin's release on the F-15E+, ELP, it's a moot point. Sure the F-15E+ has the internal range advantage, but the Super Hornet has lower RCS, better radar and sensors.
As for the range issue, an F/A-18F strike package with JSOWs (especially the 540K range model being currently developed) or even better, JASSMs (Yes, Yes, I know. But remember the Glick'em? It was decertified have a dozen times before becoming the mainstay of NATO's nuclear detterent along with the USAFE F-111 wings) and escorted by an F/A-18F "tanker" will make up the range quite nicely.
If I was thinking of stirring up trouble in SEA, I'd think twice knowing Aussie Super Hornets were sitting under the carports at Amberely.

I agree with many of your points except the RCS of the Super Hornet. As with any tactical mission the F/A-18F's will be loaded down with external stores and fuel tanks. Which, inturn negates any advantages in RCS over the F-15E or any current fighter for that matter. This combined with the short legs of the Hornet/Super Hornet. Really, only make them useful on shorter ranged tactical missions.............with all do respect. Hopefully, the RAAF will find a secondhand buyer for the Super Hornets as soon as the F-35's come on line. As a whole fleet of Lightnings. Would offer much more capabilities than a mixed fleet made up of Super Hornets and Lightnings. Unless maybe if you use the F/A-18F's as tankers? Though that is a very expensive solution and a limited one at that.

The trouble is, as Conan has pointed out, is that the RAAF and DoD can't present the public with the evidence that they are right (as I'm sure they would love to be able to) because given the inherent secrecy of what they do, particularly in regards to the F-35, it is easy for people like Carlo Kopp to say the F-35 or the F/A-18F can't do this or that based on open source information as opposed to the full technical briefings the RAAF gets.
(See here for a classic example: http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-160707-1.html)
While I agree with you on the DefMin's release on the F-15E+, ELP, it's a moot point. Sure the F-15E+ has the internal range advantage, but the Super Hornet has lower RCS, better radar and sensors.
As for the range issue, an F/A-18F strike package with JSOWs (especially the 540K range model being currently developed) or even better, JASSMs (Yes, Yes, I know. But remember the Glick'em? It was decertified have a dozen times before becoming the mainstay of NATO's nuclear deterrent along with the USAFE F-111 wings) and escorted by an F/A-18F "tanker" will make up the range quite nicely.
If I was thinking of stirring up trouble in SEA, I'd think twice knowing Aussie Super Hornets were sitting under the carports at Amberely.

Fair enough mate. When the apparently inevitable doomsday scenario happens and Australia is destroyed by the onset of the "yellow hordes" that give Carlo Kopp so much sleeping trouble, than you can say I told you so and I won't hear a word said against you.

Until then however I'll rest comfortably knowing that RAAF is delivering Government everything expected of it, performing brilliantly operationally and on airex's and making excellent choices with respect to it's future capability.

Keep nitpicking mate. It's entirely irrelevant, just like APA actually...