Forum: Program and politics

The F-35 with JASSM will be able to reach out some 1500Km. and with JASSM-ER up to 2000Km..and that's before employing aerial refueling. [/url]

F-16.net Sponsor

Last edited by popcorn on Feb 22, 2012 - 01:25 AM; edited 2 times in total

-double post-

rkap wrote:

Australia because of its size and location ideally should have some long Range Strike aircraft."Light Bombers". Our best defense if the worst ever happens. Invaders have to come by sea. Long range strike aircraft would give us the ability to strike any ship born invaders early or strike at there bases. Unfortunately nobody makes a Plane designed for that role now. The Russian SU34 is about the only aircraft today built for that purpose.

The Su-34 has a 680mn un-refueled combat radius. That is only about 90 more than the F-35, which has VLO and internal weapons/fuel. The Su-34 has... a kitchenette and a potty behind the seats.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

rkap wrote:

Australia because of its size and location ideally should have some long Range Strike aircraft."Light Bombers". Our best defense if the worst ever happens. Invaders have to come by sea. Long range strike aircraft would give us the ability to strike any ship born invaders early or strike at there bases. Unfortunately nobody makes a Plane designed for that role now. The Russian SU34 is about the only aircraft today built for that purpose.

The Su-34 has a 680mn un-refueled combat radius. That is only about 90 more than the F-35, which has VLO and internal weapons/fuel. The Su-34 has... a kitchenette and a potty behind the seats.

l

.. and that's at altitude.. Mileage sucks even more and drops significantly lower than the F-35's once the big Sukhoi has to employ terrain-following radar to make up for it's lack of LO.

rkap wrote:

Correct - Australia because of its size and location ideally should have some long Range Strike aircraft."Light Bombers". Our best defense if the worst ever happens. Invaders have to come by sea. Long range strike aircraft would give us the ability to strike any ship born invaders early or strike at there bases. Unfortunately nobody makes a Plane designed for that role now. The Russian SU34 is about the only aircraft today built for that purpose.

We do the Hornet with JASSM and Super Hornet with JSOW can effectively strike further than the F-111 could, on it's own.

Proponent's arguments about the "advanced regional threat" want to have it both ways however. They want everyone to believe that Sukhois and S-300/400 are proliferating in our region and therefore we need the most advanced capability to counter this threat and they then try and turn around and argue that the F-111 can survive in such an environment.

As RAAF has known for years, the F-111 is not survivable in such an environment without a dedicated fighter escort. The great range of the F-111 in such an environment is therefore a furphy. It could only go as far as it's escorts can manage. An SU-34 is exactly the same.

The F-35 will add to our existing capability offering greater range than our present fighters can manage and with JSOW-ER likely to be carried internally on the JSF (and noting it's anti-ship capability) we're also going to have a maritime strike capability beyond 850+ nautical miles without this aircraft being refuelled.

Start drawing some radius circles from RAAF base Darwin, RAAF Townsville or RAAF base Learmonth and see just how far an 850nm + maritime strike capability gets us and bear in mind this is in full LO configuration without air refuelling...

hb_pencil wrote:

Are you ****ing me? Seriously.
the smart approach here would be to absolutely savage them and show them for what they are.

Here here! Someone knows what they're talkin about! : D

delvo wrote:

That sounds like F-15E.

Correct - Many have said that an F15 derivative should have been considered.
I though don't know enough to comment.
There is nothing though available in the F111C class at present.

rkap wrote:

delvo wrote:

That sounds like F-15E.

Correct - Many have said that an F15 derivative should have been considered.

It was considered but at nearly $50m per airframe than a Super Hornet, the cost wasn't worth it for an interim aircraft.

Quote:

I though don't know enough to comment.
There is nothing though available in the F111C class at present.

Good reason for that. F-111's role is no longer required. It's capability is neither fish nor fowl.

It's not a true long range bomber and it's not a fighter. It's strike range can be equalled by fighters with air refuelling, stand-off weapons but nothing can be done to it to make it a fighter.

Last edited by 1st503rdsgt on Feb 23, 2012 - 08:21 AM; edited 1 time in total

Conan wrote:

F-111's role is no longer required. It's capability is neither fish nor fowl.

It's not a true long range bomber and it's not a fighter. It's strike range can be equalled by fighters with air refuelling, stand-off weapons but nothing can be done to it to make it a fighter.

[APA fanboy sputters] BUT... BUT... WITH BIGGER ENGINES... PHOENIX MISSILES... NEW RADAR... SH AND F-35 NOT GO FAST... PFFT-WAAAAAAAAAA, WAAAAAAAAAAA, WAAAAAAAA!!!

Ah yes. Star Trek at it's finest.

Conan wrote:

We do the Hornet with JASSM and Super Hornet with JSOW can effectively strike further than the F-111 could, on it's own.

Yes - with stand off weapons.
That is not comparing like with like. A long range strike aircraft with stand off weapons has an even greater range.
I did not say the F111C was the answer today. It was good for our purpose until about 10 or so years ago - Now Obsolete.

My statement was very simple.
I said it would be good to have a long range modern strike platform in Australia if one was available. The only one that came to mind at the time was the SU34. Good point someone else made F15E - too old. . The F15SE but it is too late now for us to change. We would end up with 3 aircraft types. Too costly to support for Australia. I accept we are going to get F35's. The way things stand now I would prefer a 50-50 mix of F35's and the Super Hornets we have.

What are you trying to say later on - In one sentence you infer there is no real threat and probably will not be one [I agree] - in the next you say a SU34 "type" non stealth aircraft would be no good because a scenario may develop where it is vulnerable also. Lots of maybes. One thing is for sure - the F35 would be even more vulnerable if cost effective ways of countering stealth are found in the next 10 years. Very possible - the process has started.

My greatest fear with the F35 which has to last until 2040/2050 is what if a counter is found to its stealth.
Its other so called advantages like EODAS etc. are all being matched or will be matched by the time it is operational by the French and other Europeans and Russia etc. - only a matter of time. Lets face it - we don't know if all these systems on the F35 that are supposed to give it a big advantage will work in practice anyway. Most of them are not mature.

I personally hope our Government does buy another 24 Super Hornets to fill the gap - at least that way we will not end up with all our eggs in one basket. One hundred F35's whose only real advantage will be stealth is a risky position to be in in 2025/2030.
The USA - it does not matter as they have plenty of legacy aircraft.

Quote:

My greatest fear with the F35 which has to last until 2040/2050 is what if a counter is found to its stealth.

Yes there is talk that work is underway on defeating stealth techniques. However I haven't heard any rumors of a system solution that will fit into the nose of a roving SU or MIG heading over the Owen Stanleys soon. That means if it worked it would need to be procurable and deployable, and you would for quite a while only encounter such a system as part of ground based defence networks, where would that be for Aus? Also, expect such a solution to be only partially effective under the right circumstances and to mature slowly. Just like every other anti-aircraft system has for the last 30 years. Don't expect some out of the blue solution to appear that will yank the stealth skirts off your air force in a moment. There also hasn't been any anti-aircraft system developed and deployed where a countermeasure wasn't possible (though it's sometimes awkward and costly).

The money would be better spent on a BMD program as this is an area of vulnerability. Australia's current and projected defense programs should be more than adequate to protect it from conventional attack by sea and air for the foreseeable future.

popcorn wrote:

The money would be better spent on a BMD program as this is an area of vulnerability. Australia's current and projected defense programs should be more than adequate to protect it from conventional attack by sea and air for the foreseeable future.

Uh, the Irans, Pakistans and North Koreas of the world don't really notice Oz that much. China could be a problem, but attempting BMD against that number of possible incoming is rather pointless. That said, I've started to wonder if Oz really needs the F-35 right now. I think a more efficient submarine force should be a higher priority than it is.

Actually, the 2009 Defence White Paper specifically names North Korea among a number of countries of concern developing a BM capability that pose a potential strategic threat to Australia and/or to Her armed forces deployed abroad.

Forum: Program and politics

Joint strike fighter program a 'failure' (from beloved APA)