Forum: Program and politics

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.

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.

Odd, BMD against weapons with that kind of range (IRBM/ICBM) is extremely costly and only offers the capability of stopping the relatively few such missiles possessed by nuclear-armed 3rd world $hitholes. The US spends what it must on defending against such an unlikely attack, but that's only because various bat$hit-crazy clerics and dictators are constantly making specific threats to do so. I wasn't aware that Oz had a similar problem.

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.

Furthemore, the JSF is still a supersonic capable fighter with fighter performance and agility at least equal to F/A-18 and F-16 fighters and an operational ceiling of 50,000 feet. It's hardly sufficiently lacking in "traditional" fighter qualities if needed...

That's what they said in the Green Lantern movie. I trust the Green Lantern movie over Wikipedia (which says 60000) .

The -35s ceiling is only 50k?

Furthemore, the JSF is still a supersonic capable fighter with fighter performance and agility at least equal to F/A-18 and F-16 fighters and an operational ceiling of 50,000 feet. It's hardly sufficiently lacking in "traditional" fighter qualities if needed...

You know, it's funny, I hadn't heard that they'd cleared the F-35s performance envelope out to F-18 and F-16 level agility

especially with all that transonic roll-off

and severe buffeting around 15-20 degrees AOA.

In fact isn't there still a fuel inerting problem that stops them from doing any negative g maneuvers?

Good old Conan, you're suitably outraged if you perceive APA to have fudged some numbers

but you're certainly not above misrepresenting a few numbers yourself are you.

You know, it's funny, I hadn't heard that they'd cleared the F-35s performance envelope out to F-18 and F-16 level agility, especially with all that transonic roll-off and severe buffeting around 15-20 degrees AOA. In fact isn't there still a fuel inerting problem that stops them from doing any negative g maneuvers? Obviously you meant something more like "it is *hoped* that the aircraft's performance will eventually be equivalent to current fourth gen fighters when the aerodynamic issues have been sorted out". That would be more accurate anyway and accuracy is what counts with you guys, right?

P.S. Smith seems a little shaky on the F-35. You'd better run around and top up his kool-aide IV.

So you admit their numbers are rubbish? Do you go one step further and subscribe to the GIGO method of mathematics?

The F-35A has been taken up to 9.9G's and 20 AOA so far in a flight program that is about 22% complete and has a vast amount of it's flight envelope still to clear. Is that agile enough for you so far?

Smith is unlikely to be Defence Minister by the end of this week. Do try to keep up with the news...