Australia looking at doubling its Super Hornet fleet to cover F-35 delays

[GTX]

No official Twin tub F-35 (that I'm aware of), though I am sure the Lockheed Martin guys have certainly considered it.  Right now though the focus is on getting the A, B & C into service.

One should also remember that in the F-35, the pilot is less a 'driver' and more a mission systems operator.

So using the F-111 comparison against the F-35 is actually self-defeating;

Not at all.  From the RAAF and USAF focus, the F-111 was a superb platform and it's retirement was lamented by many.  As I said above, I stongly believe this will be the case for the F-35 in another 30 - 40 yrs.

Regards,

Greg

[Taiidantomcat]

If not, there's no way an F-35 will be able to replace a dedicated jammer aircraft like a Prowler, let alone a Growler. The pilot just doesn't have the capability to fly and operate the jamming gear, you need an EWO to take care of that.

What are you basing that on exactly? Surely an aircraft with enough sensors and computing power can replace a human? The prowler used to need 4, the growler only two, is it so crazy to think in the future it may just be one? one nice thing about the stealth fighter was the pilot could just point it and it would fly in a straight line so he could worry about making the bomb run, no second crewman needed. is there some reason the F-35 couldn't be pointed while the pilot with the aide of automated systems jammed the enemy? The F-35 is a a series of systems flying in close formation, thats one of its major selling points, it takes a lot of jobs that previously had to be heavily managed and streamlines them, making life easier on the pilot. Like most modern computer controlled aircraft you point the plane at a piece of sky and the systems input whatever commands it takes to keep going to that same spot. The days where a pilot spent all that time "stick and rudder" are dead in modern fighters.

One should also remember that in the F-35, the pilot is less a 'driver' and more a mission systems operator.

Exactly. point, click, repeat. Think of him as one of those calm, bored, UAV drivers who just happens to have front row seats 

The USMC plans to have a jamming version of the F-35B in the 2020's (i believe thats the timeframe). The navy is giving the USMC all its (non retiring) ICAP III prowlers, that are being replaced by Growlers. and the USMC is going to stretch it until the F-35 Jammer is up.

[rallymodeller]

No official Twin tub F-35 (that I'm aware of), though I am sure the Lockheed Martin guys have certainly considered it.  Right now though the focus is on getting the A, B & C into service.

One should also remember that in the F-35, the pilot is less a 'driver' and more a mission systems operator.

So using the F-111 comparison against the F-35 is actually self-defeating;

Not at all.  From the RAAF and USAF focus, the F-111 was a superb platform and it's retirement was lamented by many.  As I said above, I stongly believe this will be the case for the F-35 in another 30 - 40 yrs.

Regards,

Greg

No, you missed my point. The point was that back in the 60s, the TFX was supposed to be, as the F-35 is now, the all-singing all-dancing replacement for everything. It was to be a magnificent air-to-air fighter, a brilliant tactical strike aircraft, and so forth. Even before the Navy got involved, the original SOR laid out by the AF in 1960 was for a plane that could, basically, replace everything in the then-current USAF inventory. That is was a great strike aircraft is not in doubt, but it was not without long and expensive teething troubles (some of which were never truly solved) and in the end it was a bomber, not a fighter. It was also almost ten years behind schedule, and this for an aircraft that is not nearly as complex as the F-35.

The US has not learned the lesson yet, after several times trying and failing, that true multi-role is for all intents and purposes impossible. There are always tradeoffs, as the differing needs of differing roles demand compromises. The USAF got the best air superiority aircraft in the world, the F-15, because it refused to compromise on having the best air superiority fighter. The fact that it serves as an adequate bomber and as a decent strike fighter is a side benefit but not without costs; the Strike Eagle's ride at low-level is punishing to say the least and there are significant differences between the F-15D and F-15E, at least systems-wise. The F-16, originally intended as a lightweight fighter, is now over twice the empty weight as the original YF-16, and has specialized versions (Big Spine F-16s for the Israelis and Block 60 F-16Es and Fs). The F-18 is so changed from the original YF-17 as to be unrecognizable except in general planform.

Thinking that the F-35 is just going to waltz in and replace F-16s and F-18s is laughable, despite what LockMart's marketing department says, and it is not the aircraft needed by most of the nations who bought into the program; that would be later block F-16s, Gripens, Superbugs or Rafales. I am not denying that the F-35 may eventually become a remarkable aircraft, but the key term there is eventually, as in not for a decade yet. And so we here in Canada have thirty-year-old Hornets, and no replacement in sight before they run out of airframe life.

Here is a link to a CPAC (Canadian Parliamentary Channel) documentary about the JSF. Very balanced, and the part about the subcontractors is especially eye-opening.

[GTX]

that true multi-role is for all intents and purposes impossible.

You list a number of aircraft that in reality have proven to be very successful multi-role platforms even though they might not have been designed as such.  Why wouldn't a platform designed from the outset prove to be even better?  I know of another platform that was designed to be multi-role from the outset - the JAS-39 Gripen.  Or is this a failure too?

What exactly does it take to be successful then?  It seems like no answer would be sufficient!  

Also, stop trying to use a program of half a century ago (the F-111) to justify a position.  It is flawed.  If I did the same, I could say that no-one would ever have a computer that fits on a desk, let alone in the palm of my hand...but guess what?  We have accomplished this!  Why don't you think it can't been done now?

it is not the aircraft needed by most of the nations who bought into the program

So, all the Govt's somehow are idiots or were hoodwinked?  Come on...

If you don't like the F-35 or your country's involvement, then just say so and stop trying to justify your position like this.  Hell, personally I don't like the look of the TSR-2, but that doesn't mean I try to justify my position by saying it was flawed in design and a bad decision by the British Govt and/or that the companies involved conned everyone.  At least be honest in your position.

Greg

[Taiidantomcat]

Thinking that the F-35 is just going to waltz in and replace F-16s and F-18s is laughable,

i don't get your point, are you trying to say that People aren't going to use their F-16s/F-18s when their F-35s come on line? Because thats a no brainer, typically legacy aircraft are used for years after their replacement enters service, if only because it takes time to replace all the older jets. typically new generation aircraft don't have much trouble replacing older generation aircraft.  

despite what LockMart's marketing department says, and it is not the aircraft needed by most of the nations who bought into the program; that would be later block F-16s, Gripens, Superbugs or Rafales. I am not denying that the F-35 may eventually become a remarkable aircraft, but the key term there is eventually, as in not for a decade yet. And so we here in Canada have thirty-year-old Hornets, and no replacement in sight before they run out of airframe life.

First off LockMarts marketing department says if you don't want the F-35, you need the F-16   The hornet probably won't get mentioned for some odd reason. Secondly,  You really think its going to be the year 2022 before the F-35 is as capable as the legacy hornets Canada has now? It won't take ten years.-- But less suppose it did. You think it will be "remarkable" but you would rather take some rehashed hornets now and be stuck with them for decades? long after the F-35 has proven itself to be remarkable? Whats the hurry again? If you are that worried lease some super bugs for a few years. but it would be foolish to acknowledge that the F-35 is remarkable, and then buy something else you already know isn't as good, because you got impatient. So your whole argument is "yeah it will be great, but I hate it because..."?

So what you are trying to say is that an aircraft built from the ground up in the 21st century will take ten years to overtake planes developed and often fielded in the 80s with a bunch of modern stuff tacked on as an afterthought? As mentioned doubling their weight, on airframes that were never really meant for such things and aircraft  of which Canada possesses exactly 0.  That doesn't make much sense. Also if they run out of airframe life it seems very possible for the F-35 to just "waltz in" so which is it? Are these planes doomed to be replaced when their airframes quit? or does the F-35 have years of serving alongside them? Where are you getting your numbers?

The US has not learned the lesson yet, after several times trying and failing, that true multi-role is for all intents and purposes impossible. There are always tradeoffs, as the differing needs of differing roles demand compromises. The USAF got the best air superiority aircraft in the world, the F-15, because it refused to compromise on having the best air superiority fighter. The fact that it serves as an adequate bomber and as a decent strike fighter is a side benefit but not without costs; the Strike Eagle's ride at low-level is punishing to say the least and there are significant differences between the F-15D and F-15E, at least systems-wise. The F-16, originally intended as a lightweight fighter, is now over twice the empty weight as the original YF-16, and has specialized versions (Big Spine F-16s for the Israelis and Block 60 F-16Es and Fs). The F-18 is so changed from the original YF-17 as to be unrecognizable except in general planform.

You aren't seriously comparing prototype aircraft to production aircraft are you? especially late model production aircraft compared to prototypes?  

And the low level of an F-15E flight is bad? thats the best you got? The US took a fighter and turned into a first class bomber, but it rides poorly? What an utter failure indeed. clearly this is a disaster, it should be canceled immediately. Bring back the A-7! throw a bunch of modern junk on it, and it will be fine forever. The very F-18 you advocate was built with multi role in mind and replaced multiple aircraft! (A-7, A-6, F-14, EA-6B) I really can't tell if you think that all multi role aircraft are disasters despite several being fielded successfully since the F-111 debacle, or if you just don't like the F-35 and are using multi role argument against it. "Multi role aircraft are horrible by design which is why we need the latest F-18!"

I would say that the US has learned that you can no longer afford to have many different types of aircraft, with many different sub variants, with different systems spread across multiple services, that take increased maintenance, get heavier every year, and get even more expensive with each passing day, and expect to keep that up in an era of shrinking budgets and new technology that makes it unnecessary to have so many limping along in the first place. When did we decide that legacy aircraft, and slightly improved legacy aircraft were untouchable and irreplaceable?

If you don't like the F-35 or your country's involvement, then just say so and stop trying to justify your position like this.  Hell, personally I don't like the look of the TSR-2, but that doesn't mean I try to justify my position by saying it was flawed in design and a bad decision by the British Govt and/or that the companies involved conned everyone.  At least be honest in your position.

exactly. "Just because its not right for you, doesn't mean its wrong for everyone else."

The F-111, was fielded in the 1960s so --50 years ago. 50 years Lets think if in 1960's they had an interwebz and people were talking about aircraft development in the 1910's! "why I remember them trying to make planes with only one set of wings and it was a disaster!" Technology advances folks. You can use history as guide but not the gospel. Theres more computing power in my crappy cell phone than what we put men on the moon with-- and it has a camera!! not to mention games, messaging, and the internet... you would think it was almost multi-role! Its like it takes what used to take 4 tools, and combines them into one!! Impossible!

[dy031101]

that true multi-role is for all intents and purposes impossible.

Also, stop trying to use a program of half a century ago (the F-111) to justify a position.  It is flawed.

Didn't rickshaw already explain the flaw with that analogy by pointing out that F-111 is a low-altitude bomber trying to be a high-altitude interceptor whereas the F-35 is from the outset meant to be the F-16 re-incarnate?

it is not the aircraft needed by most of the nations who bought into the program

So, all the Govt's somehow are idiots or were hoodwinked?  Come on...

I suspect (meaning it's just my opinion) that the idea of a repeat of the European F-104 scandal might be brought up here.  But even if that is indeed the idea, nothing is proven.

[Thorvic]

OK thats enough subject CLOSED