F-35B may well become a What-if program !

[Taiidantomcat]

So it will be obsolete in 30-50 years so its not worth buying?

No, the point is how *quickly* will it become obsolete? Are there other aircraft which will have a significantly longer service life? When you have to make a fleet last a long time, like we do, it's a significant consideration.

My fear is that the JSF will become obsolete very quickly, anti-stealth detection systems will be ubiquitous, and it's just not designed for the sort of raw performance that would make it still effective. Other aircraft may be better, and we may be better off buying them instead.

Paul

The Marines are planning to make it last for as long as the RAAF if not longer. I wish you the best- I dont see how the Rafale and Typhoon have some kind of super revolutionary speed advantage. If you want a Mach 2 aircraft that isn't stealthy you can just buy an F-15, they have only been around since the 1970's. Rafale and typhoon are newer but the result is the same. Lots of options in the "mach 2 but without stealth" category actually, so knock yourself out. There is always the outside chance that something will revolutionize air warfare, and we have to scrap our whole stealth fleet but if  a stealth fighter a generation ahead is in danger, a non stealth fighter a generation back may not help because it is a few hundred knots faster. Jets made the WWII prop fighter obsolete, but that didn't mean you really wanted to take a WWI biplane to war.

Anywho, I try not to base my decisions on things that "haven't been invented yet but might be someday" after i refused to buy a car with (probably going to be) obsolete wheels since I knew the affordable Hover car was only right around the corner.

[Hobbes]

Without being inflamatory, I don't think most people think it's actually useless as an airframe.  In fact, it seems suited for the type of warfare the US in particular wages.  My main concern is whether it is good for the RAAF and Australia in general.  It might well be all singing & dancing with capabilities beyond and too secret, but do we as a nation need the type?

I appreciate there are jobs & companies who obviously want the aircraft here, that makes financial sense to them, but does it give the same benefit to the ADF?  Do we really need a 'stealth', 'first strike' (and all the other monikers) platform in the first instance?  Will we only go to war with the US by our side and never by ourselves? (Unfortunately, that's most likely true.)  Will we go to war in the near future (with the exception of a particularly ill-fated mission that we are currently saddled with)?  In the sort of tactical environments that we find ourselves in, does the ADF need the 'cutting edge' capabilities of the platform?  How is a aircraft of this type going to help bombing 3rd world terrorists with any greater capability that say the Super Hornets we have already bought?

I think you've fallen into the trap of preparing to fight the previous war again. Yes, the ADF doesn't need the F-35 for police actions against terrorists. But Australia is huge and rich in resources, with lots of turmoil North of it, not to mention the Chinese with their elbow tactics. The ADF needs to be able to defend its borders against an enemy which potentially vastly outnumbers it. Precisely the sort of scenario the F-35 was designed for.  

[Hobbes]

At present its the F-35C for the UK and they are gambling on being able to use the Tornado for strike should the need arise in the next 9 years.

Daring back into the realm of whiff...what about a Tornado GR.5 with systems from the modern jets (e.g. AESA radar, newer engines...).

Regards,

Greg

Time to resurrect the Tornado 2000 proposal?

[pwagner]

...they are not going to fail.

Isn't that what they said about the Titanic?

But, you can say that till you're blue in the face, I won't believe it until it's proven... and so far, twin engines have proven a lot safer than singles.

Indeed. I don't see too many single-engined airliners in the air...

And just as I wouldn't buy a car sight unseen just based on the manufacturer telling me that this is the best car ever, I'm not keen on us doing the same thing on an airplane that's already proven of itself in only one field: that it will not be on time, nor will it be on budget.

Well that's the other thing. LM, and indeed the whole US Govt, seems strangely keen that we all sign on the dotted line and hand over the cash NOW. It raises deep suspicions that they are trying to pull a swifty. If the JSF was as great as LM claimed, they wouldn't have to keep pressuring us, we'd be banging on the door to buy them (like with the Raptor!). So why keep pushing and pushing? The more you push, the less likely I am to believe you. What are you trying to hide?

Maybe this is a cultural issue, and what passes for good salesmanship in the US just looks shifty to the rest of the world. But trust me, it DOES look shifty.

Paul

[GTX]

At present its the F-35C for the UK and they are gambling on being able to use the Tornado for strike should the need arise in the next 9 years.

Daring back into the realm of whiff...what about a Tornado GR.5 with systems from the modern jets (e.g. AESA radar, newer engines...).

Regards,

Greg

Time to resurrect the Tornado 2000 proposal?

Maybe - anyone ever tried to model one?

Regards,

Greg

[pwagner]

If you want a Mach 2 aircraft that isn't stealthy you can just buy an F-15

Maybe! That's what Singapore is doing. They might suit us just fine. If we don't have a proper competition and evaluation of the F35 vs the F15, Typhoon, Rafale, and whatever else for actual RAAAF requirements, then we won't know will we?

Paul

[Maverick]

Ben,

Not being rude, but comparing a Rafale or Typhoon to an Eagle is ludicrous!  The generations between the two are well documented and the capabilities of the newer platforms equally so.  The Eagle may be been good back in the 80s and early 90s but it's patently not now.

Sorry, but that's what I would define as naive.

Hobbes,

How is a first-strike platform not inflammatory.  The F-35 needs the backing of an entire war machine to perform the role it is designed for.  Something like that wouldn't defend Australian airspace for any time longer that the waves of older enemy fighters overwhelmed the F-35's defences.  Would we take an interdictory, first strike mission?  Think again.  Our former (ie: last) prime minister was very cosy with mainland China (to the point of ignoring Taiwan as a legitimate state), it's still his party in power, we still have an alliance of sorts with Indonesia so it's going to be some time before an Australian PM will authorise any sort of pre-emptory action.  Ergo, we're back to square one.  Will the F-35 effectively defend our airspace? No.

As for fighting a previous war, we have our alliances to thank for any wars fought in the last few decades, now, haven't we?  The last time the RAAF defended Australian interests was in WW2, so what's the most likely scenario that we will be embroiled in?

Regards,

Mav

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

C-17 - USA, but again what real option was there

Il-76.

Seriously. It's a good plane.

The Canadian Forces keep leasing them when they need to go somewhere... may as well just buy some outright.

Note, I said real option!

Regards,

Greg

While its out of production the Russians are apparently restarting production as the Il476.  So why isn't it a "real" option, Greg?

Well for one it is less capable than the C-17.  Secondly, there is the Realpolitik issue - like it or not, no major western country is going to have front-line Russian equipment in service any time soon.  Once again, personally I like a lot of the Russian equipment and the philosophies behind them (I think there is a lot for us to learn), but realistically, it just isn't going to happen. 

Regards,

Greg

Mmm, does India count as a "major western country", Greg?

OK, so you were factoring in political matters.  While I tend to agree with you that the inherent conservativism of many Western governments and their militaries is a problem, some seem quite happy to accept Russian transport aircraft and helicopters, if not into their inventories at least on a leasing arrangement.  The C-17 is an exceptional aircraft but it is over-designed for the role that it is used for by the majority of its users.  The Il476 is one alternative, there are others, primarily civilian transport aircraft such as the 747 which could fulfil the role of the C-17 much more cheaply.  I see the leasing of Russian aircraft as the thin edge of the wedge.  As Western militaries become familiar with these workhorses, they'll come to accept that their strengths over shadow their weaknesses.  In 10-15 years time, as long as Putin and Medvedev don't try and become too openly antagonistic towards the West, I'd expect to see the purchase of increasing numbers of Russian transport aircraft and helicopters.

[Taiidantomcat]

Well Ben,

I guess I'm getting older & actually believe that we should be concerned about personnel losses.  Given the hullaballoo everytime an Australian dies in Afghanistan, I wonder if I'm not merely expressing the general feeling here.  US losses are larger, given their greater involvement, and maybe its the numbers that means that one can be callous.

Nothing can guarantee safety that's a given, hopefully the Marines, or RAAF or anyone else for that matter won't have to test out LM's rather optimistic projections about the aircraft's capabilities in a real-world environment (eg: not bombing 3rd world terrorists but actually fighting someone who can engage with an air defence network).

It's not callous its compassion. I am as much concerned about personnel losses if not more ( I have friends serving) the USMC is planning on replacing all of its  AV-8Bs with F-35Bs for that reason I compare it to a harrier:

The F-35B is a vast improvement over the AV-8Bs we are using now. Its faster, and has more maneuverability, with a better more reliable engine. its electronics are vastly more advanced. its warning systems will give pilots a huge advantage, Its an improvement over the AV-8B in every respect except cost.

At one point the curves meet. It will be more dangerous to be in a decades old harrier than a brand new F-35B. The AV-8B will has reached its maximum potential. the Av-8B already had a reputation as a widow maker and a high heat signature that attracted enemy missiles. the attrition rate is well above average. It has had service wide groundings more often than any other aircraft in the US inventory. the RAF is retiring it. the RN retired it year ago. The Marines I know, who know what the Av-8B can do and  know what an f-35B can do-- want the F-35B. I am sorry to say but the aircraft the F-35B is replacing killed its fair share of pilots. The odds of a subsonic harrier with a high heat signature, and lacking modern sensors and SA gear, coming back from "a mission other than 3rd world terrorists" is not better than the F-35B. Thats not LM talking it father time. The harrier is obsolete. I don't think you can do any worse at this point. No one is going to be flying into a modern air defense environment wishing they didn't have the supersonic, stealthy, Electronically superior F-35B.  I dont want them to engage with an air defence network in an av-8B thats for sure.

I am not saying the F-35B is perfect. I am saying its far better than what we have now

It was the same story with the USMC and the CH-46... how long can you carry on with an aircraft nearly 5 decades old with a top speed that is a fraction of what its "more dangerous" replacement will be? The Ch-46 was never bullet proof to begin with --eventually you cant add any more improvements, but technology marches on and weapon systems improve and you can't add any more armor or chaff/flare. will V-22 get shot down and crash of course they will, but not nearly as easily as the ch-46.

You seem to think that I am callous for wanting my fellow Marines in an aircraft that is better than the one we have now? If you really care about personnel losses its time for the Harrier to go. If you really really care about personnel losses you will take the F-35B for its safety alone --forget combat performance, even if its detractors are right and it absolutely sucks at war, at least you save lives in peacetime. right? but if so whats the point? A ship in the harbor is safe but thats not what ships are for.

How long does it take to develop a V/STOL replacement if the F-35 fails? How long do the Marines have to keep going with the AV-8B? another 20 years? 25? How many people do you lose?

[Taiidantomcat]

Ben,

Not being rude, but comparing a Rafale or Typhoon to an Eagle is ludicrous!  The generations between the two are well documented and the capabilities of the newer platforms equally so.  The Eagle may be been good back in the 80s and early 90s but it's patently not now.

how so? much like the F-35 the Typhoon and Rafale are not combat proven like the F-15. I mean I wouldn't want to just rely on the numbers the manufacturers give me right? or the poor and unreliable anecdotal evidence the people involved with it are likely to tell me right?

We are talking about mach 2, non stealth -so its all created equal right? just like how a new single engine fighter should always be compared with  other single engine fighters without looking into differences and improvements?

I mean sure the Av-8B was good in the 80s and 90s but comparing it to the F-35B is ludicrous. "The generations between the two are well documented and the capabilities of the newer platforms equally so" right?

[Maverick]

Ben,

You've obviously scanned my replies with minimal thought except to pump up the -35. 

At no point did I suggest that the F-35 was inferior to the AV-8B, at no point did I suggest the AV-8B was a platform capable of flying against modern, 1st world air defences.  As for the capabilities of the Typhoon versus the F-15, I'd suggest you read what the RAF is saying about the type.  The Typhoon can outfly the Eagle in every aspect, carry the same AA warload and yet is a generation removed with superior avionics and engines.  To suggest they are equal is as I suggested earlier both naieve and ridiculous just as comparing the F-35 to the AV-8B is.

As to whether the -35B will eventuate, well we'll just have to wait (even more) and see.... IOC for the entire program was supposedly sometime this decade wasn't it?  I guess there's still 9 years to go, by then of course it'll be obsolete but you get that I guess.

Regards,

Mav

[Hobbes]

How is a first-strike platform not inflammatory.  The F-35 needs the backing of an entire war machine to perform the role it is designed for.  Something like that wouldn't defend Australian airspace for any time longer that the waves of older enemy fighters overwhelmed the F-35's defences.  Would we take an interdictory, first strike mission?  Think again.  Our former (ie: last) prime minister was very cosy with mainland China (to the point of ignoring Taiwan as a legitimate state), it's still his party in power, we still have an alliance of sorts with Indonesia so it's going to be some time before an Australian PM will authorise any sort of pre-emptory action.  Ergo, we're back to square one.  Will the F-35 effectively defend our airspace? No.

The F-117 was a first-strike platform. The F-35, not so much. Sure, the Chinese will whine about it, but in fact the F-35 is just a multirole aircraft with increased survivability. Stealth helps when defending as well, and is a major factor in allowing the limited resources of the ADF to be a credible deterrent against larger air forces.

And I don't buy the assertion that the F-35 'needs the backing of an entire war machine' in any greater degree than other aircraft.

As for fighting a previous war, we have our alliances to thank for any wars fought in the last few decades, now, haven't we?  The last time the RAAF defended Australian interests was in WW2, so what's the most likely scenario that we will be embroiled in?

You're again using past conflicts as a model for the next. That didn't work very well for the US at the end of the Cold War. The next conflict could very well be not an insurgency, but a resource grab.

[Hobbes]

Time to resurrect the Tornado 2000 proposal?

Maybe - anyone ever tried to model one?

I'm planning to build one...

[Taiidantomcat]

As to whether the -35B will eventuate, well we'll just have to wait (even more) and see.... IOC for the entire program was supposedly sometime this decade wasn't it?  I guess there's still 9 years to go, by then of course it'll be obsolete but you get that I guess.

So its ok for you to bury a weapon system before it reaches IOC but its not ok for me to defend it before IOC? Now we have a "well lets wait and see" attitude?   Every detractor here has dismissed the F-35B without it being in an operational squadron for even a single day. but now we don't want to jump to any conclusions?

How is that fair?

and how will it be obsolete in 9 years but the typhoon and rafale and f-15 wont be? 

I compare an F-35B to an AV-8B because thats the aircraft it is replacing, I like it because it better than the Av-8B. So F-35B>AV-8B. you may not have to deal with AV-8Bs problems but we do. So I don't shed any tears that we are getting a better airplane that will lead to higher survivability even if it isn't perfect (the F-22)

[GTX]

Time to resurrect the Tornado 2000 proposal?

Maybe - anyone ever tried to model one?

I'm planning to build one...

Can't wait.

Regards,

Greg