RAAF and F-35C?

I both like and agree with the way that you think!

I am sure that this added capability of this ‘F-35D’ variant would be well received by other air forces – say Israel, UK, for starters and hay maybe even the USAF

Regards
Pioneer

Clearly, we will see more customized F-35’s as time goes on. Remember, fighter programs like the JSF will go on for decades. Personally, I think that is one of the Programs strongest points! What other type can mix and match to the customers needs like the F-35!:D

I both like and agree with the way that you think!

I am sure that this added capability of this ‘F-35D’ variant would be well received by other air forces – say Israel, UK, for starters and hay maybe even the USAF

Regards
Pioneer

Nothing wrong with the idea of a customised JSF for OZ in theory except that our procurement methods are moving well away from “Australianised” solutions because of problems with a number of “it seemed like a great idea at the time” procurements. The still unoperational & vastly expensive Seasprite project that is still not yet operational comes to mind .The vastly more expensive Collins Class submarine is another one but after many years & mega extra bucks they at least now have a fine sub. There have been others . The decision to go for the more or less OTS F100 AWD in preference to the more powerful G&C conceptual AWD is an example of the way we are headed. The “safe” selection of the Super Hornet as an interim fighter bomber is probably not a perfect example but gives us a view of the way we are heading. to be fair I should point out that there have also been quite a number of successful defence procurements as well.Anyhow it does not hurt to discuss different hypothetical ideas in fact it can be good fun.
Cheers- tiddles

F-15, F-16, F-22, F-111, F-117 all have tailhooks with the strength to stop them in a short distance, but that’s after a nice gentle touchdown unlike the controlled crash that is a carrier landing.

RAAF has a history of mixing and matching of variants to get their own custom model- i.e. F-111C. It has the long wings and heavier capacity undercarriage of the -111B and FB models, and the avionics/pave tack of the later model E’s and F’s.

Why not an RAAF specific F-35D model with the C’s big wing, extra fuel, and probe refueling system with the A model’s lighter undercarriage and internal gun? Best of all worlds.

I both like and agree with the way that you think!

I am sure that this added capability of this ‘F-35D’ variant would be well received by other air forces – say Israel, UK, for starters and hay maybe even the USAF

Regards
Pioneer

F-15, F-16, F-22, F-111, F-117 all have tailhooks with the strength to stop them in a short distance, but that’s after a nice gentle touchdown unlike the controlled crash that is a carrier landing.

RAAF has a history of mixing and matching of variants to get their own custom model- i.e. F-111C. It has the long wings and heavier capacity undercarriage of the -111B and FB models, and the avionics/pave tack of the later model E’s and F’s.

Why not an RAAF specific F-35D model with the C’s big wing, extra fuel, and probe refueling system with the A model’s lighter undercarriage and internal gun? Best of all worlds.

Pioneer: mate my analogy is just and sound because it is based on the ecconomics of both times and not the threats of the time. Now despite us being in a budgetary surplus atm, Defence spending will rise sharply over the next five years to cover the cost of all the new programs and systems coming on line, not to mention upgrades that will be needed to key support areas as well;De-militarisation of RAAF Richmond as the ADF pulls out and hands over to Civilian Authorities, Millimeter Wave Radar for the Tigers, Upgrades to the Hawk Mk-127’s, not to mention Base and Facility upgrades (Have you seen RAAF Laverton lately? The buildings look like they are about to fall down).

Mate like I said, I am basing my arguments on Eccomonics, not countering threats.

Scoot: Mate the hooks on the Air Force model planes is basically a one time use only thing. Our F-111’s have them and we saw late last year what a good invention they are- what few people know is, each time this system is used on a field, it actually damages the structure of the plane is it saving. With the F-111, sure the plane was saved in one piece, but the Hook damaged a good part of the rear tail area and engine exhausts, so much so that the whole section was replaces with one of the spares currently sitting on the sideline at Amberly (we may have 35 F-111’s on the books, but we’d be lucky to field about 16 in the air).

The reason for this damage is that the wires on the field are not rectractable like those on a carrier. I remember a few years ago during an Operation Pitch Black exercise, an American F/A-18C had trouble and flew down to RAAF Williamtown and used the hook down there. The Pilot used to Carrier arrestings was injured using the emergency wire there because it didn’tr have the same leeway and retration as a Carrier wire does. The plane ground to a halt but the field wire was wrecked completely and had to be redone.

The only F-16’s I’ve seen with a wire are the ones used for DACT by the USN (F-16N I believe they were designated). As for the other fron’t line fighter types, The F-22 does not have one- according to Mick Spick in AFM with his tech drawings he has provided. Only a few European based F-15’s had the Hook and No A-10’s have it- though I think the upgraded A-10C might include one now- can’t remember.

Tiddles answered your question on the Single engine issue with the Mirage and it’s losses. And the F-35 is getting the nod on a technicality- the engines these days are far more reliable (so they say) and the B models actually have two engines (very sneeky).

I believe it does. Inside the cover at the tail. (disclaimer…not my picture. Got it from the seaman).

….
Tiddles answered your question on the Single engine issue with the Mirage and it’s losses. And the F-35 is getting the nod on a technicality- the engines these days are far more reliable (so they say) and the B models actually have two engines (very sneeky).

The B models don’t have two engines. The fan is driven off the same engine as provides the motive power.

Pioneer: mate my analogy is just and sound because it is based on the ecconomics of both times and not the threats of the time. Now despite us being in a budgetary surplus atm, Defence spending will rise sharply over the next five years to cover the cost of all the new programs and systems coming on line, not to mention upgrades that will be needed to key support areas as well;De-militarisation of RAAF Richmond as the ADF pulls out and hands over to Civilian Authorities, Millimeter Wave Radar for the Tigers, Upgrades to the Hawk Mk-127’s, not to mention Base and Facility upgrades (Have you seen RAAF Laverton lately? The buildings look like they are about to fall down).

Mate like I said, I am basing my arguments on Eccomonics, not countering threats.

Scoot: Mate the hooks on the Air Force model planes is basically a one time use only thing. Our F-111’s have them and we saw late last year what a good invention they are- what few people know is, each time this system is used on a field, it actually damages the structure of the plane is it saving. With the F-111, sure the plane was saved in one piece, but the Hook damaged a good part of the rear tail area and engine exhausts, so much so that the whole section was replaces with one of the spares currently sitting on the sideline at Amberly (we may have 35 F-111’s on the books, but we’d be lucky to field about 16 in the air).

The reason for this damage is that the wires on the field are not rectractable like those on a carrier. I remember a few years ago during an Operation Pitch Black exercise, an American F/A-18C had trouble and flew down to RAAF Williamtown and used the hook down there. The Pilot used to Carrier arrestings was injured using the emergency wire there because it didn’tr have the same leeway and retration as a Carrier wire does. The plane ground to a halt but the field wire was wrecked completely and had to be redone.

The only F-16’s I’ve seen with a wire are the ones used for DACT by the USN (F-16N I believe they were designated). As for the other fron’t line fighter types, The F-22 does not have one- according to Mick Spick in AFM with his tech drawings he has provided. Only a few European based F-15’s had the Hook and No A-10’s have it- though I think the upgraded A-10C might include one now- can’t remember.

Tiddles answered your question on the Single engine issue with the Mirage and it’s losses. And the F-35 is getting the nod on a technicality- the engines these days are far more reliable (so they say) and the B models actually have two engines (very sneeky).

[QUOTE=Ja Worsley;1155654]

The F-22 for us is like the F-15 back when we chose the Bug- too expencive to buy, too expencive to run, too expencive to arm and too expencive to support. The Rhino deal, after much deliberation on my own behalf, is actually a decent deal and I seriously doubt that we are going to get rid of them as the F-35 comes on line. QUOTE]

The problem that I see with this analogy (‘not being critical’!), is that at the time we (the RAAF) was looking at a Mirage III replacement, the biggest threat to our air superiority was MiG-21 ‘Fishbed’s’ and some country’s were looking at possibly receiving MiG-23 ‘Flogger’s’.
Were as today it’s the more powerful and more capable designs like the MiG-29, Su-27 series and F/A-18D’s (with added range, beyond-visual weapons) that the RAAF has to ’potentially’ face.
Added to this is a massive increase of both skill and professionalism of these country’s pilots and military as a whole, which we had a vast superiority over once!
On top of all this is the like’s of airborne-refueling and AEW/AWACS that has been prioritized by the region’s air forces.

So I think the comparison of the Mirage III replacement requirement, to that of the F/A-18A/B replacement are worlds apart in want and needs.
Topping this is the problem that the RAAF has been facing for the past couple of decades in both recruitment and retention of fast pilots (or pilots in general!!!!)

Regards
Pioneer

Mirage 3 losses

With regard to the Mirage 3 in RAAF service -Of the 115 delivered 40 were lost due to flying accidents etc. ,engine problems accounted for 13 of these losses. At the time of the RAAF contest the F16 A/B were also having some troubles with the F100 engine, this however was not the overall reason for its failure to get the contract ,the FA 18 was a unanimous selection being seen as best able to meet RAAF criteria at the time. Several other planes not previously mentioned were considered
Tornado – The version available at the time was the swing wing primarily A2G model that had a basic self defence capacity, even though it was a reasonable performer it would have just duplicated the F 111.
F-18L aka YF-17 – Too risky as the RAAF may have been the only operator & despite outward similarities was a different beast to the FA 18 & could not have piggy backed onto USN upgrades. The plane itself performed excellently in trials.
F 14 – At the time the USN was still having teething troubles with the plane , it did at least share the same TF30 motor as the F111, in the end it was seen as too big and complicated for the jod required by the RAAF.
It should be mentioned that many of the contestants eventually developed into excellent aircraft however at the time the radars ,weapons systems ,avionics in general were seen as behind that offered by the latest US Models. It could be said that the same applies today. [running for cover]

EFA has one? Or I’m wrong?

I see, but some a more like a wire than a hook.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0295.shtml
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-2012.html

They’re there.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=139944

They should be on all but the A-10, at least. I know the F-15 and F-16 definitely have them (at least USAF ones). I’ve heard that the F-117 did internally (it had to retract to maintain stealthiness), so I’d assume that the F-22 has a similar setup. So, you’re not going to find it on the A-10, but it should be there on the rest.

Now, granted, other than the F-4 and A-7 (no longer in USAF service) this isn’t a Navy-style tailhook, so it’s a much smaller arrangement and isn’t designed to be used on a daily basis, so is relatively unobtrusive.

Logan Hartke

Really? Which types in particular? I can’t locate it on the four below.

Hmmmmmm ok here I go with my bob’s worth!

Australia bought the Bug because of the above mentioned single engine fear, it’s competitors at the time were:

[INDENT]Dassult Mirage IIING

Dassult Mirage 2000

F-16 Fighting Falcon

JA-37 Viggen

F-15 Eagle

A-10 Thunderbolt II[/INDENT]

Dassult bombed out because the M2K was new and thus represented an unknown factor (risk) and the NG was not a new toy but rather an upgrade. The Viggen lost out because the US would not allow export of the engine only because they had their products in the mix and knew they would get whopped buy this amazing machine. The Eagle was far far too expencive and the Hog was not a real fighter and there were issues regarding it’s ability to take on other planes in the A2A role.

The only real contest came between the Bug and the lawn dart. The two main factors that swung it in favor of the Bug were that a) it had two engines and b) Canada had just placed an order for a large number thus ensuring that Australia wasn’t going to be the only customer again for another US product (remeber we were the only ones who bought the F-111’s even after the RAF had said they would but dropped out).

The reason why Australia was able to buy naval versions and not Land versions is because we had introduced a new saftey system at our bases using a wire and hook system just like those on the carriers. Also the idea of folding wings was appealing to the bean counters who thought that they could save sapce and have a few of these systems in the shop at the same time, while not needing to expand the facilities at the bases whetre the sqdns operated from (a Bug with wings folded is roughly the same size as a Mirage III).

Australia is not interested in the F-22, though after having met Carlo Kopp, I wouldn’t call him a “Worthless Turd”. I had a chat with him as we shared a few sandwiches and drinks at Avalon back in March. The guy has crunched the numbers and does have good reasons for his arguments. But I have to agree, his wording could be a little better in his articles and his advice to defence should be one of consolling rather than bullheadedness. His ideas are not to everyones cup of tea, but then again neither are everyone elses! We all have a difference of oppinion on various aspects of defence but if one of you could crunch the numbers as much as what he has done then I will listen to your arguments as I listened to his and I will make my own judgments.

The F-22 for us is like the F-15 back when we chose the Bug- too expencive to buy, too expencive to run, too expencive to arm and too expencive to support. The Rhino deal, after much deliberation on my own behalf, is actually a decent deal and I seriously doubt that we are going to get rid of them as the F-35 comes on line.

As to which version we are getting of the F-35: We are lining up for 80 F-35A’s and 20 F-35B’s, no C’s are envisioned for RAAF service at all. There was talk at one stage of buying a version that is on the drawing boards, but since this is both a risk and the associated costs (both in deveoplment and support- being the only country with this type as opposed to having the networked support for the standard issue) we’d be living a dream and may as well kick the whole thing in the teeth and go for the YF-23 (why do I get goosebumps when I think of that plane)?

Finally the F-35 is not the only option on the market for us, there is the Typhoon which even developed the CFT’s just to gain a foothold in the Aussie market after range became a concern. SAAB are still pushing the Gripen as a back up option should any further problems arise on the F-35. The Rafael is right out, it’s lack of orders outside of France doesn’t fill the RAAF with confidence neither does the option of having to buy all new weapons due to compatability issues.

Ja- Did the RAAF have issue with the Mirage III only being a single engine aircraft. As you list it as one of the reasons Australia went with the Hornet? Further, while you are correct that the naval Hornets have an arresting hook for Carrier Operation. Most American landbased types have a similar hook for emerency landings on air fields…………

Hmmmmmm ok here I go with my bob’s worth!

Australia bought the Bug because of the above mentioned single engine fear, it’s competitors at the time were:

[INDENT]Dassult Mirage IIING

Dassult Mirage 2000

F-16 Fighting Falcon

JA-37 Viggen

F-15 Eagle

A-10 Thunderbolt II[/INDENT]

Dassult bombed out because the M2K was new and thus represented an unknown factor (risk) and the NG was not a new toy but rather an upgrade. The Viggen lost out because the US would not allow export of the engine only because they had their products in the mix and knew they would get whopped buy this amazing machine. The Eagle was far far too expencive and the Hog was not a real fighter and there were issues regarding it’s ability to take on other planes in the A2A role.

The only real contest came between the Bug and the lawn dart. The two main factors that swung it in favor of the Bug were that a) it had two engines and b) Canada had just placed an order for a large number thus ensuring that Australia wasn’t going to be the only customer again for another US product (remeber we were the only ones who bought the F-111’s even after the RAF had said they would but dropped out).

The reason why Australia was able to buy naval versions and not Land versions is because we had introduced a new saftey system at our bases using a wire and hook system just like those on the carriers. Also the idea of folding wings was appealing to the bean counters who thought that they could save sapce and have a few of these systems in the shop at the same time, while not needing to expand the facilities at the bases whetre the sqdns operated from (a Bug with wings folded is roughly the same size as a Mirage III).

Australia is not interested in the F-22, though after having met Carlo Kopp, I wouldn’t call him a “Worthless Turd”. I had a chat with him as we shared a few sandwiches and drinks at Avalon back in March. The guy has crunched the numbers and does have good reasons for his arguments. But I have to agree, his wording could be a little better in his articles and his advice to defence should be one of consolling rather than bullheadedness. His ideas are not to everyones cup of tea, but then again neither are everyone elses! We all have a difference of oppinion on various aspects of defence but if one of you could crunch the numbers as much as what he has done then I will listen to your arguments as I listened to his and I will make my own judgments.

The F-22 for us is like the F-15 back when we chose the Bug- too expencive to buy, too expencive to run, too expencive to arm and too expencive to support. The Rhino deal, after much deliberation on my own behalf, is actually a decent deal and I seriously doubt that we are going to get rid of them as the F-35 comes on line.

As to which version we are getting of the F-35: We are lining up for 80 F-35A’s and 20 F-35B’s, no C’s are envisioned for RAAF service at all. There was talk at one stage of buying a version that is on the drawing boards, but since this is both a risk and the associated costs (both in deveoplment and support- being the only country with this type as opposed to having the networked support for the standard issue) we’d be living a dream and may as well kick the whole thing in the teeth and go for the YF-23 (why do I get goosebumps when I think of that plane)?

Finally the F-35 is not the only option on the market for us, there is the Typhoon which even developed the CFT’s just to gain a foothold in the Aussie market after range became a concern. SAAB are still pushing the Gripen as a back up option should any further problems arise on the F-35. The Rafael is right out, it’s lack of orders outside of France doesn’t fill the RAAF with confidence neither does the option of having to buy all new weapons due to compatability issues.

In the first place, forget everything you may have heard from Kopp and the Goon platoon at Air Power Australia (almost everything they say is tainted by their own commercial interests. For example one reason they are so hard on for the F111 to remain in service is that several of the APA people have a financial interest in companies supporting the F111. When the F111 goes, so does their income).

The F35 is late 90s, early 2000’s technology, incorporating a level of computing power and thus situational awareness that is in fact beyond what the F22 has now, the F22 will eventually get some of the F35 cockpit wizardry in major refits to the fleet.

The AESA radar it is fitted with is currently only rivalled by the F22 and the Rhino, it operates in a wide variety of modes simultaneously and can incorporate tricks involving signature management which makes it hard for an opponent to be exactly sure where the AESA radar is and how far away.

The Flanker is basically warmed over early-1980s tech, very agile but akin to claiming that an agile F8 Crusader is better than an early F15. In one very simplistic scenario it is, but if you don’t play that game in a shooting situation then the agile aircraft dies before getting anywhere close enough to do its tricks.

As one RAAF squadron commander commented to me while we were looking at footage of a Flanker doing its patented Pugachev’s Cobra “looks real good at flight demo’s, in wartime anyone who slowed down that much is dead. He has just given me a massive planform target to pop a missile at while I egress the situation, and while a Flanker is manouverable, a decent IR seeker missile has it beat flat”.

Combined with a decent AAR fleet to support barrier patrols, a superb AWACS capability in the Wedgetail, the likes of which no one else in the region will have for some years, plus datalinked situational awareness and the F35 will be killing the Flankers with BVR missiles while the Flankers are still getting their sheet together.

Finally, the RAAF is getting some 100 F35s, compared to local Flanker numbers of perhaps 12-24 per nation south of China or India.

And the training across the full spectrum of operations of the RAAF’s Air Combat Command is on the whole a generation plus in advance of that being practiced by most of South East Asia.

Why do you think we send forces to Red Flag and Cope Thunder? We train against the best to be the best.

I am not discounting the capability of the Flanker in certain circumstances, for the same reasons that an insurgent with a shotgun can take down a soldier armed with the very latest kit, everyone can get lucky.

Luck however is not the basis to make rational defence policy.

And for the final frakking time, the RAAF will not be getting F22, despite what Kopp and his fellow fruit loops might suggest.

If you don’t believe me, try doing a net search on statements by the US government on the matter. If you won’t believe me, perhaps you will believe them when they say No F22s for Australia.

Unicorn

Its very unlikely that Australia will get the F-22 and the F-35 will be more than capable of dealing with Flankers. As a matter of fact it will be hardly a contest!

And how might this be?

Regards
Pioneer

Hey guys, long time lurker, first time poster… 😀

I agree. The F-22 has a known production run and further orders are going to reduce the cost of the aircraft… 😎

There’s no way the F-35 is going to equal the Flankers entering the Asia-Pacific region in a high speed fight. Only the F-22 will be superior to it and that’s what RAAF needs considering it’s only got 4 fighter squadrons.

There’s no evidence that the US couldn’t change it’s mind with a change of Government even if the current policy is not to sell the F-22…

I think Australia needs a dual fleet of F-22 and F-35’s. I think the Super Hornet is a waste of time and the F-111’s too old.

Its very unlikely that Australia will get the F-22 and the F-35 will be more than capable of dealing with Flankers. As a matter of fact it will be hardly a contest!

Why would the US Government deny one of its longest and most trustworthy allies such as the British and the Australia have the F-22?

Neither Britain nor Australia have an aerospace industry that is able to or willing to copy and put into production or sell F-22 technology.

No I think that the United States priority is to make the JSF/F-35 work and go into production at all costs!
It needs the likes of Australia, Britain, Japan, Israel etc…….. to order the F-35, ASAP, as its own numbers it once required are being wound further back all the time.
Hence the US Government and aerospace industry ‘needs’, as apposed to ‘want’
International support in the JSF.
This method by the US Government also means that the F-35 will not have to worry so much against other competitive design, from around the world – for what country is going to invest millions of dollars into the JSF / F-35 project, then turn around a purchase a completely different design?
Public out cry of wasted finances would cripple Governments.

The rising R&D costs and the rising delay of in-service delivery and production date, blows the so-called theory that the F-22 is to expensive, when compared to the F-35!!!

Well that what I think

Regards
Pioneer

Hey guys, long time lurker, first time poster… 😀

I agree. The F-22 has a known production run and further orders are going to reduce the cost of the aircraft… 😎

There’s no way the F-35 is going to equal the Flankers entering the Asia-Pacific region in a high speed fight. Only the F-22 will be superior to it and that’s what RAAF needs considering it’s only got 4 fighter squadrons.

There’s no evidence that the US couldn’t change it’s mind with a change of Government even if the current policy is not to sell the F-22…

I think Australia needs a dual fleet of F-22 and F-35’s. I think the Super Hornet is a waste of time and the F-111’s too old.

The USA is denying the F-22 to its allies. All of them. This isn’t theory, or speculation, it’s hard fact. Export of the F-22 is currently banned, to anyone. That could change, in theory, but in practice, there’s no sign of it happening. There’s no pressure from within the USA to change it. The USAF doesn’t want anyone else to have the F-22, Lockheed is happy to sell F-35s, & the US Congress is opposed to allowing exports.

Well, you clearly don’t know American Politics. Really, no signs of it happening and no pressure from within. You couldn’t be more wrong. As the pressure is growning by the day. Especially, with a Presidential election just around the corner…………….:D