aussienscaleA wise man once said “The key to the air battle of the future is not neccessarily stealth, speed or firepower. Its going to be information !”
Anything can be picked apart in isolation, being able to understand the system as a whole and the big picture is rather different
Cheers
aussienscaleI am of the same opinion on this topic.
I don’t believe that F-35 and F-22 has such small RCS like LM said. In my opinion these numbers concern critical , best possible angle of the frontal RCS (not military usefull). Don’t forget real info is clasified, and LM was always great marketings company ( I remember F-16 advertisement – 72:0, and remember it wasn’t the true at that time – F-16 was shoot down by greek M2k , but LM just forgot about that :D)
But some guys believe that everything LM said is holy truth.
In real war even mighty F-117 was shoot down by poor equiped adversary ( yes by radar guided old missile ), and imagine what would happen if the opponent was well equipped…
What a load of rubbish (I start most of my post’s on here like that) like most here you have not got a clue. LM are not some car company sprouting their wares, the F-22 and F-35 are owned by the US, they alone dictate what information is released into the public domain. It does not matter whether it comes from LM, Boeing etc etc. Every statement, every media release and yes even every powerpoint presentation will be checked and approved for release.
And I can tell you NO ONE REPEAT NO ONE ever releases actual data on exact abilities on anything. Yes more and more accurate data does come out over the lifetime of any system, but full capabilities very rarely come to light
aussienscalePoint is that the F15 is a very versitile platform that works well even when you need to get closer engagements.
The RCS figure is a Boeing claim.
F15SE gives great range, versatility, agility + speed that the F35 can’t keep up with (mach 2,5 vs mach 1,6).
F35 brings better stealth capabilities with all perks that come with it.
I think both are great platforms for what they are intended to do but the F15SE gives higher flexibility. Oh, and its cheaper.
Yes it is, no arguements from me, I have a very high opinion of the F-15, not sure on the M 2.5 though ?
My points are more on Rii putting it forward and how he thinks it would work and how we could do it ? I was just trying to highlight that it is not as easy as saying “That’s a top plane, lets change our mind and get that instead”
aussienscaleOf course it’s not like the F-22 because the F-22 can SC at m1.8 while the F-35 can only do m1.2
Exactly, I dont understand what all this carry on is about with the speed of the JSF ? Speed is not everything, but obviously some think it is
aussienscaleAnd of course.. The F15 happens to be an excellent fighter.
Yes it is, and your point ?
Do you have a reference for the RCS figure ? Guessing you are talking about the single Silent Eagle that has been built that has a frontal RCS sorta like a 5th Gen ? Well according to Boeing anyway
Cheers
aussienscaleBecause it means that at some point in the future the nation’s entire air combat capability will be approaching obsolescence simultaneously — and will have become only marginally competitive well before that. And unlike the Hornets in the 2020s, when it happens with the F-35 the strategic environment is going to be positively ugly. By operating multiple, staggered platforms, one avoids this highly dangerous situation.
You avoid block obsolescence by good planning, something both sides of Government have been lacking for some time, it is not a platform centric issue.
I would be interested in your insights into the strategic policies of Asian countries including Australia and where you think we will be in say the 2030’s to 50’s ?
Once again your distain for the F-35 is tainting logical thinking, you are attacking the F-35 in isolation, not as a part of the bigger picture. You failed to provide any info on how we could even consider the F-15 and how it will fit into our force construct, doctrine and conops ? All you did was quote some countries in the region who have F-15’s from Wiki or the like, there is no point in talking about what you would have done had you been Defmin 10 years ago.
So how does a couple of countries in the region justify our use of the F-15 ? How would the F-15 be employed in the RAAF ? Can we have the aircraft FOC by when, what cost for systems, spares, sims, etc etc etc ?
What is the lead time for the Aircraft ? what numbers do you think we would need ? and what would be the lead time for pilot training, maint, logistical chain supply etc etc ?
How happy would the public be in this after the money invested into the JSF programe ? And what would also be the financial flow on to the rest of Defence ?
What would we have to change with the Navy and Army in doctirnal, conops and equipment already purchased, planned or being used ?
It is not really that simple
aussienscaleThe whole point of an F-15AU acquisition is to not buy into this foolish notion of one platform to suffice for the next 40 years. Rather 40-50 airframes would be acquired to (1) replace the F-111s and (2) allow for load-balancing of the Hornet fleet to extend their service life to the mid-2020s.
Well I don’t know, you might have to ask USAF about that — their F-15Cs aren’t going anywhere till the 2030s, to say nothing of the F-15Es which will soldier on for a decade beyond that. And of course Japan, Singapore and Korea all operate F-15s as well.
You mean to suggest that Defence planned for decades to arrange that Australian airpower would hit its lowest ebb at precisely the moment of our greatest strategic vulnerability? Christ, there’s incompetence and then there’s treason!
I would be interested in why you think a single platform for an Airforce consisting of 75-100 airframes is a foolish notion ? Not interested in Wiki self platform assesment on your behalf on why you like the F-15, more interested in the real implications of the RAAF having multiple aircraft types
You have completely missed the point of the F-15’s, which shows your lack of understanding of the system as a whole, would be interested in how much you think it would cost for us to have the said F-15AU’s ? There are just a couple of things to take into account, lets see if you can even comprehend that in your response, because you have missed it in this one ?
Cheers
aussienscaleIf it weren’t for the foolish F-35 decision (and its accompanying, equally foolish ‘one platform’ mantra) there would’ve been no need for ‘interim’ aircraft when the program was delayed and a real replacement for the F-111 (i.e. F-15AU) could’ve been procured instead. And if there were no interim Super Hornets, they couldn’t very well be made permanent with more now under consideration, could they?
An F-15AU mmmm would be interested in how that would work ? How survivable do you think it would be compared to the F-35 up against the might of the Soviet and Chinese future stealth fighters ? I would also be guessing that the RAAF would have a few issues operating with allies in an airframe designed in the late 60’s, no matter how much you upgrade the systems ?
Oh and then there are other trivial things to take into account as well like force construct, doctrine, conops etc. And that does not just impact on the RAAF, it impacts on Navy and Army and Defence as a whole, it puts decades of planning out the door
Any other suggestions ?
aussienscaleThis is what happens when you swallow American Power Point presentations hook, line and sinker, and subsequently opt for the path of the least resistance instead of considering the long-term national interest.
What an absolute load of rubbish, this is what happens when the country has and idiot as Defmin who has shown a blatant disregard for advice from all three services for political point scoring and bugetary measures for the sake of the Governments lie of a promise for a surplus.
Stick with your computer games
aussienscaleWell maybe not an APA drone but your Venom over the F-35 is similar to their rants.
And the funny thing about all the APA venom over the JSF is that they actually embraced the RAAF getting the F-35, that is until it killed their F-111 and F-22 proposal 🙂
They still have their endorsement of it on the website, I will ad the link later if it is still there and I can find it again, but it does get rather painfull reading through all of it 🙁
aussienscaleThe rule-of-thumb should be to procure off-the-shelf (or near enough) unless there’s a very good reason to do otherwise. Notice that this would’ve ruled out both NH90 and F-35.
Ordering a Powerpoint aircraft (F-35) is not at all the same thing as ordering an in-service, in-production platform. The equivalent analogy would be ordering F-35 in 2025, or F/A-18F back in 1995.
And MOTS would change what exactly ? you still have the same problems as demonstrated by NH90 and Tiger as you do buying off the plan, just becuase it is in production, does not mean it is without problems.
So by that thinking, are you suggesting Australia, Canada etc maybe purchase Shornet’s as a stop gap and then when the JSF is then MOTS it will suddenly work and be worth purchasing ?
aussienscaleIn fact, I am something of a fan of the F-35, but I also think this single-engine bird strike stuff is just nonsense as well…
It would be interesting to know the effect of the F-35’s diverterless inlet on ingestion ? The problem with ingestion with non VLO platforms is that the inlet has a direct open path to the blades on the front of the engine and generally speaking a direct impact causing the damage and potential failure.
What would happen in the F-35’s case ? any ingestion would hit the inside casing of the inlet essentially pancaking the bird and making the chances of a catastrophic failure improbable ?
Happy to be corrected or other opinions 🙂
Cheers
aussienscaleWhen you do that general claim you will have an example at least to verify that. 😉
I would love to see some information on the proliferation of the S300 and S400’s ? How many are there now ?
aussienscaleFunny that, European F-16 & Gripen operators have not been loosing F-16s at a rate of three per year.
Hey, maybe all the birds are over in Canada 😉
X 2 🙂
What a rubbish argument, why do people assume that ingestion = crash ?
aussienscaleDo not mix up the different flavors of cost. Remember the cost definitions used for DODI 5000.02 acquisition programs…
Flyaway cost = airframe + engine + avionics
Weapon system cost = flyaway cost + support + long lead
Procurement cost = weapon system cost + spares
Program cost = procurement cost + R&D + Test & evaluation + MILCON
Life cycle cost = program cost + operations
The price quoted in sales brochures is “flyaway”. The price quoted by detractors is “program” (who wrongly try to pass program cost off as flyaway). There is a very large difference between the two due to the items included in the cost definitions.
Exactly, and to further ad to the confusion used by detractors is that different Governments use different criteria on how they calculate prices as well. Australia uses a very different method than most countries, which is why I have seen a lot of people use the Australian costings, because we ad in through life costs as well, whether it is an airframe, a gun or a naval ship
Cheers
Sign In
