RiiThis shot looks good. I’m coming to think that F-35 looks better from below than above. From above the bulging protrusion above the port intake (what is that anyway? :confused:) keeps bothering me. Below is lumpy, but somehow reads more as ‘organic’ rather than the ‘fat’ of most other perspectives.
RiiAnd despite all that the 23 was not selected, I wonder why ?
It should give you an idea of what really counts 🙂
Yeah, what really counts is the ability to deliver, and to do so on time and on budget. That’s why YF-22 as a lower-risk design beat YF-23, and that’s why any conceivable alternative course of action would’ve been better for Australia than diving into a magical Power Point jet a full 20 years in advance of operational service. :rolleyes:
Rii2035 second round procurement of cheaper higher spec F-35 and the RAAF stays highly capable
Sif. More like buy a real fighter aircraft in NGAD, Euro 6th Gen, F-3, etc.
That’s the problem with F-35, it occupies a niche that doesn’t exist now that the Soviet Union is no more. Super Hornet (or other 4.5 Gen) will do till 2030 and after that F-35 won’t cut it either, not against T-50 and J-20 derivatives fielded in equal or greater numbers. Only real niche for F-35 is for invading Iran in 2020s, and I suspect folks can guess where I’d put that on the list of national priorities.
RiiThe boys from the former U.S. Air Defense Command, said of all the aircraft they had and worked on: F-106, 102,101, 89 and F-4 the only thing slower to get into the air on a scramble than the F-4 was the F-89.
Wonder how the aircraft of today (and tomorrow) compare.
RiiGreat F1 shot. Pity it isn’t larger.
RiiGripen is by far the best performance/cost aircraft available today, and that is because Saab managed to break the so called “cost-curve”. Quite an achievement. Saab is nothing but the European “fighter mafia” 😀
Agreed. Only in the real world there’s nothing saying the most deserving contestant gets the prize. SAAB needs a big win, but I don’t know where it’s going to come from. 🙁
RiiInteresting, so you find this poster credible in what he is saying ?
Within a certain frame of reference, yes.
A temporal illustration shows what I mean by this. Wind the clock back to before the ‘one platform’ mantra and I would’ve argued for F-15AU to replace F-111 and then for a separate evaluation a decade later for an F/A-18 replacement — an evaluation which would probably be won by Typhoon. Move the clock forward a little to embrace the one platform mantra and the picture changes: now my recommendation is for Rafale. Move the clock forward a whole lot further to the present day with all water under the bridge and my recommendation is for additional Super Hornets. One can move between different frames of reference. In this example the different frames are temporal frames, but they don’t have to be.
Most real disagreements involve incompatible frames of reference, or narratives. People may debate specific points, but in terms of the core of their argument they are simply talking past one another rather than to one another: their arguments don’t connect. This is certainly the case with me vs. conventional wisdom on Australian defence issues, where underlying many disagreements between the two you will find a radically different conception of the national interest, operationalised most significantly in terms of our relationship with the United States.
So yes, I am capable of respecting and giving credence to the words of e.g. gf0012-aust without necessarily embracing their broader frame of reference. As to why one would be interested in a frame of reference not one’s own — because that is (broadly speaking) the frame of reference under which the Defence Dept. operates. And one must know the beast before it can be slain. 😉
RiiA much better looking bird than the rather mundane F-22.
Perhaps surprisingly, I think they made the right call between YF-22/23 in favour of lower-risk design. And I think it looks better too. 😮
I’ve never actually been part of the LM witch-hunt crowd. I think there are problems with any arrangement which engenders so much long-term dependence by the state on a profit-seeking entity, i.e. the market mechanisms that make capitalism work have largely broken down at this level, but this is not something specific to LM: they just played the game better than others. And certainly there have been execution problems, but I think one has to expect issues with any program of this magnitude, and it seems clear to me that the major issues with ATF and now JSF stem from the project definition phase, i.e. in JSF case the ludicrous VTOL requirement. Of course LM is going to say it can be done without compromise for $5m in two years, what else does one expect them to say? They are here to make money, not to do Pentagon’s job for it. Solution is not to impose such foolish requirements in the first place, and to have appropriate respect for risk management and fiscal responsibility in the face of contractor promises to deliver the moon.
RiiCog Sci always talks about how it is difficult to model massively parallel human brain, but I don’t think it would be too difficult to model hopsalot brain: start from underlying assumption that powers-that-be (USAF, ADF, etc.) are incapable of error, proceed to conclusion that whatever is being done is the best thing to do. Of course in this process it is imperative that the first assumption be protected against historical and contemporary counter-examples of botched programs, compromised decision-making processes, bureaucratic inertia, etc. Resulting program not exactly robust enough for real world use, but works well enough when shielded from external input. :p
Oh boo hoo, the critics are shrieking louder and louder, but that they always do before they suddenly go silent. The F-35 is well past any possible risk of cancellation and will go on to be the backbone of most of the world’s most professional air forces…. and the kiddies will blame conspiracy theories. :rolleyes:
Well such ranting is certainly one way to distract attention from the fact that JSF customer just reduced commitment from 100% to 50% of future air combat capability in light of ongoing program failings.
RiiF-16 only had Mirage 2000 as a direct western multirole competitor, the F-35 will not be that lucky.
US resources and economies of scale, combined with diplomatic leverage, mean they really have to work hard not to walk all over the competition.
Imagine if USAF had fielded an evolved F-16 with semi-conformal carriage, F119 engine and F-22-style wing. There would be no fleet crisis, the aircraft would be highly competitive on the international market, and — most hilariously of all — the F-22 would probably still be in production!
Or imagine if JSF had been executed along the lines of Super Hornet, initially stuffing SH Block II innards into a supercruising, low-observable airframe powered by existing F414 engines. Development would’ve been comparatively cheap and low risk, the aircraft would probably be in service today, and future developments (EO DAS, etc.) would be cross-compatible with Super Hornet!
Instead we get this overbred, underperforming thing that nobody knows when it will be ready or how much it will cost. Forget China, US is its own worst enemy. :p
Rii:rolleyes:
Particularly subtle you aren’t…
Nobody denies that Super Hornet is a capable aircraft, the product of a program that was both well conceived and well executed — in contrast to certain other programs one could name — and a valuable asset for the US Navy. It is also an aircraft that is mostly inferior to its principal contemporaries in Rafale and Typhoon. That you perceive any conflict between these two statements speaks to a rather juvenile understanding of these matters.
RiiOther than the obsession with spec sheet speeds I really don’t get why some people, invariably internet experts, are so obsessed with trashing the SH. It is an excellent aircraft with an excellent operational record.
Who is trashing the SH? It is an excellent program, one of the few to be admired in recent American history. And as the record to date indicates, and will continue to indicate, it is also not an aircraft that anyone bar the US Navy would be justified in selecting against its contemporaries in open competition. There is nothing to be ashamed of in this, any more than there is anything to be ashamed of in Tornado ADV or Super Etendard or JH-7.
Your continued suggestion that Super Hornet was acquired because it was just-so-awesome, rather than because it was just-so-convenient, is cute but entirely unsupported. gf0012-aust over at DefenceTalk is quite clear on the priorities guiding the acquisition.
The fact is that this second batch of SH being ordered is yet another Band-Aid added to the Band-Aid of making the first SH batch permanent, added to the Band-Aid of the original stop-gap acquisition, all applied to the gushing wound that is the F-35 program.
RiiAustralia is rapidly running in to a sucker’s hole with the on going F-35 delays some big decisions need to be made. At this time the UK(a level 1 partner) recons on having F-35 operational around 2020/22 which makes me think that the RAAF wont see F-35 operational until 2025
One thing you can count on is big decisions not being made. Rather Australia will advance inch-by-inch, each time by the minimum necessary distance, and each time in the direction of least resistance. The nation has no leaders, only bureaucrats. Three years from now we will be discussing the acquisition of a third batch of Super Hornets, and still no-one will be prepared to admit that the entire saga since 2001 has been a complete farce. :p
RiiWith regards to your second paragraph, taking a longer term view, the defence of a nation would be impossible without jobs and on that basis selecting an aircraft or anything else on the basis of industrial involvement can be seen as a sound strategic defence decision, although it obviously isn’t the only consideration. Even on a more short term basis the tax take from jobs, VAT, corporation tax mean the net cost of the plane is reduced from what it would be with no industrial input. From a strictly defence perspective this may mean more planes can be afforded thus offering increased capability overall.
Regarding the first paragraph, unless you start somewhere then Australia will never be able to field anything if left to its own devices.
If industrial development were actually a significant factor in deciding on the nation’s future air combat capability then F-35 would be out the window in favour of far more convincing alternatives such as Rafale or Eurofighter or Super Hornet or even Mirage 2K: aircraft where Australia could negotiate workshare and technology transfer significant enough to be of strategic interest. One should note something else about this approach too: it’s expensive, and involves long-term commitment in pursuit of the national interest defined independent of other nations. Needless to say, such qualities are entirely alien to the Australian experience which is about taking the politically expedient path, the cheapest path, the path of least resistance, or the path that sucks up to the Americans — preferably all of the above. :p
As to the short-term benefits you mention; in theory, perhaps. In practice it tends to be more trouble than it’s worth. Many of the nation’s most famous acquisition debacles stem from or are reinforced by the insistence on local involvement: customisation, design, assembly, etc. Note that the recent acquisitions so lauded for their smoothness — C-17 and Super Hornet — were those with no development required, no customisation for Australian requirements, and indeed no Australian involvement whatsoever! Straight off a mature production line — there are lessons in this.
I don’t mean to speak against industrial development with strategic implications, but in pursuing such goals one must first be realistic about what is attainable (and desirable) and what is not, and then backing what emerges to the hilt. Developing world-class expertise in advanced combat aircraft is beyond our resources, and even if it were not F-35 would not be the way to go about it. On the other hand Australia could do much, for example, in the realm of vehicles: we have an advanced automotive industry that could be backed by the defence department. If we were serious about strategic industrial development then one thing we wouldn’t be doing is importing second-hand American tanks, and this leads us to the inescapable truth of the matter: that there is no support for such strategic investments as we are capable of because there is no underlying vision for Australia as a nation with independent strategic interests.
RiiI’d wager it’s real
I’d wager it’s real too, nobody would Photoshop something that ugly. :p
Sign In
