See

$200m JSF
or the actual details here
OMG how much!!

it’s like shooting fish in a barrel isn’t it.

How will you resolve the jamming problem with those UCAVs?

Jamming isn’t too much of an issue, the required intelligence can be contained in a space the size of a Hellfire missle, all without resorting to communication back to base/decision maker.

As for SC, as said before I am all for it, but stealth should reduce the impact of not having SC. How will the Su-30 find and target the F-35 in the first place? If you are facing a 4/4.5 gen with F-35 you will know where they are but they will not know where you are, until much later.

Its all about the HOWS

How the JSF will match/exceed the speed of a Supercruiser without lighting up like a Christmas tree.

How does the JSF know there is a bogey inbound?, you could say AWACS, but a few Awacs killing AtoA missiles will flush the JSF out, either they fire their limited AtoA weapons on destroying the inbounds or they lose the tanker either through it being destroyed or moving back to safety.

You could say LPI radar but once detected the distance between JSF and target must be closed to less ~50km this is where a Supersonic dash is required, but the JSF will require afterburner thus negating its stealth advantage.

And again, what about the SAMs? Unless the Growlers are much more efficient than what I think they are, you would need the UCAVs to take out those. Has that been demonstrated yet? The value of manned stealth bombers have been demonstrated on a number of occations.

OK whats the target?, if its fixed then a cruise missile does the job far better than a JSF who’s carrying a potential hostage if it all goes tlts up.
If its mobile then a JSF wandering around looking for targets of oppertunity in a double digit SAM envelope is sheer madness.

I can’t think of one mission where the JSF is the most suitable aircraft for the job! AtoA = F-22, destroying a fixed site = cruise missile, destroying a moving target = brimstone from a UAV, the list goes on. (I’d be interested if you can think of one?)

IMHO the JSF is an aircraft looking for its mission and at its current price it’s not looking good.

Cheers

The F-35 IS primarily designed as a fighter.

That’s funny it described as the U.S. Air Force Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground) to replace the F-16 and A-10 and complement the F/A-22 on the JSF website.

You have to admit it would be called the JFS if it was a fighter first!!

I suppose you can call the JSF a fighter in much in the same way a Tornado GR.1 is a fighter, it has a cannon and carries AtoA weapons, if your generous is could be on par with the Tornado F.3 😉 Which is a pure fighter optimised design. I think you know what I getting at.

And (aside from an attacker being MUCH less likely to know where the F-35 intecepting it is) is that any different from any 4th or 4.5 generation fighter?

Yes because of supercruise -the Typhoon and others can supercruise which means the JSF having to engage burners if it want to merge unless the Typhoons mission planners actually want to come right down the throat of the opposition for some obscure reason only known to the JSF combat modelling simulations.

The chances of coming right down the throat of a JSF is quite remote that’s why we don’t have tethered fighter balloons ( i.e. armed to the teeth but slow movers.)

Do you even bother to read what you link to? That is no F-35 replacement. It is a USN carrier-borne equivalent of the Reaper armed recon drone.

Ahh I see what your driving at, the JSF is totally different as it doesn’t need to be capable of using “lethal precision weapons to suppress, defeat, destroy, deceive or influence a range of enemy targets,”
Did you actually read it?, OK what is the JSF primary mission??
This thing does it better and longer… and I’ll warrant its much cheaper too…

Cheers

it still a stealth and a extremly good avioncs suit. But not the best Air-to-air out there…
Hopefully the price dont rise more than it already done…
If i was in the buisness for buying i would wait out and see what happens..
You still got a few the Superbugs in the wait.

Which is an extremely sensible course of action..! sadly one which we in Australia are not following…

JWcook,

do you really think that the Typhoon would have been the best choice for Australia?

I believe that a formal evaluation would have been Australia’s best interest, the Air 6000 was ‘broken’ a long while before the JSF sole aircraft announcement, Eurofighter were already aware of the problem as Australia were not interested in the Typhoon Future capability plan and any Australia involvement. While the JSF’s future potential was not only considered but was evaluated against the other contenders original configurations…. So it was a done deal before the cursory paper evaluations that were done.

For those in the Know about Battlemodel I think it fair to say they didn’t know JACK about the Typhoon then;), and by implication the other contenders

I think that most aircraft available today could fulfil Australia’s real needs for the foreseeable future. So in short yes I think Typhoon would have been suitable, and better than the JSF for Australian industry (Australian Industry certainly thought so)

Today and in the immediate future, probably yes, but if we look 20-30 years into the future, would a fighter with external drop tanks, external munitions and pods still be acceptable?

Depends what your up against I don’t think the JSF will be suitable in 20-30 years, difference is the JSF will only be starting in Australian service in 2018 that tech level is not going to last till 2048.

Older fighters are usually struggling with newer models within 15 years of service.

Name any fighter that is 30 older than the current models that could compete with them!, that’s the situation the JSF will face as will all current fighters, the JSF is just not that special.

We will see how the F-35 pans out, however whatever happens I think they got one thing right; The VLO aspect of the program.

The only alternative to VLO fighters I can think of would be to rely more on UCAVs , cruise missiles and other stand-off weapons. Although such a solution seems to have some limitations.

Right or wrong, F-35 seems to be the only viable Western fighter program for the long-term future. Whereas the Typhoon no doubt can “wipe the floor” with a/c like SU-30 and SU-35, what about the PAK FA?

Facing the future PAK FA in a Typhoon or Rafale seems not very attractive to me…

I think the JSF will have just as much of a problem, but without the means to bug out when the situation dictates.
The JSF will be quickly over taken by UAV’s in its primary role, you simply don’t need a manned platform to go bombing, unfortunately its a bit of a slouch when it comes to AtoA, I’m not just talking about combat manoeuvring, getting into a position to attack a supercruising target will cause the JSF all sort of problems. so a jack of all trades and master of non is a bad engineering choice.

Now were committed despite the protestation of some,we have no real insight to what we will get or when.. In fact I’d go as far as to say the JSF program right now may never look in such good shape as it is now. (scary huh)

Cheers

Cheers

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/faulkner-gives-upbeat-jsf-assessment-20100329-r77x.html

So operational service in Australia is 2018, and I think this was the plan also before the delays were announced, or am I wrong?

Will the first planes still be arriving in 2014 for testing and training?

Were not allowed to take the JSF home until the testing is complete, its a US law, I don’t think we should pay for them till we actually have them onsite. (Remember the 2010 availability schedule that was important when air 6000 comp was scrapped)

and when has Faulkner given anything but an upbeat JSF assessment… The assessment he gave 2 weeks before the Sh1t hit the fan was positively glowing… and he knew the real situation as he was briefed on it.

So I tend to take anything the Australian Government says in regard to the JSF with a shovel full of salt, it bears little relation to the real situation.

Cheers

Stop trying to tell me what I’m saying and concentrate on what you said…

Where does it say they are test aircraft? did you notice that over 150 aircraft would have been delivered by the time the Australian ones were delivered in 2010, they would be production.;)

The 14 ordered by Australia will be production and will be in service as trainers.

Game set and match I think.

Goodnight