58 more F-35As to Australia

[Anathema]

If you had to carry aircraft other than the NH-90 troop transports, would the Tiger ARH or MH-60R be more effective in supporting either ground troops or naval forces than a F-35B, especially when you only have room for 10 or so aircraft in the hangar and little or no on deck parking? Even with an escort of a Hobart class DDG and two ANZAC class FFG that is only 3 seahawks when subs are probably an equal or greater threat than other air forces in our immediate region. I also wonder if helicopter gunships might be more useful supporting troops ashore in a low intensity conflict because that is probably the most likely scenario for the LHDs to see combat.

Also would the Naval Strike Missile fit in the smaller bomb bay of the F-35B? If it couldn't then that would probably be an important consideration overall for Defence and also make them less useful to deploy aboard the Canberra class.

Finally I don't think anyone has mentioned it, but with a USMC MEU including a F-35B detachment to be based here at least part of the year and outside the cyclone season, I wonder if some cross decking and mutual support might occur, especially when the Australian army will only have 1 company of infantry per LHD trained for amphibious operations and I doubt the US will want to keep an ESG hanging around the entire time. I am sure I have seen that mentioned somewhere, but might be just be wishful thinking or an attempt to justify having the ski ramp.

[Dobey455]

ORIGINAL: dillonkbase

"The real question is whether or not the F-35s will get into situations requiring them to out-turn Flankers."

Isn't the point of all aspect missiles to eliminate this need. If an f-35 can turn tail and extend and then fire a missile over the shoulder, why would it need to get into a turning fight. And how did the flanker get that close anyway... I mean I know from the game it can take a large amount of missiles to intercept... but we can turn and extend...

This will be the third time since 1945 that we have confidently declared that modern technology will make dogfighting obsolete.

The first two times we were dead wrong, lets hope we're correct this time, because with a very large number of Western Air forces choosing the F-35 as their sole fighter type the stakes are higher than they have ever been before.

[Agiel]

Knife fights in a phone booth will likely remain a hallmark of air combat, but I do believe things like supermanueverability capabilities will be a largely simplistic indicator of dogfighting performance in the face of game-changing stuff like HOBS and improvements in sensors and datalinks.

I mean, like BVR combat was to WVR, early firearms like muskets and arquebuses did not immediately render line infantry with bows/crossbows, spears, and bayonets obsolete or obsolescent. Come the time of submachine-guns and assault rifles, there is a far more reduced emphasis on martial combat for the individual infantryman's training as his lethality with those firearms increased exponentially. In the operational sense, I think things like situational awareness and the ability to game the engagement to your favour (typically by bringing more buddies to a fight) will be more relevant to the outcome of a fight than who has the best wing loading.

[dillonkbase]

I don't think we are saying dog fighting is obsolete. These aircraft retain there cannon and are armed with missiles whose all aspect capability is a concession that dogfights will continue(otherwise the capability would never be relevant). However, the aircraft that shoots first and spends less time maneuvering defensively (bleeding altitude or airspeed) does get a leg up. This is what stealth provides.

[Spookyashell]

Why isn't the F-35 given to the partner countries in the game? I've seen lots of youtube videos of the game ( have to do some research before I buy since the price is almost double of even AAA games).

I saw on the tube that Norway didn't have F-35's in the database even though they get their 4 training planes Q1 2015 and the first operational planes in 2016. Norway is a partner in the F-35 project. While Russia had the T-50 that won't be operational until well into the 20's (probably 2022-2023)

Also where's things like JSM? (joint strike missle) the most advanced cruise missle ever made. ( made by kongsberg group, to be used on all F-35s ) The missle has stealth, radar jamming +++

Is the db encrypted or can the community add new planes, ships, weapons and so on?

[Spookyashell]

ORIGINAL: dillonkbase

"The real question is whether or not the F-35s will get into situations requiring them to out-turn Flankers."

Isn't the point of all aspect missiles to eliminate this need. If an f-35 can turn tail and extend and then fire a missile over the shoulder, why would it need to get into a turning fight. And how did the flanker get that close anyway... I mean I know from the game it can take a large amount of missiles to intercept... but we can turn and extend...

This! When even military radars have serious problems tracking a bloody boing 737 when it turns off their transponders beacon, how the .... are they gonna track a plane like a F-35 with a radar signature like a small bird?

[Agiel]

I think one of the big things to consider is how this works in a combined arms environment. It's one thing for people to say that the latest in non-NATO AESA radars and double-digit SAMs could detect VLO or even stealth aircraft at practical engagement ranges. It's an entirely different thing to do that in a complex ECM environment with TALDs and MALDs saturating their radar scopes (with the MALDs doing their own jamming), HARM shooters just waiting for their emission, and the F-35s just waiting for a missile to lift off so that it can drop an SDB down the TEL crew's pants.

[Spookyashell]

ORIGINAL: Agiel

I think one of the big things to consider is how this works in a combined arms environment. It's one thing for people to say that the latest in non-NATO AESA radars and double-digit SAMs could detect VLO or even stealth aircraft at practical engagement ranges. It's an entirely different thing to do that in a complex ECM environment with TALDs and MALDs saturating their radar scopes (with the MALDs doing their own jamming), HARM shooters just waiting for their emission, and the F-35s just waiting for a missile to lift off so that it can drop an SDB down the TEL crew's pants.

You shouldn't even need ECM to keep a F-35 hidden most of the time. Even military radars wasn't able to track the missing Malasia airlines jumbojet after the pilots turned off the beacon. There was no ECM in play there, still the plane was lost from military radars not long after they turned off the beacon, and the plane was in the air for several hours after they turned it off. So when they are not able to track a big jet, I would think its extremely hard to track a F-35 most of the time.

[NickD]

ORIGINAL: Spookyashell
Even military radars wasn't able to track the missing Malasia airlines jumbojet after the pilots turned off the beacon. There was no ECM in play there, still the plane was lost from military radars not long after they turned off the beacon, and the plane was in the air for several hours after they turned it off. So when they are not able to track a big jet, I would think its extremely hard to track a F-35 most of the time.

It's been widely reported that the Malaysian and Thai militaries tracked MH370 until it passed beyond the range of the relevant radar stations (and keep in mind that neither military has a dense or particularly modern air defence radar network). The command and control staff operating the radars didn't do anything with this information at the time (and it seems to have taken a few days for the Malaysian government to do anything with it either...), but the 777 showed up just fine from all accounts.

[Spookyashell]

ORIGINAL: NickD

ORIGINAL: Spookyashell
Even military radars wasn't able to track the missing Malasia airlines jumbojet after the pilots turned off the beacon. There was no ECM in play there, still the plane was lost from military radars not long after they turned off the beacon, and the plane was in the air for several hours after they turned it off. So when they are not able to track a big jet, I would think its extremely hard to track a F-35 most of the time.

It's been widely reported that the Malaysian and Thai militaries tracked MH370 until it passed beyond the range of the relevant radar stations (and keep in mind that neither military has a dense or particularly modern air defence radar network). The command and control staff operating the radars didn't do anything with this information at the time (and it seems to have taken a few days for the Malaysian government to do anything with it either...), but the 777 showed up just fine from all accounts.

Really? In the Norwegian media they say the civilian radars lost contact with the plane as soon as it turned off the beacon, and the military radars about 15 minutes later, still well in range. There where lots of graphics showing step by step what happened (or what they believe happened). The military radars was able to pinpoint two huge possible corridors the plane was in, but no tracking. Thats what the media reported, I don't know. I'm no military expert.

[NickD]

The plane was outside the range of civilian air traffic control radar when the beacon was turned off over the South China Sea, but was tracked by Thai military radar as it turned west (the Thai government didn't pass this on for a week or so for some reason). It was tracked by Malaysian Air Force radar as it overflew the country, and then headed into the Indian Ocean and outside of radar range. Apparently the Indian air defence radar in the Andaman Islands should have been able to track it as well, but it was turned off at the time. Australia's Jindalee over-the-horizon system could have tracked it over the Indian Ocean, but it needs to be directed at specific areas, and apparently wasn't looking at this area at the time (or probably ever). I think that we might be getting off topic [;)]

[Spookyashell]

By tracking do you mean they had a fixed position on the plane? Everything I've read about it shows 2 huge corridors where the plane possibly was from what military radars was able to pick up. But they had no fixed position on the plane after they lost it not long after the beacon was turned off. Maybe Norwegian media was badly informed. But this was about 2 weeks after it happened, so the info should have been out by then.

Are you sure the articles you read said the radars was tracking the plane or just picked up some signals? Like I said, I don't know I just refer to what was in Norwegian media, and they were all over the story. It was main news for about 3 weeks.

[Spookyashell]

ORIGINAL: NickD

Can F-22s and F-35s really feasibly routinely operate without AWACS support as that infographic shows? Flying around with their radars on to detect incoming aircraft would obviously compromise their stealth features, and Australia has recently spent a small fortune buying Wedgetail AEW&C aircraft which are intended to operate with its F-35s. The F/A-18Gs are also meant to support the F-35s once they arrive so I'm sceptical about the infographic claiming that jammers won't be needed either.

F-22 will never see combat. The plane can't even take rain without destroying the radarabsorbing coat covering the fuselage. Not to speak of up to 100 hours of maintainace for every hour in the air. They plane is also so expensive that the US don't want to use them in combat in fear of losses. Also problems with oxygen they still haven't figured out +++. The F-22 is basicly a disaster. As it stands right now, no more F-22's will be built, it ends at 189 planes.

[NickD]

ORIGINAL: Spookyashell

By tracking do you mean they had a fixed position on the plane?

In short, yes, though nothing was done with the information for some days:
*Malaysia: http://www.smh.com.au/national/mh370-mi ... 34vmn.html
*Thailand: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-19/malaysia/5332052

The paths from the satellite pings had to be used to figure out where the plane went after it left the range of these radars.

[AlmightyTallest]

http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/F22AssertionsAndFacts.pdf

Assertion: F-22 maintenance man-hours per flying hour have increased, recently
requiring more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour airborne.

Facts: The F-22 is required to achieve 12.0 direct maintenance man-hours per flight
hour (DMMH/FH) at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has
accumulated 100,000 flight hours. In 2008 the F-22 achieved 18.1 DMMH/FH which
then improved to 10.5 DMMH/FH in 2009. It’s important to recognize this metric is to be
met at system maturity, which is projected to occur in late 2010. So the F-22 is better
than the requirement well before maturity.

Assertion: The F-22 is vulnerable to rain and other elements due to its stealthy skin.

Facts: The F-22 is an all-weather fighter and rain is not an issue. The F-22 is currently
based and operating in the harshest climates in the world ranging from the desert in
Nevada and California, to extreme cold in Alaska, and rain/humidity in Florida, Okinawa
and Guam. In all of these environments the F-22 has performed extremely well.

http://articles.ktuu.com/2012-09-22/cold-weather_34045939

Air Force Says F-22 Oxygen Problem is Solved
Problem Traced to Unique Combination of Pressure Garment and Cold Weather Survival Gear Worn by Pilots in AK and VA

So, only two units in cold operating climates, and it was the pilots gear, not the plane. Solved in 2012.

Myths busted? [;)]

[Spookyashell]

Up to 100 hours, thats worst case scenario. The last report I read said an average of 30 hours maintanance for each hour in the air.

The assertion you linked to said nothing about if the coat could take the rain without breaking (having to be reapplied) it just said the plane performed good in the environments. I'll see if I find the video where the project leader of the JSF program admits that the F-22's radar absorbant coating breaks in contact with water and needs to be reapplied after they land. He also confirm the F-35's can't fly near lightning as it mess up their electronics.
He said they were still working on figuring out the problems on both planes.

About the oxygen problem, In July 2012, the Pentagon concluded that a pressure valve on flight vests worn during high-altitude flights and a carbon air filter were likely sources of at least some hypoxia-like symptoms.

edit: oh and : "It is a disgrace that you can fly a plane [an average of] only 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure" that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission, said a Defense Department critic of the plane who is not authorized to speak on the record.

Likely, not certain, and some not all.

Let me see if I can find the vid on youtube again. Its an interview with the project leader of the F-35 program where he was asked critical questions about the new planes F-22 and F-35

[Klahn]

ORIGINAL: Dobey

ORIGINAL: dillonkbase

"The real question is whether or not the F-35s will get into situations requiring them to out-turn Flankers."

Isn't the point of all aspect missiles to eliminate this need. If an f-35 can turn tail and extend and then fire a missile over the shoulder, why would it need to get into a turning fight. And how did the flanker get that close anyway... I mean I know from the game it can take a large amount of missiles to intercept... but we can turn and extend...

This will be the third time since 1945 that we have confidently declared that modern technology will make dogfighting obsolete.

The first two times we were dead wrong, lets hope we're correct this time, because with a very large number of Western Air forces choosing the F-35 as their sole fighter type the stakes are higher than they have ever been before.

This is doubly true with the naval versions. Neither the B nor the C models carry a gun internally. In fact, the C model has a thrust to weight ratio below unity even at 50% fuel.

[AlmightyTallest]

No problem Spookyashell, I'm always interested in seeing any info on this stuff.

From Wiki F-22:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor

In April 2014 the USAF confirmed in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee that installation of automatic backup oxygen systems on the F-22 fleet would be completed within twelve months, with Raptors based in Alaska already using the system; that it had been more than 24 months since the last hypoxia-like incident occurred; and that since the F-22 returned to flight in September 2011, it had averaged about 26,000 flying hours a year.

Concerning the stealth vs. Rain issue, all stealth materials degrade even with normal use of the aircraft, but there's infrastructure in place to maintain the desired RCS with these aircraft.


http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USAFResponse.pdf

CLAIM...radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance
troubles, with unexpected shortcomings --... (Para 2)

AF RESPONSE
True.

CLAIM
...such as vulnerability to rain and other abrasion... (Para 2)

AF RESPONSE
Not true. Rain is not the cause of skin issues

CLAIM
...
only 1.7 hours
.... (Para 5)

AF RESPONSE
True based on the FOT&E Report. The F-22 program does not measure mean
time between critical failure.
However, Mean Time Between Maintenance
(MTBM) has dramatically matured from 0.97 in 2004 to 3.22 as demonstrated
by Lot 6 aircraft performance.

This seems to stem from rather dated information that's probably about 10 years old now.

[Spookyashell]

leaked documents, statements from Lockhead Martin engineers, from pentagon personell and such states the plane has serious problems. Ofcoz the pentagon doesn't go out publicly and say our new planes that we spent a trillion on are useless. If the plane was acctually as great as the hype claim the F-22's would not have been cancelled.

A critical failure (on average) every 1.7 hour in the air is terrible.

The exercise PACAFs Pacific Vision on sept 25/08 revealed the United States air superiority is just a fantasy. The exercise was consisted of face the Red Team one hundred Su-27SM, four Su-30 and two Su-35 against Blue Team one hundred F-35, one hundred eighty seven F-22 and four hundred F/A-18E/F. The exercise showed the blue team higher in number of aircraft is double inferior when hundreds of Blue Forces aircraft were lost in the first 20 minutes downed by the Red Forces., on the other hand only 12 aircraft was downed in the Red Team.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27qdB1D0s9M

[AlmightyTallest]

leaked documents, statements from Lockhead Martin engineers, from pentagon personell and such states the plane has serious problems.

So random "leaked documents" or secret stuff that happens to be available to all to read, disgruntled ex Lockheed Martin engineers, and Pentagon personel that have an agenda you mean?

I've seen this stuff before, it's sometimes used to cause the opfor to underestimate capabilities.

Example, the AH-64 Apache claimed low ready rate and mechanical problems just before the 1991 war that proved to be untrue.

Regarding PacVision, it seems the media took it out of context, you can read more details on it here, always remember to take exercises against various aircraft with a huge grain of salt when trying to asertain their capabilities.:

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/January%202009/0109vision.aspx

The wargame also validated the advantages of the stealth technology that permits B-2 bombers and F-22 fighters to evade radar detection. "We are sure that we can shoot them before they can see us," said one officer.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f-35s-air-to-air-capability-controversy-05089/

On Sept 25/08, the RAND Corporation stepped in with a statement of their own concerning the August 2008 Pacific Vision simulation performed under its wide-ranging Project Air Force mandate:

“Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft”

The study doesn't even simulate actual air to air combat or recognize differences in platforms and performance. You really hate the F-22 that much that you'd just accept what the negative media sources tell you without investigating how Pacific Vision was simulated?

Deception and Disinformation, it's out there. http://www.psywarrior.com/DeceptionH.html

I'm still waiting for the Russian Plasma stealth stuff to come to fruition I heard so much about in the 90's.