F-35 Lightning II [Archive] - Defence Talk Forum

XaNDeR

July 23rd, 2007, 02:11 PM

I stumbled accros this article , thought it might be interesting for someone

Beesley has an extensive flight test résumé that begins with graduation from the US Air Force Test Pilot School in 1979. After working on several classified programs, he became one of the first USAF pilots to fly the F-117. When he left the Air Force in 1986 to join General Dynamics in Fort Worth, Texas, he initially flew developmental flight tests for an innovative night attack system for the F-16 called Falcon Eye. This program was one of the first to use helmet-mounted displays, or HMDs, and head-steered infrared devices on a tactical aircraft.

In 1990, Beesley became a project test pilot on the YF-22 during the Advanced Tactical Fighter competition. He was principally involved with evaluating and demonstrating the flying qualities of the YF-22. Many of these flights demonstrated the tremendous high angle of attack capabilities of the aircraft. Longtime Code One readers may recall his article on flight testing the YF-22, "Report From the Future," in 1991.

After the US Air Force selected the F-22 as the winner of the Advanced Tactical Fighter competition, Beesley became the Fort Worth project pilot for the F-22 program. He was the second pilot to fly the Raptor and one of the lead pilots in envelope expansion flights. Over his career, he has accumulated more than 5,000 hours of flight time in more than forty-five different types of aircraft.

Beesley became chief test pilot for the F-35 program in 2002. He will be in charge of flight testing all three variants to be produced: the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing, or CTOL, variant; the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing, or STOVL, variant; and the F-35C carrier variant, or CV. Code One editor Eric Hehs interviewed him for his impressions of flying the first F-35 and for his perspective on flight testing this and subsequent Lightning II fighters.

What is your strongest memory from the first flight of the F-35?

The thrust impressed me most. The first flight profile called for the F-35 to immediately go to 15,000 feet. I had to keep the speed at 225 knots during the climb since I had to keep the gear down, which limited the maximum speed.

I used nose attitude instead of modulating engine thrust to control airspeed during the climb to 15,000 feet. In other words, I had to raise the nose to slow down the airplane. I took off and started pulling back on the stick. I had to keep pulling back to stop from accelerating over the 225-knot limit. So I reached a rather steep angle, about twenty-five degrees of pitch. The steep angle, witnessed by the crowds on the ground, highlighted the raw power I was experiencing in the cockpit. The thrust surprised me. Not in the sense of "Gee, how am I going to handle all of this power?" But more like, "Wow, this is more than I expected."

What was your overall impression of the airplane after that flight?

Overall, I was impressed by how well the entire first flight came together. I started the airplane, ran through all of our ground checks, taxied out to the end of the runway, and took off. The test team told me I taxied out to the end of the runway much faster than I did for any of the taxi tests. But I was ready to go and so was the airplane.

I was also pleased with how smoothly the airplane went through all the ground checks and how smoothly the airplane flew. As an example, the flap schedules on the original F-22 shook the Raptor at speeds above 200 knots. This objectionable buffet was addressed right away through a software change. Paul Metz [first pilot to fly the F-22] and I are the only two pilots who ever experienced that buffeting. I thought that I might experience some sort of buffeting with the first F-35, but I didn't.

We learned a lot from the F-22. Our engineers deserve a lot of credit. In fact, many of those who completed the checkout and testing of similar systems on the F-22 Raptor are performing the same work on the F-35. To name a few prominent examples: Kevin McTeague works on electrical systems; John Magbuhat works on flight controls; Paul Thoennes works on hydraulics; and Roy Schoberle from Pratt & Whitney works on the F135 engine. Many others with similar experience did the design integration work over the last several years. We also have some seasoned veterans involved in flight testing the new airplanes, which includes Mary Beth O'Loughlin as the test conductor for the first flight. We have a great team.

How has your impression of the F-35 changed in subsequent flights?

I continue to be impressed with the performance of the aircraft. The F-16s flying chase don't have near the fuel capacity or payload capability as the F-35. The Lightning II does very well in comparison. For example, the F-35 often forces the chase aircraft into afterburner when it is in military power.

The airplane's handling qualities continue to be very good throughout the flight envelope. When I raise the landing gear, the airplane flies very smoothly. The landing gear is sequenced, which is unique for a fighter. The nose gear comes up first, then the main gear follows. The gears drop down in reverse order. Another strong impression is that the airplane wants to fly a lot faster than we are allowed to fly at this point in the flight test program. Most of the time we fly at about thirty to forty percent of available thrust. This airplane can go out to high subsonic speeds very easily without using afterburner.

Describe the basic progression of the first flight tests.

On the first flight takeoff, we received an air data degrade caution message. It indicated a mismatch in the lower-level comparison in the air data system, specifically with angle of attack. However, we had no loss of capability. Simply put, readings from the right and left air data probes need to agree within a certain tolerance, and they didn't on the first flight.

Because the air data system is redundant, we were able to fly on the left probe after the right one was turned off. The caution message cut the flight short, but we still managed to perform some of the planned maneuver blocks, which included throttle transients and one-half stick and pedal inputs. The handling qualities in these maneuvers were excellent with a notably smoother response and a better roll rate than I expected.

The greatest accomplishment of the first flight was the performance of the subsystems. The integrated power package, electrical, electro-hydrostatic actuators, flight control computers, and other subsystems worked without a problem for the entire flight. The performance of these systems is a great testimony to the team that brought the F-35 to first flight. After the faulty probe was replaced, we performed an additional 110-knot taxi test on 4 January to calibrate the new probe. We gathered additional air data on subsequent flights during January to further calibrate the air data system.

On Flight 2, we cycled the landing gear and then flew formation for the first time with the gear up. On Flight 3, we performed the first military power takeoff. On Flight 4, we performed the first low-altitude maneuvering. On Flight 5, we performed the first afterburner engine transient as well as performing other engine transient testing. On Flight 6, we conducted a fuel dump test. This test was conducted early in the flight test program to gather real-world data to inform design decisions on the fuel dump mechanization for the carrier variant, or F-35C. We performed higher angle of attack maneuvers on Flight 6 as well.

On Flight 7, we evaluated the speed brake operation. The F-35, like the F-22, doesn't have a dedicated speed brake like most previous fighters. Instead, it decelerates through the flight control software by deflecting control surfaces in the same manner as the Raptor. We use the leading-edge flaps as well as the trailing-edge flaps and the rudders to slow the airplane. Unlike the F-22, the F-35A and F-35B have no ailerons. That explains why it uses a combination of leading- and trailing-edge flaps and rudders to slow down. I found that the buffet levels were very low, essentially the same as buffet levels of the F-16 with the speed brake in operation. Deceleration rates in the F-35 are similar to the
F-16 as well, which is a design goal.

On Flight 8, we flew the software fix for the air data system issues we saw on the first flight. The new software allowed me to use full lateral stick rolling maneuvers. Handling qualities during these rolls were outstanding with roll rates matching predictions. We had to cut this flight short because our chase aircraft had a mechanical problem.

On Flight 9, we performed the first afterburner takeoff. Flight 9 was also our longest flight to that point, 1.5 hours. We took off with 3,500 pounds short of a full fuel load and landed with about 4,000 pounds of fuel remaining. So we shorted ourselves more fuel than the entire internal fuel capacity of an F-16 and still flew for 1.5 hours without aerial refueling. During Flight 9, we also flew close formations, power approaches, and maneuver blocks to sixteen-degrees angle of attack at 20,000 feet.

On Flight 10, we flew with the HMD for the first time. The mission included full-stick 360-degree rolls, snap engine transients in afterburner, and close formation flying. We also landed in fifteen-knot crosswinds for the first time. Flight 11 involved several lower altitude maneuver blocks as well as maneuvering with the speed brake. Jeff Knowles, the second pilot to fly the F-35, completed his first flight on Flight 12. I took the aircraft to 30,000 feet on Flight 13, performed a touch-and-go landing, completed maneuvers to seventeen-degrees angle of attack, and cycled the aerial refueling door.

As far as envelope expansion goes, we have conducted engine transients up to maximum afterburner from takeoff to 30,000 feet. We have been to 345 knots, 3.5 g's, and sixteen-degrees angle of attack and seventeen degrees with the landing gear down. We have three engines available for AA-1 but have flown only one. We want to fly as many hours as we can on it.

Summing up the flying characteristics: the F-35 flies a lot like the F-22 and has the size and feel of an F-16. The F-35 is a solid and very responsive airplane.

How does this test progression compare to previous fighter flight test programs you have worked?

The F-35 envelope expansion and flying qualities work is similar to previous fighter programs. That similarity may give the impression that we're conducting the same tests in the same ways. But that impression is false. A superficial comparison between the development of this fighter and the development of legacy fighters neglects mission capability.

Our customers are getting a whole lot more in the F-35 program. They are getting a baseline configuration with capabilities that required twenty or thirty years to develop for the F-16: infrared sensors, targeting pods, night vision systems, head-mounted cueing systems, and agile beam radars to name a few. During those years of development, the Air Force and Lockheed Martin conducted separate test programs to validate those capabilities. Those capabilities are all incorporated in this phase of the F-35 program. A truer comparison between legacy programs and the F-35 program would include the development time and cost for these additional capabilities.

Are any of these capabilities and systems unique to the F-35?

The F-35 has many unique capabilities. The helmet-mounted display and the integrated power package, or IPP, are two good examples. We began flying the HMD on Flight 10 and have flown with it on all succeeding flights. The HMD is much more than a helmet-mounted sight, which is flying in operational F-16s today as the joint helmet-mounted cueing system, better known as JHMCS. Our HMD also functions as a head-up display. That is, it shows all the information normally placed on the HUD, including speed, altitude, heading, and flight path information.

The system is working very well, and pilots quickly forget that the flight symbology is being displayed on the helmet rather than on a conventional head-up display. We don't have a HUD on the first F-35. And we have no plans to put one in any other F-35. Putting an HMD in the first airplane is a gutsy call. We are on track with its development. The initial results of incorporating an HMD in the test program have been better than we expected. The HMD is a significant jump in technology. This system has been performing very well.

The IPP, my second example, is a sophisticated turbine that acts as the auxiliary power unit on engine starts. When the engine is running, the IPP functions as an environmental control system, or ECS. When required, it also functions as an emergency power unit during emergency mode transitions. The IPP, then, performs the functions of three subsystems found on legacy fighters.

The first F-35 represents a configuration of the aircraft before the company undertook a significant weight-reduction effort. Why is the program testing an aircraft that is not completely representative of subsequent production models?

While the internal structure may be different, the shape of this first F-35 is almost identical to subsequent production versions. So gathering aerodynamic data on this configuration gives us an opportunity to evaluate performance characteristics on a real aircraft as opposed to making predictions using models or simulations. Additionally, testing and integrating all of the new systems in the F-35, as I described previously, gives us more than a year's head start on problems that we may encounter in testing and integrating these same systems in subsequent aircraft. Along with the HMD and IPP, other systems and features incorporated on subsequent F-35s include the F135 engine, electrical system, fuel system, electro-hydrostatic actuators, cockpit, weapon bay doors, and bay ventilation. So this first version of the Lightning II gives us an outstanding opportunity to reduce risk as we move forward with the program.

Let's take the cockpit as one example of the similarities between this and subsequent aircraft. With the exception of two switches, the AA-1 cockpit is the same as the next F-35, which will be a STOVL variant. And that F-35B STOVL cockpit will be the same across all three variants. On the STOVL airplane, one switch will read "conversion" instead of "hook." All of the other switches are the same. While the engine page on the F-35B has a display that deals with STOVL, most every other display on this variant is the same as the displays on the other variants. The missions systems are the same on all three variants. This commonality reduces the total scope—and expense—of the program. We are combining into one program what would have involved three separate and independent development programs in the past.

The electro-hydrostatic actuators, or EHAs, are another excellent example of risk reduction we're accomplishing on AA-1. This is the first real electric jet. The flight control actuators, while they have internal closed-loop hydraulic systems, are controlled and driven by electricity—not hydraulics. The F-35 is the only military aircraft flying with such a system. We proved that the approach works on six flights of the AFTI F-16 during the concept demonstration phase of the JSF program. We already have many more flights on EHAs on this test program. Because we are flying production versions of the EHAs on AA-1, we won't have to prove the EHA design on subsequent F-35s.

What are the immediate production plans for subsequent F-35s, and how will those aircraft be used in the flight test program?

Current plans call for fifteen flight test aircraft, including AA-1. The next four aircraft produced will be F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing, or STOVL, variants. These will be followed by three conventional takeoff and landing, or CTOL, aircraft. Then the first three carrier variant, or CV, aircraft will be produced followed by another STOVL aircraft and one more CV. Two more CTOL aircraft complete the production run of test aircraft. AF-1 and AF-2, the next CTOL variants to be produced, will be used for flight sciences; that is, they will be used to test aero-dynamics and flight controls and to expand the flight envelope. AF-3, 4, and 5 will be used to develop and test mission systems.

We will have three F-35B, or STOVL, variants for flight sciences and two F-35Bs for testing mission systems. The first flight sciences B-model will be dedicated to STOVL operations. The other two B-models will be used to expand the flight envelope.

We will have four F-35Cs dedicated to the flight test program. The first two carrier variants will be used for flight sciences. The third aircraft will be used for carrier suitability testing. The fourth aircraft will be used to test mission systems.

We had as many as six aircraft devoted to testing mission systems for the F-22. We have seven aircraft in this program. Fortunately, everything we do on the F-35A for mission systems applies to the F-35B and F-35C. The variants have only minor differences in terms of antenna sizes and shapes.

But the real virtue of this flight test program is that we have seven flight sciences aircraft. While the F-22 had only one true flight sciences aircraft, we need more because we have three variants as well as many external payload configurations that require testing as well. The potential external loadings on the internal weapon stations and six external hard points create a very large test matrix, which will eventually include most of the weapons carried by the F-16, F/A-18, Harrier, and A-10.

What will be the biggest challenge for the flight test program?

For AA-1, our biggest challenge is to be aggressive enough to find out all the things we don't yet know about the aircraft's performance. We have some real opportunities to learn how EHAs work at high speeds. Proving the HMD is another challenge. Testing the first aircraft gives our predictions for subsequent aircraft credibility. We want to knock off all the big risks with this first airplane and reduce all the other risks for future airplanes. After that, a big challenge is managing fourteen flight test aircraft in three test sites. Testing short takeoffs and vertical landings is always a challenge. First, we have to make STOVL work. We have to make short takeoffs and vertical landings as straightforward and as easy as possible. Pilots should not have to spend most of their training time on the first and last five minutes of the flight. How we mechanize transitions from horizontal to vertical flight will free up time for training skills more pertinent to the mission.

Developing mission systems will be a huge challenge, and testing those systems is one of the more critical parts of the program. The CATBird, a 737 modified to carry the F-35 sensor suite and associated systems, will help us reduce risk associated with mission systems. The number of weapons and configurations to clear also represents a challenge. If pilots can't employ weapons, the airplane is of no value. And we are testing these weapons in a large envelope. The F-35 can maneuver post-stall like an F/A-18. So we have a lot ahead of us. But we are certainly up to these challenges.

LINK : http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2007/articles/apr_07/flighttest/index.html

Aussie Digger

July 24th, 2007, 11:02 PM

Ozzy Blizzard

July 24th, 2007, 11:41 PM

These excerpts from that article seem especially promising:

The thrust impressed me most. The first flight profile called for the F-35 to immediately go to 15,000 feet. I had to keep the speed at 225 knots during the climb since I had to keep the gear down, which limited the maximum speed.

The steep angle, witnessed by the crowds on the ground, highlighted the raw power I was experiencing in the cockpit. The thrust surprised me. Not in the sense of "Gee, how am I going to handle all of this power?" But more like, "Wow, this is more than I expected."

The F-16s flying chase don't have near the fuel capacity or payload capability as the F-35. The Lightning II does very well in comparison. For example, the F-35 often forces the chase aircraft into afterburner when it is in military power.

Another strong impression is that the airplane wants to fly a lot faster than we are allowed to fly at this point in the flight test program. Most of the time we fly at about thirty to forty percent of available thrust. This airplane can go out to high subsonic speeds very easily without using afterburner.

On Flight 9, we performed the first afterburner takeoff. Flight 9 was also our longest flight to that point, 1.5 hours. We took off with 3,500 pounds short of a full fuel load and landed with about 4,000 pounds of fuel remaining. So we shorted ourselves more fuel than the entire internal fuel capacity of an F-16 and still flew for 1.5 hours without aerial refueling. During Flight 9, we also flew close formations, power approaches, and maneuver blocks to sixteen-degrees angle of attack at 20,000 feet.

Summing up the flying characteristics: the F-35 flies a lot like the F-22 and has the size and feel of an F-16. The F-35 is a solid and very responsive airplane.

and

The F-35 can maneuver post-stall like an F/A-18...

I think a few of the naysayers are going to be eating their ill-chosen words in years to come...

Come on AD....

Quoteing the lockheed martin test pilot is far from an objective opinion. i did like "fly's alot like an F22, but has the size and feel of an F16", i'm just wondering how it "flew" like an F22 exactly? Because it has more thrust than an F16, or because it has more payload??? :rolleyes:

The article seems to state that the F35 is a well built aircraft has more thrust than an F 16 and thats about it. But comparing it to an F22? The fact of the matter is it will never have the range, payload, thrust, manuverability, kinemetic performance, radar performance or LO performance of the F22. Primarily because it wasn't designed to be.

I dont see how this article sheds any light on the F35's combat capability, it doesnt even mention the two elements that will make the F35 a lethal air superiority platform, comprehensive LO and its ability to use data from offboard sensors. So i know we might be geting exited about our favorite platform, i have to admit i was wrong about it, but dont use an interview with the LM test pilot which says nothing we didnt allready know and doesent adress the F35's real combat systems as justification that you were right and they were wrong.

Aussie Digger

July 24th, 2007, 11:50 PM

Come on AD....

Quoteing the lockheed martin test pilot is far from an objective opinion. i did like "fly's alot like an F22, but has the size and feel of an F16", i'm just wondering how it "flew" like an F22 exactly? Because it has more thrust than an F16, or because it has more payload??? :rolleyes:

The article seems to state that the F35 is a well built aircraft has more thrust than an F 16 and thats about it. But comparing it to an F22? The fact of the matter is it will never have the range, payload, thrust, manuverability, kinemetic performance, radar performance or LO performance of the F22. Primarily because it wasn't designed to be.

I dont see how this article sheds any light on the F35's combat capability, it doesnt even mention the two elements that will make the F35 a lethal air superiority platform, comprehensive LO and its ability to use data from offboard sensors. So i know we might be geting exited about our favorite platform, i have to admit i was wrong about it, but dont use an interview with the LM test pilot which says nothing we didnt allready know and doesent adress the F35's real combat systems as justification that you were right and they were wrong.

How about come on Ozzy?

The biggest issue most have with the aircraft is it's supposed lack of aerodynamic performance.

And given only 2 persons on this planet has yet flown anything like an operationally representative version of the aircraft (which is debatable because it hasn't received the "weight loss" mods) I fail to see how ANYTHING is more authoritative than this.

Stealth? No problems.

Avionics/networkings/sensors? No problems.

Range? No problems. In fact you are also incorrect about this. The F-35 is likely to possess GREATER range than the F-22.

Physical performance is the only issue that anyone could level at the F-35 in relation to the basic platform itself. Obviously risk exists with the program, funding, development etc, but in relation to the basic design of the aircraft, it's performance was the only conceivable thing wrong with it. The aircraft is performing brilliantly in it's trials to date. The lighter versions to come will do better.

When a clean F-16 chase plane has to go to afterburner to follow it in dry thrust, don't you find that somewhat illuminating?

Hence why this article is important and illustrating...

AGRA

July 25th, 2007, 01:59 AM

Quoteing the lockheed martin test pilot is far from an objective opinion. i did like "fly's alot like an F22, but has the size and feel of an F16", i'm just wondering how it "flew" like an F22 exactly? Because it has more thrust than an F16, or because it has more payload??? :rolleyes:

This will never end... When the F-35 is in operational service and meeting and exceeding all its goals any reporting of this will still be labelled 'un-objective' by the Air Power Australia types. It’s a shame we don’t have a two-seat version to give Carlo Kopp a ride of his life so he can enthuse about it like he did the Super Hornet…

Eventually enough facts will be on the ground that only the crazies will be baffled by the anti-F35 [Admin: Scatalogical invective removed] . Until then we all have to put up with this kind of nonsense.

The best thing about the F-35s performance compared to the F-22 that the test pilot didn't evaluate is that the cost efficiency of the system means you can have at least two F-35s for every F-22. I'm yet to have it adequately explained to me how one F-22 will be better than two F-35s in any combat scenario?

PS This is not an invitation to launch into said debate! In fact I probably shouldn't have even typed this post... the moderators are going to hate me.

metro

July 25th, 2007, 02:22 AM

when they're comparing the amount of fuel the "F-35" returned with (after 1.5hr) compared to an F-16, does it say anywhere if they're comparing an "un-armed" F-35 with the average F-16 flying with a full payload, or are they comparing "apples to apples." Meaning, the F-35 flying with a full payload will have the same results compared to a "chase" F-16 flying with a full payload (is that what they are already comparing or a "light" F-35 vs. a "heavy" F-16)?

Ozzy Blizzard

July 25th, 2007, 04:38 AM

This will never end... When the F-35 is in operational service and meeting and exceeding all its goals any reporting of this will still be labelled 'un-objective' by the Air Power Australia types. It’s a shame we don’t have a two-seat version to give Carlo Kopp a ride of his life so he can enthuse about it like he did the Super Hornet…

Eventually enough facts will be on the ground that only the crazies will be baffled by the anti-F35 bullshit. Until then we all have to put up with this kind of nonsense.

The best thing about the F-35s performance compared to the F-22 that the test pilot didn't evaluate is that the cost efficiency of the system means you can have at least two F-35s for every F-22. I'm yet to have it adequately explained to me how one F-22 will be better than two F-35s in any combat scenario?

PS This is not an invitation to launch into said debate! In fact I probably shouldn't have even typed this post... the moderators are going to hate me.

I know what happened in the last F35 thread so i'll keep it short and sweet.

It may be exeeding its objectives but if you look at those ojectives as far airodynamic and kinemetic performance, they are braodly in the range of an F16. And that is not as capable as an F22 or SU30MKI, no matter how badly you want it to be.

it seems you think any critisism of the F35 is bulls**t and pro APA propaganda.

If the F35 is so much better value for money and allmost as capable as the F22A, then i wonder why the USAF chief of staff considers the F35 as his 10th priority, when aquireing the full complement of 380 F22A's, the KCX (new tanker) and the CSCAR-X (new search and resucue helecopter) are his top 3. If the F35 will bring such value for money and awesome capabilities to the USAF, why isn't it more important than a new search and rescue helicopter? In an interview with Combat aircraft magazine volume 8 he admitted that the F35 programe was now too big to stop. This is the head of the orginization for whom the platofrm was primarily designed for. Perhaps he's just fallen for the anti F35 bulls**t and is annother one of those "APA types". :rolleyes:

LM who built the platform and are trying to market it overseas and keep the programe alive give it kill ratio v Su30 as 4:1, they give the F22A's as 12:1 if i remember correctly. They seem to think the F22 is worth 2 F35's in the air superiority role, 3 infact. And this does not take the fact that the F22 routeenly scores rediculous kill ratio's v 4th and 4.5th gen platforms, including your pretions Super Hornet, and i'm not sure how the Su 30 would fair any better.

IMO the F35 is the best option for the RAAFwith the F22A not being made available for export, but a late build squadron of F22A's would be perfect.

there is no reason for foul language

Mods thats the last i'll say on the issue. I know what happened last time but when someone has an implicit dig at you i must assume you are entitled to respectfully defend yourself are you not?

Grand Danois

July 25th, 2007, 05:30 AM

[list] If the F35 is so much better value for money and allmost as capable as the F22A, then i wonder why the USAF chief of staff considers the F35 as his 10th priority, when aquireing the full complement of 380 F22A's, the KCX (new tanker) and the CSCAR-X (new search and resucue helecopter) are his top 3. If the F35 will bring such value for money and awesome capabilities to the USAF, why isn't it more important than a new search and rescue helicopter? In an interview with Combat aircraft magazine volume 8 he admitted that the F35 programe was now too big to stop. This is the head of the orginization for whom the platofrm was primarily designed for. Perhaps he's just fallen for the anti F35 bulls**t and is annother one of those "APA types". :rolleyes:

I would think such a list reflects the political environment it works in wrt funding; as such not a direct priority list, but a compromise between what is needed and what has a secure budget. If the F-35 is self evident and is "now too big to stop", then you don't need to make a case for it.

Just 2 bits.

Aussie Digger

July 25th, 2007, 09:37 AM

I know what happened in the last F35 thread so i'll keep it short and sweet.

It may be exeeding its objectives but if you look at those ojectives as far airodynamic and kinemetic performance, they are braodly in the range of an F16. And that is not as capable as an F22 or SU30MKI, no matter how badly you want it to be.I admit it's been a while since I visited the L-M website, but as I recall the F-35A was designed to meet or exceed the aerodynamic performance of the F-16/F/A-18 series fighters.

If Mr Beezley's comments are to be believed (and I fail to see anyone outside of L-M possessing the data to justify such a position), then the F-35 has clearly exceeded the performances levels of both aircraft...

If the F35 is so much better value for money and allmost as capable as the F22A, then i wonder why the USAF chief of staff considers the F35 as his 10th priority, when aquireing the full complement of 380 F22A's, the KCX (new tanker) and the CSCAR-X (new search and resucue helecopter) are his top 3. If the F35 will bring such value for money and awesome capabilities to the USAF, why isn't it more important than a new search and rescue helicopter? In an interview with Combat aircraft magazine volume 8 he admitted that the F35 programe was now too big to stop. This is the head of the orginization for whom the platofrm was primarily designed for. Perhaps he's just fallen for the anti F35 bulls**t and is annother one of those "APA types". :rolleyes:

Depends which article you read I suppose. I've read another where he stated the F-35 WAS in the top 3 highest projects for the USAF, with only the Tanker and CSAR-X ahead of it, due to the well-known airframe issues with those types...

LM who built the platform and are trying to market it overseas and keep the programe alive give it kill ratio v Su30 as 4:1, they give the F22A's as 12:1 if i remember correctly. They seem to think the F22 is worth 2 F35's in the air superiority role, 3 infact. And this does not take the fact that the F22 routeenly scores rediculous kill ratio's v 4th and 4.5th gen platforms, including your pretions Super Hornet, and i'm not sure how the Su 30 would fair any better.

I've not seen anything from L-M or anyone else talking about official "kill ratio's" for the F-35 OR the F-22 for that matter. I've seen some speculation from a number of exercises that talks about this or that aircraft's ability. It's hardly "beyond reasonable doubt" sort of material though is it?

The point I was making before was an attempt to point out to those who have made up their minds, that perhaps everything is not as cut and dried as they would have it seem.

Going around and attempting to scare everybody with dire predictions of an aircraft's performance, before the thing has even flown, seems rather ridiculous to me...

rjmaz1

July 25th, 2007, 09:59 AM

Ozzy Blizzard

July 25th, 2007, 11:14 AM

[/LIST]I admit it's been a while since I visited the L-M website, but as I recall the F-35A was designed to meet or exceed the aerodynamic performance of the F-16/F/A-18 series fighters.

If Mr Beezley's comments are to be believed (and I fail to see anyone outside of L-M possessing the data to justify such a position), then the F-35 has clearly exceeded the performances levels of both aircraft...

I did say broadly. I dare say wing loading, roll, pitch and yaw rates, acceleration, top speed ect ect will be broadly in the same class as the F/A 18 and F16. They are apt to be better i agree, which is impressive given the LO capabilities of the aircraft. I'm not disputing any of the factual statements beasly said, but he made a direct comparison to the F22 which doesent really make too much sence. You were right about the combat radii, the F35 will be slightly better when clean.

Depends which article you read I suppose. I've read another where he stated the F-35 WAS in the top 3 highest projects for the USAF, with only the Tanker and CSAR-X ahead of it, due to the well-known airframe issues with those types...

I guess so. It may well have been a top priority of the USAF at one point, the article states that the F35 was once very high up on the list but does not enjoy the favor it once had. This article is a direct interview with General Micheal Moseley, USAF chief of staff so it is from the horses mouth. But this doesnt therefore indicate that ithe F35 is a bad platform, i brought it up in rebuttal to a point stating that the F35 was a much more cost effective soloution as there is nothing 1 F22A can do that 2 F35's cant. It seems the apparant partial apathy of the USAF brass to the F35 (the ones who are not affiliated with the programe) and Moseleys fighting for every single F22 he can get his hands on would indicate there definatly are things the F22 can do that the F35 cant.

I've not seen anything from L-M or anyone else talking about official "kill ratio's" for the F-35 OR the F-22 for that matter. I've seen some speculation from a number of exercises that talks about this or that aircraft's ability. It's hardly "beyond reasonable doubt" sort of material though is it?

I never stated that it was anything more than marketing numbers and i never said it was official. They were the CLAIMED kill ratio's 4:1 for the F35 and 12:1 for the F22. They're the ones trying to sell the damn things and it seems they THINK 1 F22 will be worth 3 F35's in A2A combat, even though the F22 has shown much much better kill ratio's against similar 4th gen platforms AKA SU30. I never stated it was beyonde a reasonable doubt, but if LM considers the F35 to be significantly less capable than the F22 at A2A combat (which funnily enough is its design peramiters), when there is a furtile export market for the F35 would indicate that then it probably is to around the tune of 3 to 1.

The point I was making before was an attempt to point out to those who have made up their minds, that perhaps everything is not as cut and dried as they would have it seem.

Going around and attempting to scare everybody with dire predictions of an aircraft's performance, before the thing has even flown, seems rather ridiculous to me.....

Thats a fair enough point. However even if a platform hasn't actually flown yet you can be reasonably sure of its capabilities if you just look at its design specifications. A platform is may indeed exceed its objectives, however that doesent mean that it can dramaticly alter the platforms performance. The F35 may indeed end up being more agile and kinemiticaly capable than its objectives, but that doesent mean it will be significantly so, ie somehow somehow be as capable as the SU30 MKI Typhoon or F22A in this reguard. So i dont see a problem in discusing a platforms capabilities just becaus it isnt in full scale production yet. As i have said before requirement=design=cost, dont expect it to be something it wasnt designed to be.

Ozzy Blizzard

July 25th, 2007, 12:25 PM

The F-35 is shaping up to be exactly as i mentioned previously.

The F-35 may end up being the second fastest fighter under wartime conditions. As in carrying a typical warload of a couple bombs, a couple missions and no use of afterburners to increase range/endurnace. The Eurofighter, Rafale and SU-30 suffer from having to carry weapons extrenally and the drag penalties that apply.

It may well be quite fast when transiting, but under combat conditions the Typhoon alone will be much quicker. It has demonstrated the ability to cruise at Mach 1.3+ with 6 AAM's. Are you claiming the F35 will be able to do that? If the F35 carried anything more than 6 AAM's (assuming they use double rail launchers in the internal bays) it would be externally and then your dealing with drag too.

How often are air superiority fighters going to be carrying a couple of bombs with a couple of missions so dispersed that afterburners wouldn't be permitted? And when would a pilot be prohibited from using his afterburners in a combat scenario? They may be ordered to transit at low speed, they all would be anyway, but there is no way a pilot would go into airial combat without using his afterburners if he needed to. I highly doubt this would occur under any sircumstances.

Though it only takes a small advantage in detection range or speed to absolutely decimate the enemy. I believe the F-22 if used well will be able to get an immense kill ratio against the F-35.

I disagree. It takes alot more than a little bit more speed of a little bit of a smaller detection radius to decimate an enemy. Whats the use of detecting the enemy just before he detects you especially when you have to get well inside their detection radius to employ your weapons in a usefull manner. In this case it takes a combination of technology giving the pilot acsess to a set of tactics that the oposition does not have the ability to employ or couter. For example an F35 (or a pair of F35's) engageing a pair of SU 30MKI(or equivelent) equiped with advanced ESM may not fair that well. They probably would get the first shot and would probably win the encounter, but they sacrifice their LO (to some extent) by using their radars. The APG 81 may be LPI but im not sure how well it will fare against advanced ESM, especially when tracking an enemy aircraft. The fact is that the radar is putting significant electromagnetic energy into the target aircraft, and no amount of frequency jumping is going to make the emissions undetectable. But you add a wedgetail into the equasion the ballgame changes significantly. It can track the incoming bogeys and datalink the information to the F35's who can launch on the Wedgetails track. The F35's stay emissions cold and the Flankers ESM only ever see's the wedgetail 400km's away untill they detect the AMRAAM. They could hit the flankers with an EA if they needed to.

Its not just the fact that the F35 has LO or networking or an AESA radar, any of them by themselves are not that impresive, its all of these factors including the quality of offboard sensors and their ability to be fully intergrated into the F35 that allow a revoloutionary set of tactics to be employed, and i have to admit that this is somethink Dr Kopp and APA are either not adressing or havent considered.

The kill ratio's of 10:1 are unrealistic as the enemy will never have 10 fighters in the same location. The F-22 will not attack 10 enemy fighters. The F-22 will kill the enemy one by one and live to fighter another day where it will take out a few more and then a few more... Eventually 100 enemy aircraft have been shot down without a single F-22 loss.

The numbers aren't supose to mean that every F22 that enters into combat will shoot down 12 enemy aircraft, it does indicate throughout a nairial engagement or campaign against the SU 30 air threat the F22 equiped force will shoot down 12 enemy aircraft for eveny one that is lost to enemy fire. When you hear 3:1 kill ratio's in vietnam or 10:1 in korea it doesent mean every UN/US fighter shot down 3 or 10 aircraft (respectively), it means that for every aircraft lost to enemy fire 3 or 10 enemy aircraft were brought down.

The huge training and tactical advantage allows the F-22 to clear the skies. A 12:1 ratio against the SU-30 is quite laughable really. If both sides had equal intel, awac and training then maybe the 12:1 ratio might be correct.

That is exactly what the so called projected kill ratio's are suppose to outline, all things being equal a force equiped with F22A's will shoot down a force equiped with SU 30's at a rate of 12 for every 1 that is lost.

The F-35 with these assets assisting will allow it to be superior to anything except the F-22.

In general air superiority engagements i totaly agree with you. The F35 + AIM120D + Wedgetail + high speed/high capacity datalink will be a combination that will be hard to beat, at least untill low wavelength radars in the HF frequency are viable in the air combat arena.

The F-22 put simply is overkill for everyone except the USAF. For the same reason Australia doesn't need its own B-2 bomber they are both overkill.

I have to disagree with you on this one. The B2 is a bad analogy for the F22A. There are functions the F35 can not perform in the same maner as the F22. As an interceptor of high speed, high or low altitude strike packages or cruise missiles, the F35 will not perform anywere near as well as the F22A. The japanese stated that the F22A is an esential part of its future force structure because of this exact capability. It can effectively counter high speed high alititude missiles in a maner no other platform can. If the Tu 22 Backfire ever does become a part of the PLAAF's order of battle, the F22A and to a lesser extent the F15J are the only platforms that can counter it. The high speed high altitude penitration coupled with capable standoff weapons is a very hard combination to stop, thats why the Chinese are so keen on it and the Japanese are so Keen on countering it. Also the F22A will be much much more survivable than export F35's when attempting to penitrate an IADS with systems as capable as S300/S400. The F35's narrowband LO will be much less capable in this environment and it will be heavily relyant on SEAD/DEAD and EW support.

And dont start on about the F35 being faster crap. Tu 22 is designed to penitrate at Mach 2 numbers with a full payload, so are many other platrforms. The fact that a platform may be slightly faster when crusing may indeed mean that it moves arround the battlespace a bit faster for 95% of the mission. But for the 5% that really counts, the combat itself, afterburners are very usefull, even if they do drink a bit. And to claim that the F35 is a beter kinemetic performer because for the other 95% it moves arround faster when for the 5% that were it actually enguages the enemy it is outclassed by it's peers is not rational. It ammounts to stating that transit speed is more important than combat performance in influencing the outcome of the combat itself.

Grand Danois

July 25th, 2007, 12:39 PM

I disagree with the "narrowband LO" label. Its LO is optimised for high freq bandwidths...

;)

Ozzy Blizzard

July 25th, 2007, 12:49 PM

Meaning a narrow group of bandwiths, less comprehensive than the F22A's LO which is optimised for most bandwiths. Whats wrong with narrowband? Sounds quite logical to me.

Grand Danois

July 25th, 2007, 01:15 PM

Meaning a narrow group of bandwiths, less comprehensive than the F22A's LO which is optimised for most bandwiths. Whats wrong with narrowband? Sounds quite logical to me.

I may be pedantic, but "narrowband" seems to to imply that is not LO at other than high freqs. It is exclusive. "Optimised for high freqs" is more precise imv. (Also because bandwidth is used as a measure of data transmission, iirc. I.e. narrowband itself implies low data transmission rates).

10ringr

July 25th, 2007, 09:04 PM

It may well be quite fast when transiting, but under combat conditions the Typhoon alone will be much quicker. It has demonstrated the ability to cruise at Mach 1.3+ with 6 AAM's. Are you claiming the F35 will be able to do that? If the F35 carried anything more than 6 AAM's (assuming they use double rail launchers in the internal bays) it would be externally and then your dealing with drag too.

How often are air superiority fighters going to be carrying a couple of bombs with a couple of missions so dispersed that afterburners wouldn't be permitted? And when would a pilot be prohibited from using his afterburners in a combat scenario? They may be ordered to transit at low speed, they all would be anyway, but there is no way a pilot would go into airial combat without using his afterburners if he needed to. I highly doubt this would occur under any sircumstances.

I disagree. It takes alot more than a little bit more speed of a little bit of a smaller detection radius to decimate an enemy. Whats the use of detecting the enemy just before he detects you especially when you have to get well inside their detection radius to employ your weapons in a usefull manner. In this case it takes a combination of technology giving the pilot acsess to a set of tactics that the oposition does not have the ability to employ or couter. For example an F35 (or a pair of F35's) engageing a pair of SU 30MKI(or equivelent) equiped with advanced ESM may not fair that well. They probably would get the first shot and would probably win the encounter, but they sacrifice their LO (to some extent) by using their radars. The APG 81 may be LPI but im not sure how well it will fare against advanced ESM, especially when tracking an enemy aircraft. The fact is that the radar is putting significant electromagnetic energy into the target aircraft, and no amount of frequency jumping is going to make the emissions undetectable. But you add a wedgetail into the equasion the ballgame changes significantly. It can track the incoming bogeys and datalink the information to the F35's who can launch on the Wedgetails track. The F35's stay emissions cold and the Flankers ESM only ever see's the wedgetail 400km's away untill they detect the AMRAAM. They could hit the flankers with an EA if they needed to.

Its not just the fact that the F35 has LO or networking or an AESA radar, any of them by themselves are not that impresive, its all of these factors including the quality of offboard sensors and their ability to be fully intergrated into the F35 that allow a revoloutionary set of tactics to be employed, and i have to admit that this is somethink Dr Kopp and APA are either not adressing or havent considered.

The numbers aren't supose to mean that every F22 that enters into combat will shoot down 12 enemy aircraft, it does indicate throughout a nairial engagement or campaign against the SU 30 air threat the F22 equiped force will shoot down 12 enemy aircraft for eveny one that is lost to enemy fire. When you hear 3:1 kill ratio's in vietnam or 10:1 in korea it doesent mean every UN/US fighter shot down 3 or 10 aircraft (respectively), it means that for every aircraft lost to enemy fire 3 or 10 enemy aircraft were brought down.

That is exactly what the so called projected kill ratio's are suppose to outline, all things being equal a force equiped with F22A's will shoot down a force equiped with SU 30's at a rate of 12 for every 1 that is lost.

In general air superiority engagements i totaly agree with you. The F35 + AIM120D + Wedgetail + high speed/high capacity datalink will be a combination that will be hard to beat, at least untill low wavelength radars in the HF frequency are viable in the air combat arena.

I have to disagree with you on this one. The B2 is a bad analogy for the F22A. There are functions the F35 can not perform in the same maner as the F22. As an interceptor of high speed, high or low altitude strike packages or cruise missiles, the F35 will not perform anywere near as well as the F22A. The japanese stated that the F22A is an esential part of its future force structure because of this exact capability. It can effectively counter high speed high alititude missiles in a maner no other platform can. If the Tu 22 Backfire ever does become a part of the PLAAF's order of battle, the F22A and to a lesser extent the F15J are the only platforms that can counter it. The high speed high altitude penitration coupled with capable standoff weapons is a very hard combination to stop, thats why the Chinese are so keen on it and the Japanese are so Keen on countering it. Also the F22A will be much much more survivable than export F35's when attempting to penitrate an IADS with systems as capable as S300/S400. The F35's narrowband LO will be much less capable in this environment and it will be heavily relyant on SEAD/DEAD and EW support.

And dont start on about the F35 being faster crap. Tu 22 is designed to penitrate at Mach 2 numbers with a full payload, so are many other platrforms. The fact that a platform may be slightly faster when crusing may indeed mean that it moves arround the battlespace a bit faster for 95% of the mission. But for the 5% that really counts, the combat itself, afterburners are very usefull, even if they do drink a bit. And to claim that the F35 is a beter kinemetic performer because for the other 95% it moves arround faster when for the 5% that were it actually enguages the enemy it is outclassed by it's peers is not rational. It ammounts to stating that transit speed is more important than combat performance in influencing the outcome of the combat itself.

It sounds like you guys are arguing about things that are pointless to begin with because the F-35 was meant to be a low budget solution to the vastly more capable F/A 22. Comparing it to air superiority fighters is nice but why. In fact it'll probably hold it's own with anything but an F/A 22 (that duzn't meant it's going to be the world beater the 22 is) So, stop bickering about this bird. It's good, we'll need it but we MUST HAVE air superiority and that will ONLY be achieved with the production of the F/A 22 in significant quantities. The hype has gotten rediculous! Honesty to Pete your talking about having a single engine F-16-esk fighter going after the Tu22? Why don't you then send up a V22 Osprey to intercept the TU160 while your add it. Or perhaps you can use your golf cart to catch the Buran too. Hutch

AGRA

July 26th, 2007, 12:10 AM

It may be exeeding its objectives but if you look at those ojectives as far airodynamic and kinemetic performance, they are braodly in the range of an F16. And that is not as capable as an F22 or SU30MKI, no matter how badly you want it to be.

OK so we don’t enter the F-35 in any Red Bull Air Races against the Su-30… However kinematic performance is not going to help the Su-30 in any available force structure go up against the F-35 in their force structure. Kinematic performance didn’t help the MiG-25s against the F-15s and it won’t the next generation.

it seems you think any critisism of the F35 is bulls**t and pro APA propaganda.

Not at all. But the rubbishing of the test pilot as ‘not a reliable source’ of comment is typical of information warfare inspired practices of APA. While APA has failed to have any real impact on the force structure decisions for the RAAF they have been quite successful at running a public relations campaign. I suggest they give up on aviation and move to the US and set up a political campaign agency and rake in some big dollars spinning bullshit for other scumbags.

If the F35 is so much better value for money and allmost as capable as the F22A, then i wonder why the USAF chief of staff considers the F35 as his 10th priority,

See my response above – more propaganda nonsense. You know very well this isn’t a list of priorities in terms of force structure. It’s a list of priorities to obtain funding from Congress. Unfunded items go to the top those with funding like F-35 to the bottom. Gobbells would be proud of this IW spin.

LM who built the platform and are trying to market it overseas and keep the programe alive give it kill ratio v Su30 as 4:1, they give the F22A's as 12:1 if i remember correctly. They seem to think the F22 is worth 2 F35's in the air superiority role, 3 infact. And this does not take the fact that the F22 routeenly scores rediculous kill ratio's v 4th and 4.5th gen platforms, including your pretions Super Hornet, and i'm not sure how the Su 30 would fair any better.

More abject nonsense. Since when are USAF F-22s going to fight RAAF Super Hornets? Are you planning something? A resurgence of Mark Latham for PM? Or Perhaps Bob Brown? Or maybe Mufti Al Halwali...

Those LD ratios sound ridiculous. F-22 and F-35 will both achieve a LD against the Su-30 of 0-x, x being the number of Su-30s available to the enemy.

there is no reason for foul language

And you claim to be an ‘Ozzy’… For shame, for shame…

Tu 22 is designed to penitrate at Mach 2 numbers with a full payload, so are many other platrforms.

Ohh Carlo I don’t know what’s worse that you believe this crap or that you’ve convinced others its important. The Tu-22!!!!

You know there are other ways to counter very small number of pinprick Tu-22 attacks, even in the increasingly unlikely event they were ever targeted at Australia. The US Navy in the 1980s that faced a real Tu-22 threat didn’t rely purely on high speed interceptors they had a range of responses. As do we… JORN being on top of that list…

It sounds like you guys are arguing about things that are pointless to begin with because the F-35 was meant to be a low budget solution to the vastly more capable F/A 22.

I’m afraid this is nonsense. The F-35 achieves significant cost savings compared to the F-22 by being smaller in size (weight = cost) and by being bigger in volume achieving efficiencies of scale. It doesn’t skimp on systems and capability, having more systems in it than the F-22.

A force made up of F-35s will achieve air dominance just like the F-22. The mantra that the F-22 is the golden bullet is just crap design to keep it’s project alive. Or maybe an insurance policy against something unexpected like The Transformers or Godzilla… Because China and/or Russia are not going to be anywhere near challenging the US’s strategic might within our lifetimes.

Ozzy Blizzard

July 26th, 2007, 12:16 AM

I may be pedantic, but "narrowband" seems to to imply that is not LO at other than high freqs. It is exclusive. "Optimised for high freqs" is more precise imv. (Also because bandwidth is used as a measure of data transmission, iirc. I.e. narrowband itself implies low data transmission rates).

Sorry mate i meant frequency, your quite right.

But the "narrowband" lable indicates that it is optimised for these wavelengths and therefore less capable at lower wavelenths, in comparison to other LO platforms. Anyway its easy to say.

Ozzy Blizzard

July 26th, 2007, 12:51 AM

It sounds like you guys are arguing about things that are pointless to begin with because the F-35 was meant to be a low budget solution to the vastly more capable F/A 22. Comparing it to air superiority fighters is nice but why. In fact it'll probably hold it's own with anything but an F/A 22 (that duzn't meant it's going to be the world beater the 22 is) So, stop bickering about this bird. It's good, we'll need it but we MUST HAVE air superiority and that will ONLY be achieved with the production of the F/A 22 in significant quantities. The hype has gotten rediculous! Honesty to Pete your talking about having a single engine F-16-esk fighter going after the Tu22? Why don't you then send up a V22 Osprey to intercept the TU160 while your add it. Or perhaps you can use your golf cart to catch the Buran too. Hutch

For the USAF your right there's no need to compare them.

It would be nice if we all had a defence budget to match the US but the rest of us peasants out here are going to have to choose our capabilities wiseley. In the Australian/Japanese context we are facing a "threat" nation who is rapidly increasing in capabilities which include a proposed Tu22 purchase and a variety cruise missile and standoff capabilities. For the RAAF we have $16-20bn AUD to spend i would imagine, so we cant just design our own F22esk aircraft and build 380 of them can we? At the moment we areplanning to buy ~100 F35A's and possibly some F35b's. So in this context the F22A does need to be compared to the F35 as to wht will best suit the RAAF's and JSDAF's needs and in the australian context whether an investment in a squadron sized purchase of the F22 (assuming it becomes available for export) is worth the expense. If not then there we mavy very well be sending a "F16 esk platform" to intercept a Tu22, but we wont have any ospreys if they buy any blackjacks.

Brandon

July 26th, 2007, 01:27 AM

Two new articles for those who think the Raptor will be exported...
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2921712&C=america
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/070725/kyodo/d8qjmf281.html

gf0012-aust

July 26th, 2007, 01:44 AM

Newsflash to all.

There's an emerging increase in the use of scatalogical invectives, if we could remember to keep it out of threads.

Although some of us may swear like wharfies in day to day comms, not everyone else does.

I'm guilty of this as much as everyone else, so its a reminder to all.

Ozzy Blizzard

July 26th, 2007, 02:52 AM

OK so we don’t enter the F-35 in any Red Bull Air Races against the Su-30… However kinematic performance is not going to help the Su-30 in any available force structure go up against the F-35 in their force structure. Kinematic performance didn’t help the MiG-25s against the F-15s and it won’t the next generation.

Its not just Kinematic performance and there is a bit more difference between the F35's raw capabilities and the Su30's thean the MiG 25 & F15 (which apart from its small difference in top speed was superior in most other raw peramiters if i'm not mistaken) but anyway. Your right the F35 will be superior to the SU30 in air to air combat, drasticly so when operating with offboard sensors in a network. But personally i'm not of the opinion, unlike all of those super hornet fanns out there, that a fighter is only as capable as its radar and RCS. You seem to think a fighter's raw performance is meaningless as you constantly dismiss any advantage any platform has in this reguard over the F35 including the F22. Maybe we could dave some money and coat a 737 in F35 style RAM and put 6 APG 79's on the front of the damn thing? The AIM 120D payload would be massive and those pesky SU 30's wouldnt stand a chance, we could even call it MOTHRA and scare the hell out of the commies eh? Sine an aircraft is only as good as its radar after all.

Not at all. But the rubbishing of the test pilot as ‘not a reliable source’ of comment is typical of information warfare inspired practices of APA. While APA has failed to have any real impact on the force structure decisions for the RAAF they have been quite successful at running a public relations campaign. I suggest they give up on aviation and move to the US and set up a political campaign agency and rake in some big dollars spinning bullshit for other scumbags.

I know this is a personal thing for you. Its quite clear you hate Dr kopp with a passion. Thats fine your more than intitled to your opinion. But if your going to hijack every single thread were someone critisizes the F35 as an outlet to attack APA your going to make said discussions both boaring and untennable as they will end up in an argument and closed down. For gods sake you opened a thread with the name "malaysia want's to buy super hornets" and attempted to use it as an outlet to insult me personally and somehow use an article on maylasia's future platform aquisitions to justify your opinions on Dr Kopp. PLEASE AGRA i'm getting sick of this anti APA crap and i'm sick of this conversation. Is it even slightly possible that you, as a defence professional, can discuss the F35 in a professional maner without useing it as a vehical to attack APA. To be honnest your just being childish and your going to reck annother interesting thread in order to persue your own personal agenda. How about we have a respectfull discussion without mentioning APA or attacking each other personally? If thats too much then how about not talking about them for 60% of your post?

And the test pilot is an employee of LM is he not? I have heard several defence professionals dismiss performance data on russian systems as unreliable and irrelevent as marketing data even though it was given by the russian companies who make the system envolved, but anything a lockheed martin employee says is gospell right? Now i'm not saying that he is an unrelyable source, he flew the aircraft. But if it wasnt meeting performance peramiters he wouldnt be advertising that fact at a press conference would he? Pluss he said it flew alot like the F22 which emplyed its capabilities were similar to the F22 which i dispute.

See my response above – more propaganda nonsense. You know very well this isn’t a list of priorities in terms of force structure. It’s a list of priorities to obtain funding from Congress. Unfunded items go to the top those with funding like F-35 to the bottom. Gobbells would be proud of this IW spin.

This is exactly what i mean, see my response above, the USAF chief of staff clearly states what his priorities are for future aquisitions and you accuse me spreading propaganda??? mate your starting to sound silly!

And the F35 doesent have funding, its in the SDD phase for gods sake! The F22 is in squadron service. AFAIK congress have only funded the test aircraft, all 9 of them, and there are NO guarentees on the numbers to be bought, so much for your little theory. The chief of staff see's securing funding for a rescue helicopter, a new set of tankers, a full complement of F22's and 6 other things before securing funding for the full complement of F35's. Now i'm not spinning that at all its what the man said. The magazine is Combat Aircraft Volume 8 Number 2 May 2007 page 42.

More abject nonsense. Since when are USAF F-22s going to fight RAAF Super Hornets? Are you planning something? A resurgence of Mark Latham for PM? Or Perhaps Bob Brown? Or maybe Mufti Al Halwali...

Its a way of comparing combat capability, and the point is that LM who built the platform consider it to be 3 times less capable at A2A combat than the F22.

Those LD ratios sound ridiculous. F-22 and F-35 will both achieve a LD against the Su-30 of 0-x, x being the number of Su-30s available to the enemy.

More of the composed, professional and logical argument i have come to expect from you AGRA, you even back up statements with some sort of logical eveidence.:rolleyes:

And you claim to be an ‘Ozzy’… For shame, for shame…

I am mate, and i dont have the cleanest mouth on the planet, but i dont swear here, its not the place for it.

Ohh Carlo I don’t know what’s worse that you believe this crap or that you’ve convinced others its important. The Tu-22!!!!

This is EXACTLY what i mean. I'm not sure if you are "accusing" me of being "Carlo" or you are directing your comments at Mr Kopp somewhere out there in DT world. If you are accusing me of being Dr Carlo Kopp for the third time it shows just how immature you really are and i just hope other members arn't being fooled by the blue name next to your posts, there is nothing preofessional about your conduct at all. Its more like a pissed off 14yr old who likes calling people ames but doesent actually deal with anything they are saying or the argument at hand.

You know there are other ways to counter very small number of pinprick Tu-22 attacks, even in the increasingly unlikely event they were ever targeted at Australia. The US Navy in the 1980s that faced a real Tu-22 threat didn’t rely purely on high speed interceptors they had a range of responses. As do we… JORN being on top of that list…

For one thing its not just the Tu22, thats may be the apex platform but its the cruise/standoff missile threat in general that needs to be considered. You dont seem to be considereing it at all and just lableing any platform aquisitions or capability's of nations in the region as irrelevent, since its all APA propaganda and then point out the USAF's capabilities. Incase you didnt notice the RAAF is NOT an arm of the USAF.

And the USN based their Fleet air defence arround the E2 and the F14. They may have had other responses but fleet air defence was based arround these platforms. I wonder how well they would have faired without them?

I’m afraid this is nonsense. The F-35 achieves significant cost savings compared to the F-22 by being smaller in size (weight = cost) and by being bigger in volume achieving efficiencies of scale. It doesn’t skimp on systems and capability, having more systems in it than the F-22.

Ahhhh, its cheaper because its smaller!!!!! Wow is that why? So its as simple as Weight=Cost, apart from that they have identicle capabilities and the F35 is just a smaller version of the F22! Thanks AGRA thats awesome!!!!

Its funny though, i thought the F35 was specifically designed to fulfill a role that was copmpleatly different to the F22 and its LO, raw performance and systems were all intended to allow the platform to fulfill that role? i thought the F35 was intended to be fulfill low level CAS and BID requirement very well with A2A combat as a secondary objective, while the F22 was designed to fulfill the air superiority and strategic strike roles and therefore both of the platforms are optimized for these jobs. But maybe your right and the only difference is the size of the aircraft, since it doesent sacrifice any capabilities with the reduction on cost its all because of the metal and composit materials saved on the smaller structure:rolleyes:.

And the F35's systems are all geared arround the low level strike requirement, the EOTS, DAS and its LO are all designed arround the F35 being able to be lethal and survivable in a low level high threat envireonment. The only "system" that is applicable to BVR A2A combat is the APG 81, and the APG 77 is superior. t seems the F22's systems are geared towards being very capable at A2A combat and the F35's seem to be geared towards being very capable at CAS/BID, funny that since they were the jobs they were inteded to do. But your right there is no real difference in capabilities and the only difference the F35 will be cheaper is because on the materials saved in its smaller design (:onfloorl:) and because they are building more of them.

A force made up of F-35s will achieve air dominance just like the F-22. The mantra that the F-22 is the golden bullet is just crap design to keep it’s project alive. Or maybe an insurance policy against something unexpected like The Transformers or Godzilla… Because China and/or Russia are not going to be anywhere near challenging the US’s strategic might within our lifetimes.

LOL yeah the F22 is the project under threat, even though its in squadron service and the F35 is in the SDD phase. maybe congress will take away the F22 in service at the moment, shut down the production line give the project managers a good spanking because the F35 is such a better opotion for the whole USAF as there is noting the F22 can do that the F35 cant just as well:onfloorl:.

Let me get this streight. In your opinion when the air force chieff of staff states that the F35 is his 10th priority its all propaganda, and when anyone from the USAF touts the F22's capability its propaganda designed to keep the project 'alive" when its allready operational, but anything positive stated about the F35 is gospell and claims that it is just a smaller F22 and pretty much as capable are spot on?

Mate your a laugh a minet. How about we have a balanced logical discussion about the platform and its contemporaries??? Are you capable of doing that or does that APA itch just need scratching too much?????

StingrayOZ

July 26th, 2007, 03:02 AM

I think this story is just one saying the F-35 is on track and has no major drama's, yet. Which is good. I wouldn't read much more into it than that.

The F-35 may or may not out perform its inital targets. In which varients? By how much? Good questions yet to be answered.

Australia needs a strike aircraft more than an air superiority aircraft. F-35 should make up a majority of the force under any dream condition (ie F-22 export allowed, unlimited budget).

The F-35 is a brillant aircraft. Of all nations, Australia will be a big winner because:

F-35A is a very good strike aircraft that will be a improvement on the F-18's
F-35A is reasonable air superiority fighter against older and fewer opponents and will outperform current F-18's. Certainly its buck rogers stuff for the region.
F-35A will outrange F-18's
The F-35B will allow Australia to regain carrier power. (making them better strike and air superiority allowing more aircraft to operate in a region, more of the time, with more fuel etc).

It allows Australia to purchase around 100 aircraft. Which is more than it really has operating now (F-18 + F-111).

It unifies its logististics from F-18, F-18 SH, F-111 to one major aircraft type.

The F-22 question is really several years away. If Australia wanted F-22's they would be behind US orders and Japan. And its icing sugar for a problem that does not yet exist. It won't be a election issue anyway because of the time frame. Sure have a healthy debate now, but realistically F-22's won't make remote sense for alteast another 5-10 years at the very earliest.

Ozzy Blizzard

July 26th, 2007, 03:12 AM

For anyone who's interested here's a video of AA1 going through flight testing, roll tests, afterburner tests and an afterburner takeoff. Its landing gear up so its the first time you can get a real feel for the look of the production model F35A.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0YUK-FeW4o

Tasman

July 26th, 2007, 05:04 AM

Aussie Digger

July 26th, 2007, 05:33 AM

Thats a fair enough point. However even if a platform hasn't actually flown yet you can be reasonably sure of its capabilities if you just look at its design specifications. A platform is may indeed exceed its objectives, however that doesent mean that it can dramaticly alter the platforms performance. The F35 may indeed end up being more agile and kinemiticaly capable than its objectives, but that doesent mean it will be significantly so, ie somehow somehow be as capable as the SU30 MKI Typhoon or F22A in this reguard. So i dont see a problem in discusing a platforms capabilities just becaus it isnt in full scale production yet. As i have said before requirement=design=cost, dont expect it to be something it wasnt designed to be.

This argument presupposes you actually KNOW what the specifications are at the time of judging said aircraft's performance.

The F-135 engine is a perfect example of this. According to L-M literature it's a 40,000lbs engine (full afterburn). Yet before it's development has neared completion it has already demonstrated sustained thrust at 43,000lbs.

The F-136 has apparently demonstrated 52,000lbs of power to date and is even further behind in it's development than the F-135.

Doing your sums is all well and good but if the figures are wrong to start with, what does that say about ones conclusions?

Talk about basing arguments on a house of cards...

Aussie Digger

July 26th, 2007, 05:49 AM

And the test pilot is an employee of LM is he not? I have heard several defence professionals dismiss performance data on russian systems as unreliable and irrelevent as marketing data even though it was given by the russian companies who make the system envolved, but anything a lockheed martin employee says is gospell right? Now i'm not saying that he is an unrelyable source, he flew the aircraft. But if it wasnt meeting performance peramiters he wouldnt be advertising that fact at a press conference would he? Pluss he said it flew alot like the F22 which emplyed its capabilities were similar to the F22 which i dispute.

Jon Beezley was a test pilot on the F-22 program.

Given he is the LEAD test pilot on the F-35 program as well, I can't imagine a more authoritative source on these matters at present.

L-M manufacturers BOTH aircraft too I might add.

There is not 1 shred of evidence demonstrating that the F-35 is not meeting it's performance parameters (whatever they may be). There is OTOH, a significant body of evidence that whatever some people state the performance of the F-35 might be, the platform is currently proving them wrong and is showing a very great level of performance, greatly exceeding even " aerodynamically clean" F-16 chase planes, which is NO mean feat...

As RAAF seems destined to acquire it to the exclusion of anything else, I for one HOPE it continues to do so.

Ozzy Blizzard

July 26th, 2007, 10:38 AM

This argument presupposes you actually KNOW what the specifications are at the time of judging said aircraft's performance.

The F-135 engine is a perfect example of this. According to L-M literature it's a 40,000lbs engine (full afterburn). Yet before it's development has neared completion it has already demonstrated sustained thrust at 43,000lbs.

The F-136 has apparently demonstrated 52,000lbs of power to date and is even further behind in it's development than the F-135.

Doing your sums is all well and good but if the figures are wrong to start with, what does that say about ones conclusions?

Talk about basing arguments on a house of cards...

The point is mate that the thing wont be supermanuverable, it wont supercruise and it wont have a better wing loading than it was spesifically designed to have. That you can tell by looking at the damn things specifications and it aint gonna change no matter how much you want it to. the F135 may indeed be 10% more powerfull than expected, but it is still optimised for sub sonic cruise and wont change the game dramaticaly. That's the point my freind, its may be somewhat better than its design specifications but it wont somehow transform into a supermanuverable F22 eater during testing. I did say it may be somewhat better than its goals didnt I? No need to get defenceive about it.

Ozzy Blizzard

July 26th, 2007, 10:57 AM

Jon Beezley was a test pilot on the F-22 program.

Given he is the LEAD test pilot on the F-35 program as well, I can't imagine a more authoritative source on these matters at present.

L-M manufacturers BOTH aircraft too I might add.

Thats my point...... He is an LM employee. Now i'm not saying that he's lying, not at all, i'm just saying IF the F35 wasnt performing aswell as intended he wouldnt be saying so in a press conference would he? That doesent mean you should disreguard what he's saying, but just take it with a smidgin of salt thats all. I notice you all take any statements made by the russians on their capabilities with a bucketload, how about a pinch for Beezley????

There is not 1 shred of evidence demonstrating that the F-35 is not meeting it's performance parameters (whatever they may be). There is OTOH, a significant body of evidence that whatever some people state the performance of the F-35 might be, the platform is currently proving them wrong and is showing a very great level of performance, greatly exceeding even " aerodynamically clean" F-16 chase planes, which is NO mean feat...

Well there isn't much evidence at all so the absance of evidence is hardly indicative of something is it? But anyway i'm not doubting that it is meeting its test objectives but dont take it as written in stone is all.

As RAAF seems destined to acquire it to the exclusion of anything else, I for one HOPE it continues to do so.

So do i mate, so do I. Nothing else that is currently available for purchase would suit our needs better. But since whenever one has something bad to say about the F35 then one must have Kopps view on the RAAF's future force structure let me make myself quite clear. I am fully supportive of the F35 purchase but IF the F22 does indeed become available for export we should IMO replace the F18F's with F22's, which wouldgive us a force structure on par with the USAF and more than capable of meeting any forseeable threat or situation.

Ozzy Blizzard

July 26th, 2007, 11:17 AM

So back to the real discussion...

i've got a couple of questions reguarding the F35 for those of you out there in DT land, they are primarily dealing with the RAAF.

1) Is the F35 capable of carrying the Harpoon AShM internally? If not what will be the basis of the F35's marritime strike capability untill JSM becomes available if it ever does? JASSM seems to be a very expensive single option and it has to be carried externally.

2) Is there any chance of the MoD aquireing F35C's? Significantly better wing loading and a smidgin more range may be attractive? the RAAF does have a history of aquireing longer ranging USN variants of aircraft? Would this be feasable and would there be a major difference in cost given the timing of the aquisition???

3) Is their a case for the F35B??? If so should a small number, 10~12, be purchased for the fleet air arm to specifically operate of the Canberra class LHD's or should 24 or so be purchased to equip a full RAAF squadron? The F35B is less capable that A & C but allow tremendous basing flexibility??

radiosilence

July 26th, 2007, 11:31 AM

So back to the real discussion...

i've got a couple of questions reguarding the F35 for those of you out there in DT land, they are primarily dealing with the RAAF.

1) Is the F35 capable of carrying the Harpoon AShM internally? If not what will be the basis of the F35's marritime strike capability untill JSM becomes available if it ever does? JASSM seems to be a very expensive single option and it has to be carried externally.

There is plan to integrate the Naval Strike Missile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile#Joint_Strike_Missile)(Joint Strike Missile) with the JSF. The JSF will be able to carry 2 of them them in its internal bay.

Lockheed Martin Markets Kongsberg NSM Missile
http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0207/news/010207_nsm.htm

Ozzy Blizzard

July 26th, 2007, 11:45 AM

There is plan to integrate the Naval Strike Missile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile#Joint_Strike_Missile)(Joint Strike Missile) with the JSF. The JSF will be able to carry 2 of them them in its internal bay.

Lockheed Martin Markets Kongsberg NSM Missile
http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0207/news/010207_nsm.htm

The airdroped version will be called Joint Strike Missile (JSM) and should be available on block 4 lightnings. We're set to buy a few block 3's though. Just wondering what our marritime strike options are since thats pretty important for the RAAF.

radiosilence

July 26th, 2007, 12:37 PM

The airdroped version will be called Joint Strike Missile (JSM) and should be available on block 4 lightnings. We're set to buy a few block 3's though. Just wondering what our marritime strike options are since thats pretty important for the RAAF.

Harpoons on the Super Bug?

nero

July 26th, 2007, 01:13 PM

.

what is the service-ceiling & wing-loading of the F-35 ???

also what is the stall-speed of the F-35 ??

just wondering what could be the maximum windshear that it can withstand ???

.

AGRA

July 26th, 2007, 08:57 PM

Its You seem to think a fighter's raw performance is meaningless as you constantly dismiss any advantage any platform has in this reguard over the F35 including the F22.

Not at all. Just the high weighting giving to the apparent marginal kinematic and aerodynamic performance improvement of types like the Su-30 over the F-35 as part of an index of lethality. This kind of weighting has fuelled the constant statements by APA and their ilk that Australia will not have any ‘first class’ fighters whereas other countries equipped with Su-30s will have plenty.

The charts – which ‘Ozzy Blizzard’ has gleefully linked to – indicate huge shortfalls in Australia’s overall capability. As you now point out above this is total nonsense. The F-35s advantages in a whole range of other areas and operating as part of a total air combat force mean the Su-30’s better wing-loading or whatever count for naught in terms of lethality.

I know this is a personal thing for you. Its quite clear you hate Dr kopp with a passion. Thats fine your more than intitled to your opinion. But if your going to hijack every single thread were someone critisizes the F35 as an outlet to attack APA your going to make said discussions both boaring and untennable as they will end up in an argument and closed down.

Not at all. I’m simply treating this low level of argument with the scorn it deserves. Not hate – scorn… Its not a personal attack on APA and their ilk but on the argument they offer and ‘Ozzy Blizzard’ has promoted and supported at every opportunity on this forum.

And the test pilot is an employee of LM is he not? I have heard several defence professionals dismiss performance data on russian systems as unreliable and irrelevent as marketing data even though it was given by the russian companies who make the system envolved, but anything a lockheed martin employee says is gospell right?

The big difference here is civil society. We have it, the Russians don’t. This is why publicly listed companies like Lockheed Martin take so much time to make public statements – they are getting it proofed by lawyers and the like because if they are found to be misinforming customers they will get sued for it. Things don’t work that way in Russia or for that matter… wait for it… Air Power Australia!

Quite literally you can take a statement like this from Lockheed to the bank, from others… well I don’t make investments based on financial advice emanating from Nigeria or the propaganda department of Russian MoD.

This is exactly what i mean, see my response above, the USAF chief of staff clearly states what his priorities are for future aquisitions and you accuse me spreading propaganda??? mate your starting to sound silly!

Quite wrong. This is an annual statement made by the USAF CoS outlining their priorities to lobby Congress for funding. Things that do not have secure funding go to the top. Which is why after USAF secured the MYP for F-22 it went to the bottom. Plus these priorities are weighting in accordance with those projects that will need the most lobbying to get approval. A huge project like F-35 which is highly unlikely to get cancelled doesn’t need the same effort as a pie in the sky grab for more F-22s which has little political support. From last year’s statement:

“Tanker hits top of the charts for recapitalization priority

by Staff Sgt. C. Todd Lopez
Air Force Print News

10/13/2006 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- The Air Force's new No. 1 procurement priority is the KC-X tanker, replacing the F-22 Raptor.

"Our priorities for procurement are the following," said Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. T. Michael Moseley. "The KC-X, the new tanker, is No. 1. CSAR-X, the new combat rescue helicopter, is No. 2. Our space-based early warning and communications satellites are No 3. The F-35 (Lightning II) is No. 4. And the next generation long range strike bomber is No. 5."

During discussions with newspaper reporters here Oct. 12, General Moseley said the F-22 program has stabilized.

The Air Force recently secured multi-year procurement funding for the Raptor from Congress. That funding would affect Raptor purchases until about 2012. Now that the Air Force is secure in the number of Raptors it will purchase, and in the price it will pay for them, it has shifted its procurement priorities, the chief of staff said.”

F-35 is not just in SDD on funding, it is funded for production. The line has been started and it won’t close for a very long time. That is a huge difference between having the line open and not, as in SDD.

I for one are sick of this ridiculous interpretation of US politics provided by APA and their ilk which constantly supports the F-22 and its export no matter what the realities, and suggests the F-35 is on the verge of project cancellation. It has been proven wrong at every turn.

This is EXACTLY what i mean. I'm not sure if you are "accusing" me of being "Carlo" or you are directing your comments at Mr Kopp somewhere out there in DT world.

Hah haha… I’m just doing this for the benefit of our RAAF readers who are all seriously aggrieved at the way they have had their professional reputation dragged through the mud by you OB/CK (identicalness in language and IP addresses are a big giveaway old chum). Watching you scurry around under the barrage is worth it. Sure this may not be the most mature thing in the world but retribution rarely is. However in my defence I am providing the readers here at DT a range of new and valuable information and neutral and accurate analysis. If they want me to stop they can ban me.

For one thing its not just the Tu22, thats may be the apex platform but its the cruise/standoff missile threat in general that needs to be considered. You dont seem to be considereing it at all and just lableing any platform aquisitions or capability's of nations in the region as irrelevent, since its all APA propaganda and then point out the USAF's capabilities. Incase you didnt notice the RAAF is NOT an arm of the USAF.

Since when did I mention USAF? I mentioned JORN? 1RSU is not on the USAF orbat… Nor did I label the Tu-22 irrelevant, despite it not actually being an acquisition or capability held by a regional nation. I labelled the APA argument that the only way to defeat a Tu-22 is with a F-22 as irrelevant.

And the USN based their Fleet air defence arround the E2 and the F14. They may have had other responses but fleet air defence was based arround these platforms. I wonder how well they would have faired without them?

No they didn’t. Their fleet defence was based around an Aegis ship – which provided their entire defensive force a Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC). The E-2, F-14 and many other systems are just nodes in CEC. Plus this was a defence against an attack by at least several regiments of Tu-22s, or >100.

And the F35's systems are all geared arround the low level strike requirement, the EOTS, DAS and its LO are all designed arround the F35 being able to be lethal and survivable in a low level high threat envireonment.

More and more propaganda. Cling to the F-35 is the new F-105 ‘Thunderchief’ argument, its almost as bad as the F-35 is the new ‘Wirraway’ nonsense. Now I’ve had several discussions with the person who was the JSF program manager, when it was first established (JAST), ex Lt. Gen. George Muellner, USAF, who now works for Boeing so I guess that makes him compromised… Anyway the F-35 was NOT conceived as a CAS aircraft. From day one the requirement was for a multi-role fighter, including ATA. Because from day one the F-35 was designed to replace a range of aircraft that engage in multi-role missions including the F-16 and F/A-18.

LOL yeah the F22 is the project under threat, even though its in squadron service and the F35 is in the SDD phase. maybe congress will take away the F22 in service at the moment, shut down the production line give the project managers a good spanking because the F35 is such a better opotion for the whole USAF as there is noting the F22 can do that the F35 cant just as well:onfloorl:.

Surely I don’t need to add a corresponding date stamp to every statement I make? Is the mantra that the F-22 is a “golden bullet plane” something new? Did it only emerge last week? No I am referring to when the mantra began which is almost 10 years ago and subsequently when the F-22 has had to jump through so many hoops and make so many deals to survive. Even then it was reduced from 700 to 190 for its production order.

If you compare program survival of the F-22 to the F-35 from conception to first production order then the F-35 has been far more robust and supported. One clear example is conception to production numbers. Which for the F-22 when from 700 to 190 and for the F-35 from 2800 to 2400. One emerged through this brutal process with only 30% of units intact the other over 80%.

Also throughout the F-22’s conception to production history there have been major politicians and even secretaries of defence publicly considering cancelling or trying to cancel the project. Who’s tried to cancel F-35 in the US Government?

What we have here is another textbook case of a basic level ‘information operations’ campaign conducted by a card-carrying member of the anti-F-35 intellectual cult. Facts are rare and the interpretations are loaded to bear. It may fool the kiddies but anyone here on DT interested in defence to a serious level should look deeper.

AGRA

July 26th, 2007, 09:06 PM

1) Is the F35 capable of carrying the Harpoon AShM internally? If not what will be the basis of the F35's marritime strike capability untill JSM becomes available if it ever does? JASSM seems to be a very expensive single option and it has to be carried externally.

The Harpoon could probably fit but there would be the cost of integrating the weapon system and proofing the drop and carry.

JSM is not the airdropped NSM. The NSM has an airdropped version for use by the RnoAF’s F-16s but production has yet to be funded – though production of ship launched NSM has received funding. JSM is part of the Norway-JSF deal in which Lockheed will provide marketing support to the planned Block II NSM, called the JSM. It isn’t a very popular deal within Lockheed, certainly amongst the JASSM people.

Australia has jointly funded with Norway a preliminary integration study for the NSM and the F-35A. The results were yes its possible. It’s now up to any number of partner countries to decided to go ahead with integrating NSM into the Block IV or later Block F-35A. Australia is considering this based on the cost, which will depend on who else is willing to pay for it. The same that we are also considering integrating ASRAAM into Block IV or later Block F-35A with the RAF (ASRAAM will only be integrated into the F-35B at the moment).

There are other options for ship attack from the F-35 including the JASSM with the data link and sea skimming mod and internal carriage of JSOW. Both these weapons will be integrated with the F-35A. A mix of both for differing maritime strike profiles – like JASSM for the high end sinking of enemy CVBGs and JSOW for FIACs – would be an excellent option.

2) Is there any chance of the MoD aquireing F35C's? Significantly better wing loading and a smidgin more range may be attractive? the RAAF does have a history of aquireing longer ranging USN variants of aircraft? Would this be feasable and would there be a major difference in cost given the timing of the aquisition???

The F-35C is a no chance unless we were to acquire a CTOL carrier or a ‘coalition carrier’ concept like the Germans are pushing. Defence has already done the cost-benefit analysis and it’s not worth it. Having additional F-35As compared to F-35C makes a lot more sense. Any enhanced range of the F-35C courtesy of the bigger wing is not really significant for actual mission profiles.

3) Is their a case for the F35B??? If so should a small number, 10~12, be purchased for the fleet air arm to specifically operate of the Canberra class LHD's or should 24 or so be purchased to equip a full RAAF squadron? The F35B is less capable that A & C but allow tremendous basing flexibility??

If you were to operate F-35Bs off the LHDs then there goes that LHD’s ability to carry the landing force. We have only purchased two LHDs and both are needed together to carry the basic 2,000 man landing and sustainment force. You would need to acquire additional LHDs to have a carrier capability unless you wanted to scrap the amphibious doctrine.

However F-35Bs could be an option for the RAAF to operate in a ‘coalition carrier’ concept with the USMC and RN.

riksavage

July 26th, 2007, 09:50 PM

The F35B’s bring a great deal of flexibility to the table, once a beachhead is established and expeditionary forces begin to move inland, the F35B’s can be brought ashore to operate from austere runways, such as existing roads or cleared ground. They can be stored off-shore on a container ship ready to deploy. The only downside being you will not have CAP / CAS support during the landing. This is where, in a worst case scenario, you would have a DDG present to provide area defence for the task force. All the above assumptions are based on Aus operating without US/UK support in an operation similar in scope to Sierra Leone (strategic raiding).

Personally the advantages the F35B brings to the table for less capable nations (benchmarked against the US) such as the UK and Aus out way the disadvantages.

Tasman

July 26th, 2007, 10:23 PM

If you were to operate F-35Bs off the LHDs then there goes that LHD’s ability to carry the landing force. We have only purchased two LHDs and both are needed together to carry the basic 2,000 man landing and sustainment force. You would need to acquire additional LHDs to have a carrier capability unless you wanted to scrap the amphibious doctrine.

However F-35Bs could be an option for the RAAF to operate in a ‘coalition carrier’ concept with the USMC and RN.

I don't disagree with what you are saying about the LHD's ability to deploy a 2000 man landing force being diminished if F-35Bs were to be embarked. However, there may be scenarios when a trade off of some troops and helos to embark a small number (4-6) F-35Bs would be beneficial. I can see considerable benefit in a 'joint' RAAF/RAN squadron that would be given a maritime support role and trained to operate from coalition assets, small airfields in forward areas or from the LHDs if circumstances require. In other words a squadron equipped and trained along the lines of a USMC unit.

For the same reason I would like to see the army get more armed recce helos but that is for another thread.

Cheers

AGRA

July 26th, 2007, 11:12 PM

However, there may be scenarios when a trade off of some troops and helos to embark a small number (4-6) F-35Bs would be beneficial. I can see considerable benefit in a 'joint' RAAF/RAN squadron that would be given a maritime support role and trained to operate from coalition assets, small airfields in forward areas or from the LHDs if circumstances require. In other words a squadron equipped and trained along the lines of a USMC unit.

There are other weapons options to meet what 4-6 or up to 12 F-35Bs can bring to an amphibious landing or force projection operation.

For air defence SM6 combined with VTOL AEW can provide a much larger and over the horizon air defence shield. While not the same kind of air defence as a carrier remember we are only talking about a small force of F-35Bs that would only be able to maintain a CAP of two or so aircraft.

For CAP and interdiction strike ERGM and NTACMS combined with VTUAV and other ship based land attack options are viable. Such a force would actually be more effective as it would be much easier to maintain a 24/7 airborne sensor with rapid response., whereas the F-35Bs would struggle to maintain a CAS CAP, along with DCAP plus some strike and ISR missions.

Todjaeger

July 26th, 2007, 11:51 PM

Having read through this thread with interest, I wish to interject this reminder regarding the F-35 Lightning II. The F-35 JSF program was intended to provide a common aircraft to replace a number of existing designs, covering a number of different roles. As a result of the desire for a multi-role aircraft, design compromises were made to achieve that result, a superior multi-role aircraft. Due to these compromises required to perform well in other roles, the performance of the F-35 in a strictly air-to-air role wouldn't be expected to equal that of the F-22A Raptor or the EF Typhoon. Does that mean the F-35 can't, or shouldn't be used in air-to-air combat? No, but it does mean that it isn't as good an air superiority fighter as something dedicated to that type of role. By extension, the F-35 doesn't have the range or available payload that a B-1 has, but again it doesn't mean that the F-35 can't or shouldn't be used in strike roles.

Where IMV the F-35 does (or will) excel is in providing a range of capabilities to the air force equipped with them, that would likely not be matched if that air force instead were equipped with aircraft dedicated to individual roles. This I believe would be a more expensive prospect in terms of operating expenses, as well as having a greater risk of losing capabilities through attrition and potential combat losses. By having multi-role aircraft, a more gradual decline in available forces for roles can happen. I.e. if there are 20 aircraft in an air force, 10 fights and 10 bombers/strike, if a bomber crashes or is shot down, then the bomber force just lost 10% it's strenght. If instead, is was 20 multi-role, a similar such loss would be 5% of the force.

As for the F-35 in an Australian context... I agree with Tas, in that there could be situations where the flexibility of having F-35B's would be an advantage. I definately would like to see things like ERGM, SM6, and heli-AEW, but I think since it isn't yet a question of one set of capabilities or the other, why not both?

-Cheers

Ozzy Blizzard

July 26th, 2007, 11:52 PM

Not at all. Just the high weighting giving to the apparent marginal kinematic and aerodynamic performance improvement of types like the Su-30 over the F-35 as part of an index of lethality. This kind of weighting has fuelled the constant statements by APA and their ilk that Australia will not have any ‘first class’ fighters whereas other countries equipped with Su-30s will have plenty.

Thats fine mate but i dont know why your bringing this up. I Admitted I was wrong, i stated that APA's conclusions were wrong and i have stated MANY times now that the F35 will be far superior to the SU 30 in air to air combat especially when operating inside of a network.

The charts – which ‘Ozzy Blizzard’ has gleefully linked to – indicate huge shortfalls in Australia’s overall capability. As you now point out above this is total nonsense. The F-35s advantages in a whole range of other areas and operating as part of a total air combat force mean the Su-30’s better wing-loading or whatever count for naught in terms of lethality.

You really do think I'm Kopp or Goon or someone dont you????????????????? Dude you've been thinking about this WAY too much. I'm 22 for f*#k sake!!!

Not at all. I’m simply treating this low level of argument with the scorn it deserves. Not hate – scorn… Its not a personal attack on APA and their ilk but on the argument they offer and ‘Ozzy Blizzard’ has promoted and supported at every opportunity on this forum.

No i did in two other threads because i believed the threat was real and the deficiencies portrayed by APA were important. But after i thought about it, extensively and dispassionatly since that argument became personal, i realised that the conclusions they drew were wrong and they had not dealt with a huge portion of the argument. Thats why i brought it up and thats why i argued it, I thought it was right for my nation and i was concerned about the principle defenceive arm of the ADF and the single largest purchase in the ADF's history. Not because i'm actually affiliated with APA and i'm just persuing their "cause".

The big difference here is civil society. We have it, the Russians don’t. This is why publicly listed companies like Lockheed Martin take so much time to make public statements – they are getting it proofed by lawyers and the like because if they are found to be misinforming customers they will get sued for it. Things don’t work that way in Russia or for that matter… wait for it… Air Power Australia!

Ohh... i'm touched. An american corporation has NEVER lied before!!! Geesh where were you when ENRON collapsed????? And i didnt mean they would be providing a faulty product, just not beeing 100% forthcoming about the outcomes of the test. Anyway this is so far of the topic and i dont want to get into an argument on US corporate conduct.

Quite literally you can take a statement like this from Lockheed to the bank, from others… well I don’t make investments based on financial advice emanating from Nigeria or the propaganda department of Russian MoD.

I'm not going to get into this it'll go on for hours.

Quite wrong. This is an annual statement made by the USAF CoS outlining their priorities to lobby Congress for funding. Things that do not have secure funding go to the top. Which is why after USAF secured the MYP for F-22 it went to the bottom. Plus these priorities are weighting in accordance with those projects that will need the most lobbying to get approval. A huge project like F-35 which is highly unlikely to get cancelled doesn’t need the same effort as a pie in the sky grab for more F-22s which has little political support. From last year’s statement:

“Tanker hits top of the charts for recapitalization priority

by Staff Sgt. C. Todd Lopez
Air Force Print News

10/13/2006 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- The Air Force's new No. 1 procurement priority is the KC-X tanker, replacing the F-22 Raptor.

"Our priorities for procurement are the following," said Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. T. Michael Moseley. "The KC-X, the new tanker, is No. 1. CSAR-X, the new combat rescue helicopter, is No. 2. Our space-based early warning and communications satellites are No 3. The F-35 (Lightning II) is No. 4. And the next generation long range strike bomber is No. 5."

During discussions with newspaper reporters here Oct. 12, General Moseley said the F-22 program has stabilized.

The Air Force recently secured multi-year procurement funding for the Raptor from Congress. That funding would affect Raptor purchases until about 2012. Now that the Air Force is secure in the number of Raptors it will purchase, and in the price it will pay for them, it has shifted its procurement priorities, the chief of staff said.”

Again the article states this clearly. He doesent mention the Raptor as much because the the future of the platform seems fixed. The F35 is too big to stop and i agree there is no chance of it being cancelled bar global warming happening in 5 years, but the F35 isnt funded, the production lines may indeed be opening but there are no guarentees on the numbers of aircraft to be procured.

F-35 is not just in SDD on funding, it is funded for production. The line has been started and it won’t close for a very long time. That is a huge difference between having the line open and not, as in SDD

How many aricraft have been purchased i wonder????? It wont be cancelled i agree but its future is far from 100% "secure" i.e. aircraft bought and paid for. The only aircraft that have been bought are the test aircraft. Now the COS may be waiting to fight that battle when he comes to it, thats a fair enough point, but there does seem to be a sertain apathy

I for one are sick of this ridiculous interpretation of US politics provided by APA and their ilk which constantly supports the F-22 and its export no matter what the realities, and suggests the F-35 is on the verge of project cancellation. It has been proven wrong at every turn.

It seems the prosepects for F22 export ar slim but that doesent meen we cant talk about it does it?????

Hah haha… I’m just doing this for the benefit of our RAAF readers who are all seriously aggrieved at the way they have had their professional reputation dragged through the mud by you OB/CK (identicalness in language and IP addresses are a big giveaway old chum). Watching you scurry around under the barrage is worth it. Sure this may not be the most mature thing in the world but retribution rarely is.

You really belive this crap dont you? I thought you were just being an asshole. You think i've been a member on here for a few years, diliberatly mirepresented my age and occupation, sat here biding my time asking questions and acting stupid untill the chance came along for me to promote the APA cause. Mate you are a sad sad man. Why dont you actually check my IP adress or get GF too???

I'll PM you my identity, if you keep this crap up i will take it up with Webbs.

However in my defence I am providing the readers here at DT a range of new and valuable information and neutral and accurate analysis. If they want me to stop they can ban me.

HA!!! balanced!!! :onfloorl:. Mate in your opinion any critisism of your pet platform is propaganda. I've not once heard you say a single bad thing about the F35, that alone indicates how ballanced your analysis is.

Since when did I mention USAF? I mentioned JORN? 1RSU is not on the USAF orbat… Nor did I label the Tu-22 irrelevant, despite it not actually being an acquisition or capability held by a regional nation. I labelled the APA argument that the only way to defeat a Tu-22 is with a F-22 as irrelevant.

You mentioned Tu22 and the USAF's strategic might in the same sentance. And as i said before its not just the platform its the cruise missile threat in general. And your right there are other ways to deal with high speed high altitude threats, placing platforms outside their launch ranges with EW from JORN is one, so is pre empting and hitting the threat on the ground. But a squadons of F22's couldnt hurt, and if we ever coudln't pre empt or EW was comprimised by ECm or the like then a high speed interceptor will be very usefull.

No they didn’t. Their fleet defence was based around an Aegis ship – which provided their entire defensive force a Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC). The E-2, F-14 and many other systems are just nodes in CEC. Plus this was a defence against an attack by at least several regiments of Tu-22s, or >100.

Mate thats total BS and you know it. AEGIS and SM1/2 were never going to engage a backfire, they were only meant to diliut the AShM's that the backfires launched. The only platform's that was designed to actually stop the backfires were the F14 an E2 in combination with the phoenex missile system.

More and more propaganda. Cling to the F-35 is the new F-105 ‘Thunderchief’ argument, its almost as bad as the F-35 is the new ‘Wirraway’ nonsense. Now I’ve had several discussions with the person who was the JSF program manager, when it was first established (JAST), ex Lt. Gen. George Muellner, USAF, who now works for Boeing so I guess that makes him compromised… Anyway the F-35 was NOT conceived as a CAS aircraft. From day one the requirement was for a multi-role fighter, including ATA. Because from day one the F-35 was designed to replace a range of aircraft that engage in multi-role missions including the F-16 and F/A-18.

Of corce its a multi role platform!!!!!!!!!! I said that, even APA says that. But alot of its systems are optimised for low level strike, thats the cold hard truth mate. Now does that make it a bad A2A performer, NO, the APG 81 alone is an excellend sensor and its LO will make it very lethal in BVR engagements, but it isnt designed to be a mini F22 as you portray, they both have different jobs and the F35 strike was the primary concideration, and unless your blind that is evident in the aircraft. now that doesent mean its a bad A2A performer, but you sighted the number of systems in the platform as evidence that the only reason the F22 was more expensive was because it was a biger aircraft (:onfloorl: ), when most of the systems on the F35 ARE designed to allow it to work in a low level, high threat environment. The F22 and F35 are very different platforms mate and both are designed to do different jobs in the USAf OrBAT.

Surely I don’t need to add a corresponding date stamp to every statement I make? Is the mantra that the F-22 is a “golden bullet plane” something new? Did it only emerge last week? No I am referring to when the mantra began which is almost 10 years ago and subsequently when the F-22 has had to jump through so many hoops and make so many deals to survive. Even then it was reduced from 700 to 190 for its production order.

Considering the cost of the platform and the threat thats understandable. but that would indicat the platforms capabilities wouldn't it?

If you compare program survival of the F-22 to the F-35 from conception to first production order then the F-35 has been far more robust and supported. One clear example is conception to production numbers. Which for the F-22 when from 700 to 190 and for the F-35 from 2800 to 2400. One emerged through this brutal process with only 30% of units intact the other over 80%.

Again the price of the aircraft is critical and 2400 aint final.

What we have here is another textbook case of a basic level ‘information operations’ campaign conducted by a card-carrying member of the anti-F-35 intellectual cult. Facts are rare and the interpretations are loaded to bear. It may fool the kiddies but anyone here on DT interested in defence to a serious level should look deeper.

The fact that your a paraniod old man has just dawned on me. its an idelaogical struggle for you mate, i'm getting that now. You think Kopp and Goon are coming out of the woodwork!!!! They (sorry i:onfloorl:) have been scurrying arround spreading intelectual disease, they even go to all the trouble of joining a forum like DT, missrepresenting themselves as uni students, asking members for advice on career options, fained ignorance on several issues, even lost arguments deliberatly all so no one suspect that they were really APA agents here to spread dismay and missinformation on the F35 purchase! Given this level of threat i can understand your commitment mate, your dealing with a conspiracy after all. :rolleyes: I've dealt with mental illness before and your bordering on the dilusional.

I dont want to deal with this crap anymore AGRA, its at a point now were no one can critisize the F35 in any way and not be labled an APA agent. We can candidly discuss the AWD an often do, but we cant discuss the bigest single purchase in the ADF's history because of your dilusional cause. Do everyone a favor and STFU about it!

Ozzy Blizzard

July 27th, 2007, 12:22 AM

There are other weapons options to meet what 4-6 or up to 12 F-35Bs can bring to an amphibious landing or force projection operation.

For air defence SM6 combined with VTOL AEW can provide a much larger and over the horizon air defence shield. While not the same kind of air defence as a carrier remember we are only talking about a small force of F-35Bs that would only be able to maintain a CAP of two or so aircraft.

They cant provide a CAP for deployed forces and SM6 wont have anywere near the intercept range of an AIM120D equiped F35b. SM6 and hele based AEW are critical to counter the AShM threat anyway.

For CAP and interdiction strike ERGM and NTACMS combined with VTUAV and other ship based land attack options are viable. Such a force would actually be more effective as it would be much easier to maintain a 24/7 airborne sensor with rapid response., whereas the F-35Bs would struggle to maintain a CAS CAP, along with DCAP plus some strike and ISR missions.

Why does it have to be exclusive? You wouldn't rely solely on the F35b for your fleet air defence, a small number of F35b's in addition to the systems outlined would give the RAN tremnedous offenceive and defenceive capability. They are complementry not exclusive.

Ozzy Blizzard

July 27th, 2007, 12:34 AM

The Harpoon could probably fit but there would be the cost of integrating the weapon system and proofing the drop and carry.

JSM is not the airdropped NSM. The NSM has an airdropped version for use by the RnoAF’s F-16s but production has yet to be funded – though production of ship launched NSM has received funding. JSM is part of the Norway-JSF deal in which Lockheed will provide marketing support to the planned Block II NSM, called the JSM. It isn’t a very popular deal within Lockheed, certainly amongst the JASSM people.

Australia has jointly funded with Norway a preliminary integration study for the NSM and the F-35A. The results were yes its possible. It’s now up to any number of partner countries to decided to go ahead with integrating NSM into the Block IV or later Block F-35A. Australia is considering this based on the cost, which will depend on who else is willing to pay for it. The same that we are also considering integrating ASRAAM into Block IV or later Block F-35A with the RAF (ASRAAM will only be integrated into the F-35B at the moment).

There are other options for ship attack from the F-35 including the JASSM with the data link and sea skimming mod and internal carriage of JSOW. Both these weapons will be integrated with the F-35A. A mix of both for differing maritime strike profiles – like JASSM for the high end sinking of enemy CVBGs and JSOW for FIACs – would be an excellent option.

Sorry ADM stated that JSM was the airdroped NSM and thats what we were considering on the F35 block 4.

I wonder what we will do with the harpoon stocks???

And the JASSM/JSOW idea sounds like a good one, just depends on the numbers of JASSM's purchased.

The F-35C is a no chance unless we were to acquire a CTOL carrier or a ‘coalition carrier’ concept like the Germans are pushing. Defence has already done the cost-benefit analysis and it’s not worth it. Having additional F-35As compared to F-35C makes a lot more sense. Any enhanced range of the F-35C courtesy of the bigger wing is not really significant for actual mission profiles.

kk...

If you were to operate F-35Bs off the LHDs then there goes that LHD’s ability to carry the landing force. We have only purchased two LHDs and both are needed together to carry the basic 2,000 man landing and sustainment force. You would need to acquire additional LHDs to have a carrier capability unless you wanted to scrap the amphibious doctrine.

However F-35Bs could be an option for the RAAF to operate in a ‘coalition carrier’ concept with the USMC and RN.

Again why does it have to be exclusive???? I'm sure the 2 LHD's could operate ~6 F35b's and not fatally compimise the ammount of troops they can deploy. It would compromise the ammont of helo's caried but i dont see why how it would deamaticly effect the number of troops deployed.

gf0012-aust

July 27th, 2007, 01:16 AM

Right. I don't want to shut the thread as it has useful info points being generated. I also don't want to see a continuation of the imbroglio thats in play.

so the options are:

ignore, engage or seek other thread pastures to graze on.

just as a side issue, AGRA and Magoo are probably the only ones in here who have actually met the programme managers, liaised with Lockmart, flown the simulators, and at least one of them (that I know of) has seen the ADF sims against the Mig 35 TVC etc.... (Which is not in the public domain).

Now, some of us may not agree with them, but they're in a far better place to make comment than 99.9% of the rest of DT members.

So if we can just pause, count to 500 and continue on, then I'm sure that everyone will gleen some nuggets of declassified (but not necessarily released) info.

PLAY NICE. and we don't need follow on threads to Web or the Mods on "who's on first"

AGRA

July 27th, 2007, 01:20 AM

Having read through this thread with interest, I wish to interject this reminder regarding the F-35 Lightning II. The F-35 JSF program was intended to provide a common aircraft to replace a number of existing designs, covering a number of different roles. As a result of the desire for a multi-role aircraft, design compromises were made to achieve that result, a superior multi-role aircraft. Due to these compromises required to perform well in other roles, the performance of the F-35 in a strictly air-to-air role wouldn't be expected to equal that of the F-22A Raptor or the EF Typhoon.

The assumption is that there was a compromise? What compromises? Just because there is one engine? Well it’s a low weight aircraft – just like the F-16. The F-35 has a very impressive thrust to weight ratio that is actually higher than the Su-27’s at full internal fuel load.

Is it a compromise that the most advanced and comprehensive sensor suit, powered by the most capable computer and software capacity ever to fly in a fighter or strike aircraft is being fitted to the F-35? Is it a compromise to design the F-35 for VLO, to reduce weight to levels to make give it STOVL capability and apply those weight savings to the other versions? Is it a compromise to sign up the largest pre-production order book seen in a fighter since WW2? Is it a compromise to involve then investment and input of some of the most technically advanced nations in the world. Is it a compromise for some of the world’s premier air arms to be involved in the development of the requirements and capability of the new fighter?

To design a multi-role aircraft does not automatically imply compromise. The F-35A will be hugely capable in air to air against any threat. Certainly far more capable than the ‘Typhoon’ that lacks the kind of stealth and mission systems of the F-35. From an overall systems perspective the F-35 will also be more capable than the F-22 because you will have two F-35s for every F-22 due to system cost efficiencies allowing wider coverage and more weapons carriage. Even in the ridiculous one on one all by themselves ATA against the F-22 the F-35 would come out on top because it has IRST and other sensors where the F-22 would be entirely reliant on radar vs VLO.

The degree to which people are willing to bag out the F-35 based on innuendo, supposition, and amateurish aerodynamic analysis is outrageous.

AGRA

July 27th, 2007, 01:32 AM

Sorry ADM stated that JSM was the airdroped NSM and thats what we were considering on the F35 block 4.

Kind of close but they got the details wrong, as I outlined above. Lockheed have provided the high level marketing information about JSM to CDE but so has Kongsberg on NSM. One’s in production and the other is still on the drawing board. However JSM is very much a block II NSM so should be able to follow its drop and carry integration path.

I wonder what we will do with the harpoon stocks???

Well they will still be needed up to and beyond 2020. The Super Hornet and P-8 will all carry and operate the Harpoon. Plus the missile's only have a limited time of life so when they expire they won't be replaced or renewed.

[QUOTE=Ozzy Blizzard;109831] And the JASSM/JSOW idea sounds like a good one, just depends on the numbers of JASSM's purchased.

The anti-ship JASSM is in effect an upgrade to the normal JASSM. So all will have the capability. It would be a matter of x JASSMs needed for the stand off strike mission plus y, the number needed for the maritime strike.

[QUOTE=Ozzy Blizzard;109831] Again why does it have to be exclusive???? I'm sure the 2 LHD's could operate ~6 F35b's and not fatally compimise the ammount of troops they can deploy. It would compromise the ammont of helo's caried but i dont see why how it would deamaticly effect the number of troops deployed.

Well the aircrews, operations staff and maintenance staff would eat into the troop accommodations. But most significantly all the ship’s cargo space would be taken up with the consumables needed to operate the F-35Bs. Each LHD may still be able to carry 600 troops on top of the F-35B + helo crews but those troops will not have any vehicles and any sustainment stores, just their personal loads. US LHDs are almost twice the size of the Canberra LHD so they have the space to carry that needed to operate and deploy both landing forces and heavy air units.

The you would want to deloy the ship in the way you would a carrier not an amphibious landing ship. You couldn’t ballast down the well dock if you needed to conduct F-35B operations and going in close inshore with a carrier is not necessarily the best place to launch fighters.

If you want a carrier go and buy a carrier, its a case of fish OR fowl… not half and half.

Magoo

July 27th, 2007, 01:37 AM

I wonder what we will do with the harpoon stocks???

They'll chuck a booster on the back of them and take them to sea with the Navy! All our Block II Harpoons are interchangeable between air and surface launched.

Again why does it have to be exclusive???? I'm sure the 2 LHD's could operate ~6 F35b's and not fatally compimise the ammount of troops they can deploy. It would compromise the ammont of helo's caried but i dont see why how it would deamaticly effect the number of troops deployed.

Whilst I can't provide actual numbers, the footprint in personnel and equipment required to support 4 or 6 F-35Bs aboard an LHD would be quite substantial, making a large dent in the number of amphibious forces and their hardware able to be employed. I agree with Agra - it would probably be a self-defeating capability. This is why USN LHDs are 42,000+ tonnes, not 27,000 tonnes like ours will be.

BTW - Agra's done alot more work on this subject than I have recently, so he's probably our current resident expert for any follow-ups.

Cheers

Magoo

10ringr

July 27th, 2007, 01:39 AM

gf0012-aust

July 27th, 2007, 01:54 AM

Thread closed for the weekend.

I haven't written all of my prev comments because I'm bored.

There will be no further toleration of barbs and cracks at individuals. If anyone is compelled to spit chips, then PM the other party.

Do not drag it into this arena

gf0012-aust

July 27th, 2007, 02:52 AM

Apart from the lack of maturity demonstrated by the complainant.

The forum owner is american
Repeated requests have been made to all and sundry via PM and via the open threads for people to respect the opinions of others and to abide by the Forum Guidelines - its a condition of participation
Freedom of Expression is accompanied by reasonable behaviour. It doesn't entitle everyone to engage in a free for all and treat others like idealogical punching bags. Intelligent debate doesn't need to be accompanied by verbal fisticuffs
Visited any other US Milchat forums recently and seen them accept this kind of argey bargey? The ones I'm on will throw you off pretty quickly if you don't abide by requests to toe the line.
Australia became a Federation in 1901. The last penal colony was in the State of Tasmania - In Australia the first free state was proclaimed in 1836 (South Australia). You're confusing Colonial Powers with Federal Powers. (a 65 year gap between drinks)
Have a nice day

This is part of this thread:
F-35 Lightning II
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6541 (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6541)

This is the reason that the user gave:
In American we have the right to our opinion. Perhaps that is why you are still a Penal colony and don't welcome freedom of expression.

This message has been sent to all moderators of this forum, or all administrators if there are no moderators.

Please respond to this post as applicable.

WebMaster

July 27th, 2007, 02:59 AM

Thanks Gary.

Also please read the rules:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

The rules are equal for everybody, from all countries and all cultures. We ask that you respect others in order to get some in return. If you get emotional easily over differing opinions, maybe you should reconsider your approach to forum based debates.

Thank you for understanding, enjoy!

PS: Yes, I am an [I]American citizen. :D