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
nfloorl:.
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.
