JSF/F-35...time to eject.

[J.D.]

Three letters:

U

A

V

It's only a matter of time.

[Durrie]

Thread necromancy...

F35 purchase approved...again, apparently

[richo]

Ok I will root this dead corpse , Australia would be easy to invade but bloody hard to occupy imho .I have this argument with my bro in law he is a Raaf officer and he says were hard to invade but how stretched would our def forces be with size of coastline even around our cities? Even with decent technology which im not sure we have I wouldn't think they would pose much of a problem for the Indonesia hordes:) Jesus they land here in leaky shit boxes as it is

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

[wobblysauce]

Richo, Darwin is just early warning.. everyone pulls back and just give it time.. then more back up there.

[richo]

Wasnt really thinking about Darwin tbh any of coastline would do if you could establish supply lines which would be pretty diffucult. But never fear I have a cricket bat with a brick nailed to it just in case .

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

[wobblysauce]

Alas, it is not the ol days of when the Dutch found this place(part of). They know where the better bits are. Like Japan going all the way to Sydney.

[Coopz]

Bah annoying we can blow billions on those over-hyped and under performing jets yet the hospital I work at cannot afford to replace a broken operating table..

[Duke]

Bah annoying we can blow billions on those over-hyped and under performing jets yet the hospital I work at cannot afford to replace a broken operating table..

Yep & not to mention the state of other infrastructure around the nation that the feds continue to not support the states on...

Reading that article it's a bit misleading... how many of these jets have we committed to buying, surely not 2400 as the article confusingly seems to state???

[Durrie]

Reading that article it's a bit misleading... how many of these jets have we committed to buying, surely not 2400 as the article confusingly seems to state???

You mean the bits that say:

Defence to order up to 86 American made stealth fighter jets for the RAAF.

and

The US will purchase 2443 of the fighters including 1763 conventional ‘A’ models for the air force, 360 ‘B’ or vertical landing versions for the US Marine Corps and 360 ‘C’ or carrier models for the US Navy.

Perhaps, in the future, the local commissar will be happy with our new operating table and transport infrastructure that we bought instead of a steel wall of protection for the paradise that will be the PDRA

[Duke]

Reading that article it's a bit misleading... how many of these jets have we committed to buying, surely not 2400 as the article confusingly seems to state??? .

You mean the bits that say:
Defence to order up to 86 American made stealth fighter jets for the RAAF.

hahahaha, oops... Must of missed that when i read it yesd'y.

Still the figures are all over the place in the article when it also says this...

The head of the Pentagon’s largest ever defence project to buy 2400 of the “fifth generation’’ fighters has assured Australia that the controversial project was “back on track’’ and that Australian jets would be delivered on time and on cost.

For me 2443 + 86 = 2529... So what you say it's only a difference of 129, it's not much unless you referring to military jets worth $90Mil each.

[J.D.]

Reading that article it's a bit misleading... how many of these jets have we committed to buying, surely not 2400 as the article confusingly seems to state???

You mean the bits that say:

Defence to order up to 86 American made stealth fighter jets for the RAAF.

This is key to the whole fiasco. We were originally supposed to get 100 of these crates to replace about 40 F-111 and 71 F/A-18 A/B models. That's the total, including spares.

Now read with the weazel word detector switched to the "on" position. "...up to 86..." That's 14 - a whole squadron - fewer than what we originally planned for to replace a sizeable air force and that's if we don't scale the purchase down further. They seem to be planning to do that.

This is absolutely fucking mental. We should not be buying this thing because it is too slow, too reliant on unproven technology and single-engine. The RAAF seems to have forgotten the lesson of the Mirage. I realise that engine technology is a lot better than it was back then but the simple fact is that once the engine quits, it's good night nursie.

At the rate we are going, we will be lucky to get 50 so we might as well can the order and buy something we can actually use (or hang off until UAVs are in mainstream use).

By the way, Australia would be incredibly difficult for anyone to successfully invade, even the US think it would be too difficult. It doesn't matter jack how big your standing army is if you can't get them here and supply them (at a rate of 10 to 1). That said, you need the hardware to keep the wolf from the door.

[Durrie]

Perhaps this is why we are hearing about it again. Maybe the current approval is for "upto 86" and that future approvals will pick up the difference.

Either way, anything with two engines will be more expensive, so we'll just get less of them. And...as we know from the authoritative historical technical records like the movie "Top Gun", in a multi engine jet, if one of the engines does flame out, it will induce enough yaw to send the aircraft into a flat spin and kill Goose! and we don't want that now do we.

[richo]

Durrie your full of shit mate everybody knows it was deadly cocktail of Body Butter and Goose's pornstash that caused the flameout and ensuing spin

[J.D.]

Perhaps this is why we are hearing about it again. Maybe the current approval is for "upto 86" and that future approvals will pick up the difference.

Either way, anything with two engines will be more expensive, so we'll just get less of them. And...as we know from the authoritative historical technical records like the movie "Top Gun", in a multi engine jet, if one of the engines does flame out, it will induce enough yaw to send the aircraft into a flat spin and kill Goose! and we don't want that now do we.

I suspect that the final purchase figure will be partially interlocked with this little tidbit of information gleaned from elsewhere:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26541651" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Like I said earlier: we really should have waited for UAVs instead of manned aircraft.

Either way, 86, including spares, is simply not enough.

As for the issue of two engines, it's not just a matter of cost. Every aircraft we lose on that figure of 86 represents 1.16% of our front line AD assets (compounding from 86 down), so for the extra cost we not only reduce that figure but we place less risk on the pilot. The other thing to consider is that the F-35 is just too expensive. Every time we hear about how much of a bargain it is, they quote the cost in FY2002 dollars! There are alternatives, some of which are pretty good. They are substantially cheaper and available now.

[J.D.]

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This one is largely in Dutch but there are lots of good quotes in English:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[r8response]

The government just announced a further 58 JSF will be purchased.

12 billion dollars worth. They want to change medicare and hit people on the disability pension, yet there is 12 billion dollars for this.

[Jamo]

Last I heard the total purchase was down to 72. As J.D pointed out even 86 is no where near enough.

[norbs]

The government just announced a further 58 JSF will be purchased.

12 billion dollars worth. They want to change medicare and hit people on the disability pension, yet there is 12 billion dollars for this.

But Toned Abs get to get his photo sitting in a plane.

Fuck me that bloke is an attention whore. And a c**t!

[r8response]

But Toned Abs get to get his photo sitting in a plane.

Toned Abs likes this post!

[petey]

[youtube] [/youtube]

[Durrie]

The government just announced a further 58 JSF will be purchased.

12 billion dollars worth. They want to change medicare and hit people on the disability pension, yet there is 12 billion dollars for this.

But Toned Abs get to get his photo sitting in a plane.

Fuck me that bloke is an attention whore. And a c**t!

So by the same token?
Nothing like a press opportunity for Krudd and Falkner

[J.D.]

What's your point? Okay, I'm game.

This was a bi-partisan fuck up and Labor should have dumped it when they had the chance but it was Howard who got us into this mess in the first place.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politi ... zqy6a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jenson is right, whatever party he's from. I don't actually care who did what (except for Howard short circuiting the tender process in 2002 and making us look like another Malaysia). Labor chickened out when they saw what the fine would cost (didn't bother Canada) and knew they'd be blamed for "costing the taxpayers billions". In reality, the fine would be chicken feed compared with the cost blow out and the knock-on effect of far fewer aircraft.

Now let's look at the sales pitch on this.

1) Stealth: This is the biggest red herring of the lot. Stealth technology enables aircraft manufacturers to double their profits by quadrupling their prices. And don't start quoting FY2002 dollar values like the previous administration did and Abbott did today. A stealth aircraft is only stealthy to X-band radar (fighter radar) and not to ground-based, long wavelength radars. S-band and Ku-band radars can see it. The F-35's stealth is marginal, being only really any good in the forward hemisphere. An AESA-equipped Su-27 would burn through it before the F-35 could see it.

2) "Fifth Generation": This is pure sales pitch and means basically nothing. The thing either works or it doesn't and the sensor suite is only as advanced as everyone else's and probably less reliable than many due to the installation of COTS components. 8 million lines of code...

3) Performance: The Rand report in 2008 made it painfully clear. The F-35 is "double inferior" to the Su-27. That shitty piece of jargon means it can't out turn it and it can't out run it. People keep saying "Oh, the Flight Control Computer makes up for all that". Bullshit. The FCC cannot override the physics dictated by a wing loading of 107 lbs/sq foot compared with 76 lbs/sq foot for a Sukhoi. It's maximum speed - in clean configuration - is a paltry M=1.6. Payload/range is quite simply shockingly inadequate and aerodynamic performance equally so.

The grand total of strike aircraft for the ADF in 2025 will look something like this:

76(?) F-35s
24 F/A-18F Superhornets
12 F/A-18G Growlers

The only useful type in that whole line up is the Growler, an electronic warfare aircraft we've never had before. That was negotiated by the previous administration. The F-35 can't do air superiority mission and is a lousy bomb truck. The Superhornets are too short-ranged and grossly inferior in performance and range to the airframe they replaced (the F-111). Typhoons would be better and cheaper and they're combat proven. Rafales would be much cheaper and better and they're combat proven. Both have defeated the F-22 in close combat. Neither has enough range but we're already saddled with that problem.

Don't start me on force packaging either.

Abbott and Co must have really needed to feel the love to try that one.

[Durrie]

My point was to balance Norbs' Abbott post.

My post simply presents the opposing party's contribution to the thing Norbs seems to be complaining about.

I understood his point to be that Abbott never misses an opportunity to prostitute his character with the help of the press, even if its about spending money on this aircraft purchase.

My point is that Abbott is not alone in either of these things, and in particular, Norbs' lot made the first order for them.

I've only scanned the rest of your post and see that it's a continuation of the main theme of this thread. I think I've seen it all before, perhaps I'll read it later.

[norbs]

The government just announced a further 58 JSF will be purchased.

12 billion dollars worth. They want to change medicare and hit people on the disability pension, yet there is 12 billion dollars for this.

But Toned Abs get to get his photo sitting in a plane.

Fuck me that bloke is an attention whore. And a c**t!

So by the same token?
Nothing like a press opportunity for Krudd and Falkner

I don't see photos of them in the cockpit?
That was my main point. Old Tones loves a photo op. Rudd was pretty handy at it too from memory. But Tones seems to have taken it up a notch. He is the Aussie Putin

[norbs]

My point was to balance Norbs' Abbott post.

My post simply presents the opposing party's contribution to the thing Norbs seems to be complaining about.

I understood his point to be that Abbott never misses an opportunity to prostitute his character with the help of the press, even if its about spending money on this aircraft purchase.

My point is that Abbott is not alone in either of these things, and in particular, Norbs' lot made the first order for them.

I've only scanned the rest of your post and see that it's a continuation of the main theme of this thread. I think I've seen it all before, perhaps I'll read it later.

I thought it was Howard's government that got the ball rolling on these?

Away from the political debate, do we actually need such air superiority? I know fuck all about military hardware, but it seems like a lot of planes to me.