I think a combination of F-35Bs and Typhoons would be a good purchase, say two squadrons of each. This would provide for air support and air combat roles. It would also allow for both amphibious ships to operate a squadron of JSF if that were necessary. Since the Brits seem to be getting both of these aircraft, weapons and upgrades programs could be shared.
Air 6000 for ADF
- Thread starter cherry
- Start date
Makes a Lot of Sense
To a Newbie who is still reading in on these matters, what is being said here (and in other posts to this thread by Aussie Digger) makes a lot of sense and demonstrates some appreciable insight into matters of a military aerospace nature.
One could almost say there is a certain prophetic quality to these posts.
Other posts on this forum claim that it wasn't the politicians who forced the current situation on Defence but the other way around. The fact there is a Parliamentary Inquiry into this matter would suggest these posts were closer to the truth than first thought.
The point about the US being prepared to sell Australia the F-22 "when Air 6000 was in full swing" raises a whole raft of questions. Presumably, this was around the 2001-2002 timeframe. If so and if true, then this goes directly to the integrity of the Air 6000 process, the veracity of what we are being told today and the credit of those doing the telling.
Does anyone else find this all becoming somewhat odoriferous, and unpleasantly so?
Aussie Digger said:
To a Newbie who is still reading in on these matters, what is being said here (and in other posts to this thread by Aussie Digger) makes a lot of sense and demonstrates some appreciable insight into matters of a military aerospace nature.
One could almost say there is a certain prophetic quality to these posts.
Other posts on this forum claim that it wasn't the politicians who forced the current situation on Defence but the other way around. The fact there is a Parliamentary Inquiry into this matter would suggest these posts were closer to the truth than first thought.
The point about the US being prepared to sell Australia the F-22 "when Air 6000 was in full swing" raises a whole raft of questions. Presumably, this was around the 2001-2002 timeframe. If so and if true, then this goes directly to the integrity of the Air 6000 process, the veracity of what we are being told today and the credit of those doing the telling.
Does anyone else find this all becoming somewhat odoriferous, and unpleasantly so?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Quite. I have changed my opinion slightly since I made all those comments, but only insofar as the purchase of F-22's. I DO think we should purchase F-22, to provide the "high-end" capability for our airforce, but NOT at the expense of ANY JSF's. I would lend my support to a F-22 purchase "over and above" the planned JSF purchase, and that's it.Occum said:To a Newbie who is still reading in on these matters, what is being said here (and in other posts to this thread by Aussie Digger) makes a lot of sense and demonstrates some appreciable insight into matters of a military aerospace nature.
One could almost say there is a certain prophetic quality to these posts.
Other posts on this forum claim that it wasn't the politicians who forced the current situation on Defence but the other way around. The fact there is a Parliamentary Inquiry into this matter would suggest these posts were closer to the truth than first thought.
The point about the US being prepared to sell Australia the F-22 "when Air 6000 was in full swing" raises a whole raft of questions. Presumably, this was around the 2001-2002 timeframe. If so and if true, then this goes directly to the integrity of the Air 6000 process, the veracity of what we are being told today and the credit of those doing the telling.
Does anyone else find this all becoming somewhat odoriferous, and unpleasantly so?
This is because the F-22 WOULD provide us with an air dominance capacity, probably only equalled by the US. A small fleet of say 24, would have an effect far outweighing their numerical strength, much like the F-111 did.
Australia however requires a fighter to perform a wide range of taskings and F-22 is not that aircraft.
IF the money could be found, it would perform very well for Australia I'm sure. I don't THINK we'd have any trouble getting it, if we could afford it, but you never really know until you TRY do you???
Prophet In Descent
By the way, why are you now saying the 'F-22 is not that aircraft'?
Again, from all I have read so far and been told by professional associates in the industry and DoD in the USA, the F-22 is, by design, a far superior aircraft to the JSF. By 2010, when the JSF is still at Block 1 status, the Raptor's overall capabilities will still be far in excess of even the Block 4 JSF currently in planning as the first post SDD upgrade (presently circa 2015). Apparantly, but not surprisingly, there are physical constraints that prevent the JSF coming anywhere close to the capabilities of the F-22.
This view is further reinforced by the interview with LtGen David Deptula, Vice Commander of USAF PACAF, that appeared in Defence Today recently.
If you haven't seen his comments, will try to get a link.
If you have reason to disagree, would welcome the opportunity to hear why this is the case.
As to your comments about 'TRYING', why hasn't Defence tried?
What happened back when 'Air 6000 was in full swing' and the Americans were prepared to sell Australia the F-22?
Who is saying the Americans won't make them available to Australia today?
Can anyone shed any light on these?
Now I am even more confused. What about your comment -Aussie Digger said:
From what I have read, I reckon you were spot on with this statement and what is happening today with both programs confirms this.
By the way, why are you now saying the 'F-22 is not that aircraft'?
Again, from all I have read so far and been told by professional associates in the industry and DoD in the USA, the F-22 is, by design, a far superior aircraft to the JSF. By 2010, when the JSF is still at Block 1 status, the Raptor's overall capabilities will still be far in excess of even the Block 4 JSF currently in planning as the first post SDD upgrade (presently circa 2015). Apparantly, but not surprisingly, there are physical constraints that prevent the JSF coming anywhere close to the capabilities of the F-22.
This view is further reinforced by the interview with LtGen David Deptula, Vice Commander of USAF PACAF, that appeared in Defence Today recently.
If you haven't seen his comments, will try to get a link.
If you have reason to disagree, would welcome the opportunity to hear why this is the case.
As to your comments about 'TRYING', why hasn't Defence tried?
What happened back when 'Air 6000 was in full swing' and the Americans were prepared to sell Australia the F-22?
Who is saying the Americans won't make them available to Australia today?
Can anyone shed any light on these?
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
In terms of long range strike capacity, the JSF is actually likely to possess greater range. It can carry 2000lbs class weapons internally whereas the F-22 cannot, being limited at most to 1000lbs class weapons, internally. This cannot be changed because of physical constraints of the airframe.Occum said:Now I am even more confused. What about your comment -
From what I have read, I reckon you were spot on with this statement and what is happening today with both programs confirms this.
By the way, why are you now saying the 'F-22 is not that aircraft'?
Again, from all I have read so far and been told by professional associates in the industry and DoD in the USA, the F-22 is, by design, a far superior aircraft to the JSF. By 2010, when the JSF is still at Block 1 status, the Raptor's overall capabilities will still be far in excess of even the Block 4 JSF currently in planning as the first post SDD upgrade (presently circa 2015). Apparantly, but not surprisingly, there are physical constraints that prevent the JSF coming anywhere close to the capabilities of the F-22.
This view is further reinforced by the interview with LtGen David Deptula, Vice Commander of USAF PACAF, that appeared in Defence Today recently.
If you haven't seen his comments, will try to get a link.
If you have reason to disagree, would welcome the opportunity to hear why this is the case.
As to your comments about 'TRYING', why hasn't Defence tried?
What happened back when 'Air 6000 was in full swing' and the Americans were prepared to sell Australia the F-22?
Who is saying the Americans won't make them available to Australia today?
Can anyone shed any light on these?
The JSF has an internal EO/IR targetting system (a development of the current generation Sniper XR pod) and an IRST system. The F-22 has neither. The F-35JSF features advanced versions of the F-22's engine and Radar system and will possess advanced radar capabilities such as SAR and GMTI (ground moving target indication) modes. The F-22 will not.
The F-22 is only rated to carry the GBU-38 500lbs JDAM internally and NO other air to ground weapon. The Block upgrades that were designed to address these capability gaps have been cancelled in favour of funding for an additional 4 aircraft and at this stage their are no signs to show that they will be re-instated in the near future.
The F-35 is being designed from the outset with a full suite of air to air and air to ground weapons, including standoff missiles, (JASSM)0 anti-ship missiles (Harpoon, NSM, SLAM-ER), anti-radiation missiles (Harm, Advanced HARM) and JDAM, SDB, JSOW, LGB's and WCMD type weapons. The F-22 will not be able to utilise any of these weapons besides, GBU-38 JDAM.
The JSF will not be able to supercruise and that's about it compared to F-22. It is speculated that it will not be as "stealthy" as F-22, but I fail to see how anyone can be an "authority" on this, as the performance data will never make it into the public domain and those who do know will be extremely reluctant to talk about. A few cyptic comments here and there will be about it.
I have read that article and the author of it, posts on another forum, but what is not pointed out, is USAF is desperately trying to get a sufficient number of F-22's to replace it's F-15 fleet. It does not have that yet, and to talk publicly about an aircraft they are ALSO buying which has performance anywhere near that of the F-22is unlikely to convince Congress that it's worthwhile increasing investments in the hideously expensive F-22.
The RAAF have publicly commented (at the current Parliamentary enquiry) that it is still uncertain even today, that the US WOULD sell the F-22.
I'll post more soon, but have to run for now...
Cheers.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Sure, have a look at this;
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/joint/commttee/J9128.pdf
It takes a bit of reading, but is well worthwhile.
Basically it provides the RAAF's attitude towards JSF, F-22 and any F-111 extension.
RAAF, despite Messir's KOPP and GOON "opinion" HAS studied this issue extensively. It DOES have access to ALL available data on these issues (unlike Messiers GOON and KOPP). It HAS concluded that the JSF will provide superior capability and "bang for buck" over any other platform given the parameters within which it is REQUIRED to work, by Government.
As to the capabilities of the JSF platform itself, reputable public data is available from any number of websites (airforce-technology.com etc). This info is not entirely accurate however. True performance data is (naturally) highly classified and available (if at all) in only cryptic comments in public...
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/joint/commttee/J9128.pdf
It takes a bit of reading, but is well worthwhile.
Basically it provides the RAAF's attitude towards JSF, F-22 and any F-111 extension.
RAAF, despite Messir's KOPP and GOON "opinion" HAS studied this issue extensively. It DOES have access to ALL available data on these issues (unlike Messiers GOON and KOPP). It HAS concluded that the JSF will provide superior capability and "bang for buck" over any other platform given the parameters within which it is REQUIRED to work, by Government.
As to the capabilities of the JSF platform itself, reputable public data is available from any number of websites (airforce-technology.com etc). This info is not entirely accurate however. True performance data is (naturally) highly classified and available (if at all) in only cryptic comments in public...
Where are the Facts?
Defence and its two supporters made a lot of statements at the hearing. However, I am a numbers, data and facts kind of person and I don't see a lot, if any, of these here. Rather, this reads like one of the five famous sayings that start with - 'Trust me, I am from the Government' and ends with something that I am not sure can be put up on this forum.
The question that needs to be asked is "Where are the facts?" or, as one of my mentors used to say, "Where's the data?"
Thanks for this, AD, but this has been read in detail, along with all the submissions, most of which raise some very valid points and most of which (21 out of 23) disagree with the position taken by Defence.Aussie Digger said:Sure, have a look at this;
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/joint/commttee/J9128.pdf
It takes a bit of reading, but is well worthwhile.
Basically it provides the RAAF's attitude towards JSF, F-22 and any F-111 extension.
RAAF, despite Messir's KOPP and GOON "opinion" HAS studied this issue extensively. It DOES have access to ALL available data on these issues (unlike Messiers GOON and KOPP). It HAS concluded that the JSF will provide superior capability and "bang for buck" over any other platform given the parameters within which it is REQUIRED to work, by Government.
As to the capabilities of the JSF platform itself, reputable public data is available from any number of websites (airforce-technology.com etc). This info is not entirely accurate however. True performance data is (naturally) highly classified and available (if at all) in only cryptic comments in public...
Defence and its two supporters made a lot of statements at the hearing. However, I am a numbers, data and facts kind of person and I don't see a lot, if any, of these here. Rather, this reads like one of the five famous sayings that start with - 'Trust me, I am from the Government' and ends with something that I am not sure can be put up on this forum.
The question that needs to be asked is "Where are the facts?" or, as one of my mentors used to say, "Where's the data?"
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Not with Kopp and Goon THAT's for sure.Occum said:Thanks for this, AD, but this has been read in detail, along with all the submissions, most of which raise some very valid points and most of which (21 out of 23) disagree with the position taken by Defence.
Defence and its two supporters made a lot of statements at the hearing. However, I am a numbers, data and facts kind of person and I don't see a lot, if any, of these here. Rather, this reads like one of the five famous sayings that start with - 'Trust me, I am from the Government' and ends with something that I am not sure can be put up on this forum.
The question that needs to be asked is "Where are the facts?" or, as one of my mentors used to say, "Where's the data?"
As for numbers and facts, the F-35A can carry 2000lbs class weapons internally, F-22 and F-35B can't.
F-35A HAS a funded and undergoing development EO/IR systetm a confirmed IRST system, a confirmed tatical datalink system that IS capable of transmitting as well as receiving (unlike F-22 which has "receive" only capability).
F-35A will be designed to carry and operate a wide variety of A2G munitions. F-22's planned upgrades to acquire similar capabilities HAVE been cancelled.
F-22 production run has been increased by 4 aircraft only over the 179 already funded. However the cancellation of the planned upgrades was required to fund these extra airframes and the production of these aircraft was "stretched out" to allow the production run to last until 2012, in the hope that funding can be found so the USAF can purchase additional F-22's. I wouldn't be holding my breath and the F-22 has NOT yet been approved for export, so any discussions about "buying" them instead of anything else is futile until this happens.
All official sources, including Lockheed Martin executives still insist that F-35 WILL be significantly cheaper than F-22.
All of these facts are publicly available and help BOOST the case for F-35 over any other option.
Now to a few "un-official facts" that I have on the very best of authority, but cannot "name, names"...
The F-35A is lighter than F-22, has only 1 engine (which generates less thrust than the 2 on F-22), carries more fuel than F-22 and is about the same drag wise. Which platform do YOU think is gonna go further???
Thats sounds like something you read in the newspaper that twist the factsAussie Digger said:
Based on the fact that each F-22 engines would have to produce only half the thrust of the single JSF engine to maintain the same speed, then the range would be similar.
Producing half the thrust will roughly use half as much fuel per engine both aircraft having the same fuel capacity, this means that the range of an JSF at 100% thrust and the F-22 at 50% thrust would be the same. This would be at a speed around mach 1.
However increase the F-22's thrust up to 100% still not afterburning and the JSF now has to use full afterburner to keep up with the F-22. The F-22 will now travel twice as far as the JSF will at around Mach 1.5.
So in some missions the JSF will have the same range as the F-22. But in missions that require higher speed the F-22 will travel 50 even 100% further.
So once u average this out the F-22 range is far superior to the JSF.
Based on your analogy we could use Air Blimps as they have heaps of range for the amount of fuel used but too bad they go slow.
Last edited:
The Flanker Fleet -The PLA's 'Big Stick'
Just received an interesting article from a friend in Wash DC. Apparantly it is making the rounds and catching a lot of people's attention.
http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.106/pub_detail.asp
Has this capability, its growth through the next two decades along with the likelihood of export or provision as foreign/military aid to other countries in the region been considered in the formulation of the Air 6000 strategic needs and resulting requirements?
Given the single type JSF solution, would seem this has not been considered.
Comments welcome.
Just received an interesting article from a friend in Wash DC. Apparantly it is making the rounds and catching a lot of people's attention.
http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.106/pub_detail.asp
Has this capability, its growth through the next two decades along with the likelihood of export or provision as foreign/military aid to other countries in the region been considered in the formulation of the Air 6000 strategic needs and resulting requirements?
Given the single type JSF solution, would seem this has not been considered.
Comments welcome.
F-22A fuel load is in the order of 20,600 lbs internal and 36,500 with full externals (ref - Safety Supplement in TO 00-105E-9SS-6).
Are you saying that the fuel capacities of the CTOL JSF are going to be more than these figures?
I thought the CTOL JSF internal fuel was around 18,000 lbs and the externals were limited by the station load capacities of Stns 2/10 and the now smaller tank (426 gal C-13 tank vs 480 gal legacy) due to separation and flutter issues et al.
Would be interested to know if this has all changed.
I've got TO 00-105E-9SS-9, so I'd be interested to see TO 00-105E-9SS-6 Can you plse PM me re thisOccum said:
GF Edit: Ignore Prev. I've managed to source a copy.
according to a colleague of mine involved with weapons development, testing and clearance on F-117 and F-22 (and who will undertake the same role with JSF), the JSF will be tagged to use the same 2503l external tanks - but would not realistically run dirty with 4. According to the same source (and this can't be substantiated in public) the planning for JSF has involved longer unrefueled data.Occum said:
Although its an unacceptable qualifier, I do have a lot of faith in the validity of this operators claims as he:
- is involved with foreign platform testing - and has been involved with Su-27 assessments
- has been involved in USAF "black emergent" programmes for the last 35 years
- isn't prone to grandstanding
again, its a horses for courses debate - although Carlo made some references in JSC to the fact that people in USAF are supportive of his theories, I can certainly reinforce that some of the operators I know in USAF and who are project current (and who I'm fortunate enough to be in regular contact with) have a very very different opinion.
for me, I'll go with people who have the clearances and who live and breathe this for a job.
the professional vis a vis "interested" cohort will never be unanimous - or even in unison. Its a variation of the "Holden and Fords" argument
Last edited:
You Were Right
Original plan was for 480 gal external till Miss Separation and Mrs Flutter et al made their presence felt in the analysis. Some old and bold flight test types reckon there is more to come. Confirmation some way off, though, as weapons testing won't start for a while yet.
You were right, it was an unacceptable qualifier.
ps. Why the fascination with Dr Carlo Kopp?
.......or were you replying to the earlier post about the PLA up on the Strategy Center website?
If so, I should have said professional comments welcome.
:eek
No it won't and it couldn't carry 4 of them anyway/anyhow. Suggest you do the arithmetic and compare weights with load capacity of Stns 2/10 (2,500 lbs, if memory serves).
Original plan was for 480 gal external till Miss Separation and Mrs Flutter et al made their presence felt in the analysis. Some old and bold flight test types reckon there is more to come. Confirmation some way off, though, as weapons testing won't start for a while yet.
You were right, it was an unacceptable qualifier.
ps. Why the fascination with Dr Carlo Kopp?
.......or were you replying to the earlier post about the PLA up on the Strategy Center website?
If so, I should have said professional comments welcome.
:eek
Did you read my prev properly? I was also under the impression that separation and flutter were present in the 4 tank disposition but not in the 3 tank. Or are you suggesting that you know more than some of the people on the project?Occum said:
I respect your right to be enthusiastic in support of your own assessment, but to be blunt I don;t know you from a bar of soap.
OTOH the other people I deal with are:
- involved with F-22
- involved with doctrine development
- have assessed the Su-27 at both a flight level - and the Red Hat operational level
- do have a track record of credibility with me through different projects and associations
- do have current and approp sec clearances
There isn't for me. I think he does some interesting stuff - his data mining etc is always a work of art - but I disagree with some of his interpretations. Its an egalitarian society. I happen to think that the presentations are coloured by enthusiastic self belief at the expense of pause and access to all the data. Or are you suggesting again that Kopp is able to make more qualified statements when he's not in the clearance loop?Occum said:
in the main - yesOccum said:
is the pithy response an example of yours?Occum said:
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Because you and others keep quoting him as an expert. Clearly he is not. He is god at collecting data from publicly available sources that you OR I could and putting together articles. As GF said once, "he's an expert at powerpoint presentations" nevermind what's included in the info...Occum said:
That article is simply a re-hash of the same Headsup and Aus Aviation / Defence Today / Air international articles he has written NUMEROUS times.
The fact is he is not allowed access to classified information about these aircrafts.
Details of such things as internal fuel loads, range performance, radar detection ranges etc, are closely guarded national secrets for good reason. Such things needed to be kept closely guarded lest "enemies" find ways around or gaps within our capabilities.
They don't need to be released simply because someone or some group are interested in a debate. It is not a cover up. if you worked in the military (or most Government agencies for that matter) you would know that no-one is going to risk their job by providing these details. It is ILLEGAL to do so in any case.
In my work, you cannot even TALK to the media without higher approval first. Anything said must then be very generic and non-specific because certain parties will twist the info to their own uses. I am a Detective in Queensland and though we often do release information in relation to our investigations, it is not until we have already exhausted those avenues, and never anything to "tip off" any "crooks" until WE are ready to do so.
when we do so, it is because we are trying to elicit more info from the public, not because they have any particular NEED to know. In fact most people would be better off if they didn't know about a lot of my work...
By now I'm guessing you're probably aware of my source for that bit of info. Care to share any of YOURS?
You've made some pretty definite statements about what the JSF WILL and won't be able to do.
Some evidence (and I don't consider anything by Kopp as such) would be nice...
Keep Fishing
BAH! BAH! (pronounce this with a dropping inflexion like a gameshow ‘You got it wrong’ claxon).
Close but not close enough, so no prizes for you. :lol3
As for ‘gone quiet’, have been busy 'cause some dork with access to classified information put a blister fairing right behind a NACA duct. Can’t spend my whole day on newsgroups like some, you know.
As for source data, the following should help you. All is open source, public releasable information.
1. JSF Program Brief 2003
2. JSF Program Brief 2004
3. JSF Program Brief 2005
4. Presentation to International Aircraft Stores Compatibility Symposium XIV, ‘Many Uses of CFD in JSF Stores Separation’, Hudson/Charlton
If you do the arithmetic, you will see that the 2,503 litre (592 gal) tank can't be carried on Stns 2/10 so, basically, whoever is saying this is wrong! The laws of physics and engineering pay no heed to whether a person has access to classified information or not. If it is one of the project office people, then we have a serious problem.
FYI. The baseline was the 480 gal tank but this has now been changed to a special 426 gal tank which is understood will be unique to the JSF. You might also want to do the numbers for a full version of this tank on Stns 2/10. SG (AVTUR) = 0.67 (give or take).
Magoo,Magoo said:Gee...its' gone quiet all of a sudden. Do you suppose Pet...err... umm... sorry, I mean, Occum thinks he's been rumbled?
Magoo
BAH! BAH! (pronounce this with a dropping inflexion like a gameshow ‘You got it wrong’ claxon).
Close but not close enough, so no prizes for you. :lol3
As for ‘gone quiet’, have been busy 'cause some dork with access to classified information put a blister fairing right behind a NACA duct. Can’t spend my whole day on newsgroups like some, you know.
As for source data, the following should help you. All is open source, public releasable information.
1. JSF Program Brief 2003
2. JSF Program Brief 2004
3. JSF Program Brief 2005
4. Presentation to International Aircraft Stores Compatibility Symposium XIV, ‘Many Uses of CFD in JSF Stores Separation’, Hudson/Charlton
If you do the arithmetic, you will see that the 2,503 litre (592 gal) tank can't be carried on Stns 2/10 so, basically, whoever is saying this is wrong! The laws of physics and engineering pay no heed to whether a person has access to classified information or not. If it is one of the project office people, then we have a serious problem.
FYI. The baseline was the 480 gal tank but this has now been changed to a special 426 gal tank which is understood will be unique to the JSF. You might also want to do the numbers for a full version of this tank on Stns 2/10. SG (AVTUR) = 0.67 (give or take).
Last edited:
Jet fighter or transport? maybe its a shock ramp?Occum said:
see belowOccum said:
well, there's no shortage of aviation edsels designed by people with quals in engineering and who are supposed to understand the laws of physics.Occum said:
I was under the distinct impression that stations 2 and 10 would not be used for fuel on JSF (wing loading issues as well as sep and flutter issues due to proximity). Hence the move to go to a triple for inboards and a centreline.Occum said:
Reality Check Needed
:
The external fuel capability of the JSF is grossly inefficient, IMHO. Only 426 gals on 5,000 pound rated pylons and outers limited by 2,500 lb rating.,
I also take it from your use of the term 'wing loading issues' that you are not an aeronautical type
< 400 KCAS beasty with paddlesgf0012-aust said:Jet fighter or transport? maybe its a shock ramp?
Where??? I see nuthing!
Are you suggesting the JSF could be some sort of 'aviation edsel'? Or is this one of those comments from those who can't about those who do?well, there's no shortage of aviation edsels designed by people with quals in engineering and who are supposed to understand the laws of physics.
: Keh?? Where on the centre? Or are you suggesting the bomb bays?
The external fuel capability of the JSF is grossly inefficient, IMHO. Only 426 gals on 5,000 pound rated pylons and outers limited by 2,500 lb rating.,
I also take it from your use of the term 'wing loading issues' that you are not an aeronautical type
Last edited: