You may call it being too patriotic or whatever, but it is my view. I'd just like to know that we and no one else has the best fighter aircraft we have made. I would have no problem with other countries building their own great aircraft, so why don't they do it. Selling large arms to other countries really doesn't help the situation. If THEY built their OWN systems, they'd gain more experience in aviation, not have to rely on others, be proud, and a host of other things. In an ideal world, I believe that advanced weapons systems should not be allowed to be sold to foreign countries and that every nation makes and defends themselves with what they can. This would force everyone to work harder and strive for greater goals instead of just thinking they can buy off other countries.
RAAF F-35 Weapons
- Thread starter 111Lover
- Start date
I am also against us and any other country selling things so advanced to a second party. If the only reason you want to sell it is for money, then I think it's just you being greedy and only caring about money. If other nations were forced to build their own fighters, then they would gain more money also.Sorry if I may sound harsh but that sounds like unreasonable patriotism.
What do I get from others admiring our plane?
And as if Japan is not a reliable partner closely linked to the west.
Swerve also hit the point with stating that further exports will bring us money, jobs and makes further development of the EF more possible and cheaper.
The US sold nearly everything to Japan it wanted except the F-22.
And much more to other much less reliable countries.
And you are against us selling them the EF?
You generalize too much.
It is not as if we would arm our enemies to the teeth.
We are talking about Japan.
YOUR allies. You would go to war with them when they ever get attacked.
And you have problems with us selling them the Eurofighter?
And who said it is just about money?
For example we would not sell to Iran even if they would pay a high price.
And what is this about every country should defend itself with what it can?
Easy to speak when somebody lifes in the richest country on this planet.
No lets assume you are from Denmark or from Belgium.
A NATO ally. And you don't want to give them weapons?
What do you expect small allied countries can field without foreign help?
BTW, the US is also importing military tech and hardware...
It is not as if we would arm our enemies to the teeth.
We are talking about Japan.
YOUR allies. You would go to war with them when they ever get attacked.
And you have problems with us selling them the Eurofighter?
And who said it is just about money?
For example we would not sell to Iran even if they would pay a high price.
And what is this about every country should defend itself with what it can?
Easy to speak when somebody lifes in the richest country on this planet.
No lets assume you are from Denmark or from Belgium.
A NATO ally. And you don't want to give them weapons?
What do you expect small allied countries can field without foreign help?
BTW, the US is also importing military tech and hardware...
Waylander, you do have some good points and I have been thinking about this and now think of the world as kind of two spheres of influence. This is generalizing again, but I think for the most part is correct. You could consider all the Asian countries except for the Malay Archipelago, Japan, Korea, Phillipines, Arab countries, and Israel to be mostly armed with Russian technology and fairly good relations with Russia. The big three countries of India, China, and Russia agree for the MOST part on issues and conduct military excercises and share military technology. Australia, Europe (except Belarus, Ukraine), Africa (African Union) are for the MOST part aligned with the US. Africa is a unique situation, but when the African Union picks up and gets the African countries to work together, they will most likely align more with the West. The Americas (except Cuba) have a loose military pact called the Rio Pact, so you can consider them aligned with the U.S. I believe the most telling sign of U.S. allies, though, is which countries let the U.S. military have bases in them. You will notice that NO central or south Asian country has a U.S. base in it, but is surrounded by the U.S., which has bases in Arab countries, one in the Indian Ocean, Japan and Korea, Europe, and Singapore. If these countries wanted to plan an attack on North America, the only real option would be to fly over the north pole. If you look up where the U.S. has bases, you will notice they surround central and southern Asia.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Remember the thread title
I would just like to point out the title of this thread is "RAAF F-35 Weapons"
People, we seem to be straying quite a bit now with discussions and debates over a possible F-35 or EF Typhoon sale to Japan. Not to mention the morality/rationality behind arms sales to second & third parties or the various national defence industries.
Such a discussion would likely be quite interesting, but it more properly belongs in it's own thread IMV.
-Cheers
I would just like to point out the title of this thread is "RAAF F-35 Weapons"
People, we seem to be straying quite a bit now with discussions and debates over a possible F-35 or EF Typhoon sale to Japan. Not to mention the morality/rationality behind arms sales to second & third parties or the various national defence industries.
Such a discussion would likely be quite interesting, but it more properly belongs in it's own thread IMV.
-Cheers
fftopic Folks, if you want to discuss the intricacies of weapons exports, then please start another thread. Going on its current health I'm sure it will have a few respondents.
But - as Todjaeger so helpfully emphasised - its a bit divorced from the actual thread title.
performance
New Member
Its all about the money. Reason why the US govt stopped so many European or Israel based military imports is money. More money for us, which is the bottom line. Your argument about rights and all that is meaningless.
I would do some research into history before you go making claims, Japan is an ally because it has no choice. It lost to us in the Pacific war after attacking us in Pearl habor. Japan attacked us with the same weapons we gave them so believe me when I say this we will never be exporting things like the f-22 without analyzing other options.
Whats more is Japan was one of the biggest allies of Nazi Germany. You blindly talk about allies and what not when you dont have the slightest clue what is going on behind the scenes.
The only reason today we have for exporting something like the f-22 is to counter the growing powers of India and China. Its estimated that in 2020 China and India will be equal to the US economically and military wise. When they rise Japan and Korea will play a huge part in the US keeping a foothold in the region and stop China and India from pushing the US out completely.
What has this got to do with RAAF F-35 weapons?
I respectfully suggest that you read the posts from Tod and gf0012 and keep on topic. If you want to continue this discussion do as gf said and start another thread.
Cheers
Ignoring my advice about straying off topic immediately after my post is not particularly a good thing to do.
All.
Any further breaches will see responses automatically deleted.
Brandon has generously gone and created a new thread on this topic:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6463
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
This is a big revelation.. Will the RAAF get the full USAF version or the downgraded export version? if we get the works then thats a verry good thing as the avionics and LO should be much more capable.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Not sure that the JSF participants will receive the same level of LO tech as the US F-35, particularly given the tech exchange issues. If the US is reluctant to share some of the LO tech with the UK or Oz...
My impression was that the export F-35s would be non-LO or reduced LO, when compared to the F-35 copies entering service with the various nations in the JSF program. Not that they would be non/reduced-LO compared to US models. Could be wrong though. Either way, more orders for the JSF can do nothing but help the program as a whole, as well as assist those members with workshare.
-Cheers
I thought the issues with UK technology access were to do with the ability (& in some cases the rights, where we have the ability) to do all necessary maintenance, integration of weapons, etc. over here. Access to software source code seemed to be the main point of contention, followed by permits to do what we have the technical ability to do already.
That is also my understanding re the UK program. I stand to be corrected but my understanding with the Australian F-35 program, presuming it gets the final go ahead, is that the RAAF is satisfied regarding access issues.
Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I do recall the RAAF having similar issues to RAF with access to tech used in the JSF. I do admit though, that I'm not certain what the nature of the issues were. As for the RAF issues, I do recall it having to do with maintenance, modification and servicing/upgrading, but not sure whether it was just on a software level, or whether there was hardware related tech issues.
-Cheers
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
F35's "stealth" AAM payload
There had been some significant debate previosly on the F35's internal weapons payload. I found an interesting grahic that indicates the F35's onternall AAM payload will not be 4 weapons but 12!!!! Note that it refers to the F35C, however this has an identical weapons bay to the F35A, allthough not the F35B which has a significantly smaller weapons bay.
2 AMRAAM's on a double rail launcher in the belly hardpoint, 2 AIM9X's (ASRAAMs) on a double rail laucher on the inboard hardpoint. This covers the two we allready know about. The 4 extra come from 2 hardpoints each on the outboard door. IF the outboeard door is capable, structually, of carrying the weight of 2 AIM 120D's the F35's "stealthy" weapons payload will be better than the F22's. Definatly an interesting development.
http://www.airforceworld.com/fighter/gfx/jsf/f35_payload.jpg
There had been some significant debate previosly on the F35's internal weapons payload. I found an interesting grahic that indicates the F35's onternall AAM payload will not be 4 weapons but 12!!!! Note that it refers to the F35C, however this has an identical weapons bay to the F35A, allthough not the F35B which has a significantly smaller weapons bay.
2 AMRAAM's on a double rail launcher in the belly hardpoint, 2 AIM9X's (ASRAAMs) on a double rail laucher on the inboard hardpoint. This covers the two we allready know about. The 4 extra come from 2 hardpoints each on the outboard door. IF the outboeard door is capable, structually, of carrying the weight of 2 AIM 120D's the F35's "stealthy" weapons payload will be better than the F22's. Definatly an interesting development.
http://www.airforceworld.com/fighter/gfx/jsf/f35_payload.jpg
very intersting indeed.
i would have thought the F35B could carry the missile load but wouldn't quite be able to carry the varations of bombs. have heard of that configration but not see images of it.
i notised a slight problem with the moadle its got the intergrated gun on the F35C which is inncorect
also 8 SDB i would be very intrested in seeing that
I think that this may not be such an issue. eg, the US had a problem with some component weight and thermal management on JSF that has now been dealt with using australian materials science tech. I would assume that the significance of what we've given them would act as a quid pro quo across a number of fronts.
It would surely mean that we can strengthen and lighten critical components (like skins, cantilevers and "fold aways") in light of what we've already provided. (sorry, can't go into exact detail here)
Grand Danois
Entertainer
AMRAAMs on wingtip rails? Now, what is that about?
Anyhow, followed the link, but it is in some language I don't understand... Can you fill me out?
Note the wing tip rails. Haven't seen those in any brief. Was this part of something someone leaked from a Navy brief? I have always wondered if there would be the usual annoying wing flutter with that big wing. As you may know F-16s fly with that empty or loaded wing tip rail combined with a software patch to mitigate some wing flutter. It is also my understanding too that Super Hornet always flies with the winder wing tip rail for this very reason.
Nice graphic. The weapons clearance there should be interesting if it was tested.
Nice graphic. The weapons clearance there should be interesting if it was tested.
Is this how you got your almost seven thousand post, "we gave them critical stuff but cannot discuss". I have heard other countries chipping in dollars and others providing some finished parts/products but never heard of any critial technology or material being provided by other countries let alone Australia.
In fact Britain is always pushing us to use some of their parts/products but we have always turned them down until recently, even then it will be installed in their F-35 not ours.
I wonder what kind of Australian fifth generation stealth and critical avionics technology we have incorporated
. I guess we will never know.nfloorl:Mod edit: There are a number of members of this forum who are "Defence Professionals", being either current or ex-service personnel and/or defence industry. Such members often have information that due to security classification is not available for public release. Such information can sometimes be discussed in a vague or general fashion, but details and specifics cannot. A number of different countries have made contributions as part of the JSF program, and not just in terms of financing, but technology as well. In order to maintain information security on the program, such information is of course classified.
-Preceptor
Last edited by a moderator: