RAAF Stopgap air plan is 'dumb'

[highsea]

I think the Raptor will untimately be built in much larger numbers than we are currently talking about, which will help a lot on cost. If we could get it up to 600 AC, unit cost would come down around 70 Mil per. As it stands right now, we have the F-15 line funded through 2008 as a hedge, but I would much rather see that money go to the F-22. It gives our politicians too easy of an excuse to cut back on Raptor numbers, and it's not like we are going to get any new FMS deals with the current competition that's out there. The current talk of only 179 AC is a joke. It really would be a 150 Million dollar AC if that happens. But I don't think it will- we may see an extra year of LRIP numbers (24 vs. 36), but I think full rate production will come in 2007 at the latest. So much depends on what happens in Iraq. Lol, we need another Cope India to shake up the politicians...

When I think of the timeframe on the JSF, I get pretty nervous about the cost. It's not looking real good right now, but the same thing applies- we need to get the production numbers up so the development costs get spread thinner. One positive note is that when JSF is fielded, it will have some very good systems, as we will have 5-6 years of experience with the F-22 and a lot of that knowledge will go into the JSF. But the problem child is the F-35B. I have some real doubts about that one, and the impact on the program it causes.

 

[adsH]

When I think of the timeframe on the JSF, I get pretty nervous about the cost. It's not looking real good right now, but the same thing applies- we need to get the production numbers up so the development costs get spread thinner. One positive note is that when JSF is fielded, it will have some very good systems, as we will have 5-6 years of experience with the F-22 and a lot of that knowledge will go into the JSF. But the problem child is the F-35B. I have some real doubts about that one, and the impact on the program it causes.

I like the JSF HCI its Avionics interface is truly what i have always tried to put through to people, have one Large display unit and have all the information organized on it. the new gen Grippen has three large Touch screen interfaces 6X11 but i think the JSF takes all that to a whole new level, One Touch screen interface.

 

[Aussie Digger]

In my opinion Highsea, the entire JSF program is very debatable. The most recent US Government GAO report outlines that developmental costs for JSF's have already risen 81% and just like the F-22 are continuing to rise.

Add this to the well known platform limitations of EVERY F-35 variant in terms of performance, thrust to weight ratio's and the level of stealth being designed for from the outset (ie: forward sector only stealth, it's not designed for full stealth aircraft unlike F-22, F-117 and B-2) and you start to have grave doubts about this aircraft.

In addition LRIP (I believe) at this stage is still planned for 2006/7 and yet only 40% of the 17 million lines of code for the software has been written!!!

AS to the F-22, 177 aircraft are all that is currently planned (1 test model is to be retired and 1 crashed just recently). AS soon as the bean counters understand that the F-22 is the only viable replacement for the F-15C/E series aircraft and that it will be ridicously expensive to maintain F-15 AND F-22 Squadrons, I'm betting you will see further F-22's acquired.

This will occur when the full production run is occurring and the actual flyaway cost of the aircraft is known IMHO. The production costs for the F-22 are winding down. The JSF's are just starting. There's some chance you'll see F-22's with RAAF roundels on them yet...

 

[highsea]

Yeah, dev costs will continue to rise, as always. As of now however, the program numbers are safe @ ~2800 AC all told. The latest budget request by the AF was rebuffed by the DOD- the AF wanted to shift some funding to the F-22 and reduce the numbers of the F-35 to compensate (1763 to 1200).

I think people underestimate the level of stealth the F-35 will have. The only bad angle is really from directly behind the AC due to the nozzle, and that will have RA ceramics, cooling, etc. At rear quartering angles, the nozzle is hidden by the tailplane. All other angles should be equivalent to the F-22 in RCS, and it is a much smaller plane. I don't think any Flankers will be sneaking up of the F-35. Performance- it will still supercruise, albeit not at M1.7, more like M1.2, but it should have an unrefueled combat radius ~600nm, which is not bad, it keeps the AARs out of reach of the bad guys. But at M1.5-M1.6 max, you are not going to outrun a Flanker. What you will have is the ability to get a BVR shot off and disappear. He'll never see you if you beam him. Shoot and scoot, then do it again.

LRIP, I think will get pushed back a bit. First flight is scheduled for Aug 2006 for the F-35A, I don't see how we can get through IOT&E and get LRIP approval before late 2007. I could be wrong on this, but everything would have to go very well for it to happen faster. So 2008 for initial service, maybe, but probably December 31, lol.

F-22: The current budget request calls for production through 2008, which would mean a total procurement of 181 AC. So minus the 2, we would still be left with 179. There is no guarantee that Congress will go for this though, and it still leaves them with two+ years to change their mind. I seriously doubt it will get killed so early- as you say, the idea of maintaining both the F-15 and F-22 is just not practical, and there will be a lot of pressure to keep the program alive. Incidentally, some of the Tyndall Raptors have already been shifted to Langley.

...There's some chance you'll see F-22's with RAAF roundels on them yet.

I hope we do. It would give a much needed boost to the F-22. Something like 48 F/A-22's would compliment the RAAF's F-35's nicely.

 

[adsH]

and yet only 40% of the 17 million lines of code for the software has been written!!!

70 percent doesn’t mean that the AC is not fictional yet, sometime you Phase inn functionally and those 60% could be extension modules that is yet to be designed i.e. UML stuff drawn up. The basic AC might be functional these extra stuff could be the extended functionality.



You do know that Code Write-up can be outsourced, Each Coder would not be given the overall pictured would be kept busy following

.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Well according to the GAO report, the Stealth testing for the JSF won't be completed to around 2010. The first (full rate production) JSF will roll off the production line for the USAF around 2011.

On top of this, baseline platform aquisition costs have increased 23% since 2001 and are now estimated at US $100 Million per aircraft for the JSF. The problem with the Software, Adsh is that it won't be completed til at least 2010, some 3 years after the 1st aircraft is due to fly. If the F-22 is anything to go by, that 2010 date is highly optimistic. It's more likely that the software won't be fully completed til several years after that.

The full report is available here:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05390t.pdf

 

[adsH]

The problem with the Software, Adsh is that it won't be completed til at least 2010, some 3 years after the 1st aircraft is due to fly. If the F-22 is anything to go by, that 2010 date is highly optimistic. It's more likely that the software won't be fully completed til several years after that.

The full report is available here:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05390t.pdf

It’s a dynamic and iterative process, the Basic Version i.e. Beta Ver 1 for example may have basic operations covered second third and several hundred Patches might be added on, at later dates. I don't know exactly how they would implement the whole package but figures to me that this is how most modern Large scale Projects are handled. The Patches fit inn as block of Functionality and are augmented on to the system. They can be tested after they are "Installed" I think the word "1rst 2nd 3rd Trench"(Hardware and Software upgrades) might be closely related to the process. I’ve seen a JSF Simulator which might be used for static ground testing of the Control protocols of the Software, which might be the First step.



I seriously doubt A Massive and complex project such as the JSF would not be able to Operate without the complete stated 17million lines of code. we usually Use techniques such as Rapid Application development (RAD), Simply put these are techniques as I have stated are highly iterative and on each Milestone a Patch or an operational piece of Code is Pitted to the Client who actually helps in Evaluating it. The Process Continues during the Development lifecycle and is considered Very Complex. Traditionally I consider older process as being waterfall approaches meaning all the Systems requirement, Analysis and design and implementation are done separately as stages pass the Product is obsolete by the time Implementation is considered and delivery occurs. and change or changes after the stage become more and more costly as time and stages pass on I guess the F-22 is a product of that sort of design (due to changing requirements the Implementation teams had to continuously jump to redesign (Very VERRRRYY costly)). But I’m sure that the F-35 is going to be a product of Modern Software engineering.

 

[SABRE]

Well according to the GAO report, the Stealth testing for the JSF won't be completed to around 2010. The first (full rate production) JSF will roll off the production line for the USAF around 2011.

On top of this, baseline platform aquisition costs have increased 23% since 2001 and are now estimated at US $100 Million per aircraft for the JSF. The problem with the Software, Adsh is that it won't be completed til at least 2010, some 3 years after the 1st aircraft is due to fly. If the F-22 is anything to go by, that 2010 date is highly optimistic. It's more likely that the software won't be fully completed til several years after that.

The full report is available here:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05390t.pdf

For nations who r going to own both F-22 & JSF-35, I dont think JSF's stealth would matter much. I mean by the time JSF go for the ground attack, Raptors would already have made the skies clear of any enemy AC or would be doing so while JSF is performing its ground attacks.

But for the nations who r going to buy JSFs alone, stealth may be a bit of a concern but wouldnt it be to have "what ever stealth" than "no stealth" at all. JSF for F-18 is a great replacement & Australia is lucky to be on the probable list.

highsea I thought Raptors were not for sale to any country wheather UK or any one else, thats y USA went for JSF project to provide some thing similar but inferior for export.

I saw JSF's price on the price threat. It says $30m to $35m...if its so than its amazing. Rafales cost $60m to $65m & F-14s cost $75m+ & F-16s come for $25m+....that means JSF being better than all these ACs is also cheaper than most of them. How come such technology is coming so cheap?

Comparing JSF with RAFALE....which one is better??? No doubt JSF has greater features & characteristics but still who is the winner here?

 

[adsH]

highsea I thought Raptors were not for sale to any country wheather UK or any one else, thats y USA went for JSF project to provide some thing similar but inferior for export.

we're probably the Only Allied nation that Actually would be allowed Access to the Raptors, Even thought we are probably the only Ally that can actually afford to spend on couple of Raptors. It would BankRupt Us of-course but Hey !! we're Only UK. Our "Indigenous Program" as they are refered to Would shutt down. Lol we Have EF2000 and it hintk with JSF around the Corner That just about All the firepower we'd need.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Actually the level of stealth in the JSF is one of the biggest concerns for those potential users who intend to operate the JSF as their only fighter aircraft. The level of stealth for the USAF/US NAvy isn't all that important because they have other capabilities to compensate.

The JSF is being designed with predominant "foward aspect" only stealth NOT "all aspect" as has been done with F-22. This has been done for several reasons but mainly to keep costs down. The JSF remember is designed to replace the F-16/18 series of fighters. However, it is designed primarily for air to ground strike, with a particular emphasis on battlefield strike and interdiction. It will only have air to air capability as a secondary capability. Given this basic design philosophy it is no surprise the JSF only has "forward aspect" stealth. This is all that is required for CAS, battlefield strike mission.


The JSF is not being designed as a top tier air to air combat aircraft because the USAF has the F-22 and the US Navy has the F/A-18E/F. They don't NEED another top tier fighter and can't afford one anyway.

This is fine and will deliver a fine strike aircraft. It will however deliver an air to air combat aircraft that is only marginally superior to current generation F-16/18 series "teen fighters".

It is not F-22 like in anyway at all, other than a basic similarity from a casual glance. 1) It is unlikely that an F-22 style supercruise (irregardless of actual speed) will be achieved by the JSF, though I have heard some people mention it will be capable of this.

The reason is because it is a single engine fighter. Engine technology still has not developed to the point where a single engine can provide enough thrust to allow an aircraft to "cruise" supersonically without the use of afterburners.

2) In addition, the stealth capability of on non-US aircraft will be significantly degraded compared to US aircraft, and will be several orders of magnitude lower than F-22's as they are designed this way from the outset to keep costs down.

3) The radar system of the JSF is being optimized for air to ground missions, though it has air to air modes as well. In addition though it will be an AESA radar system (APG-81) the radar will not be a true low probability of Intercept (LPI) radar like the F-22's APG-77, and it will have significantly smaller element number in it's radar system (around 1200 in the JSF compared to 2200 for the F-22). This is important as the element modules in a radar directly affect the range and performance of said radar system.

AS to the cost? Well the current cost of a JSF is around $100 million per aircraft. This might come down during the full production run, but only provided that costs don't increase as the program progresses. How often has it been seen with a major defence acquisition that costs have decreased over time? Never, AFAIK...

All in all the JSF will at best be an incremental improvement over the Teen series fighters and be roughly equivalent to the Rafale/Eurofighter, but with an increased stealth capability, though one still decidely inferior to the F-22...

 

[highsea]

AD, those GAO numbers are a worst case scenario, imo. The $100 Mil figure is a projected cost in 2013 for a fully capable AC- basically if we stopped the program at the end of LRIP. It also assumes that none of the problems that the program faces will be addressed, or at least in an effective manner. So if production numbers get cut way back, yes it will affect the overall cost wrt dev costs added in to each AC.

That's what's happening with the Raptor, because the program cost was set at a fixed price to start. So as dev costs rise to account for a changing requirements, the numbers go down. As long as the order numbers stay high, the dev costs are spread thin enough so that they aren't nearly as significant. This is the big problem with the Raptor- we built the AC to a maximum capability, but tried to do it an a cost-constrained manner. You can't have it both ways. LM has already assured Australia that the unit flyaway cost will be ~$45 Million per plane, and they would be ready by ~2012 (IIRC). The problem when you build to cost instead of capability is that some features will be left out or downgraded.

True the F-35 was not designed to be a pure A2A machine, but in a pinch it can still be loaded with 6 AMRAAMs and 2 ASRAAMs/Sidewinders. Sensor-wise it's very good with IR imaging and passive sensors encircling the AC, and displayed on the pilots visor-the pilot can see through the plane at any angle and engage targets. It doesn't have the Raptor's 1500 element antenna because it's too big for the nose of the F-35. And it doesn't have the side arrays the Raptor has. But the elements are the same, and that's the most important component as far as range, resolution, agility, etc. What it doesn't have is the field of view. AFAIK the final specs aren't publicized, so we don't know about LPI features like frequency hopping, and EA features, but certainly the capability exists in the F-35's radar. I don't think the US is going to hold too much back from the UK and Australia when it comes to the radar. We expect to be operating alongside these planes, so they need good interoperability.

Schedule wise, the first production F-35A is undergoing final assembly now, and will fly in August '06. IOC is still planned for 2008, but it will not have all the goodies at that time. LRIP approval will be given before IOT&E is complete. We expect to have significant numbers fielded by 2010-2011 with full sensor and weapons capability before we go to full rate production. That gives us 4 years of LRIP with increasing numbers and capabilities each year. The F-35B will make first flight in '07 and is planned for IOC in 2012.

I'm not as pessimistic as the GAO. And the F-35 is more than marginally better than the teen series it replaces- it's a generational advancement, and will give new capabilities to the AF's that field them. The EA capabilities, for example- the F-35 will be able to jam an opponent's radar and still perform all it's search/track/targeting/SAR functions. The SAR imaging will make standoff strikes more accurate, and faster, with the ability to launch several weapons simultaneously and forget them.

I can understand why Aus is worried about a single engine AC due to over-water operations, but the F135 engine should be very reliable and easy to service. And we're doing it with the Navy version too, and they traditionally don't like single engine AC either.

Sabre- officially the F-22 is not for export. Unofficially, the US would offer it to the UK and Australia if asked. I would like to see this, because it would be a big boost to the program.

The rationale for building the JSF wasn't to create a cheap export plane, but to create a good strike fighter that would compliment the F-22. It has to be economical enough to field in large numbers. The export deals we have right now are a small fraction of the overall production. 30-35 million is not a realistic unit cost though, 45-50 million is more like it. But there should be a benefit in overall cost of ownership that offsets less pricey AC like the F-16, because it will have high reliability and be easy to service.

It's pretty hard to stack it up against the Rafale right now, there are too many unknowns. But I think the Rafale is more of an air dominance machine than the JSF. The JSF is primarily a standoff strike AC, that has the ability to fight it's way to it's target, kill the target, and fight it's way home.

 

[SABRE]

Discovery Channel loves Fighter Jets & Military AirCrafts..... I was seeing this documentory on up coming fighter Jet generations (F-22, JSF, Rafale, EF-2000 etc..)...according to that documentory JSF stands for what ever lockheed-martin has created so far with few elements from "Raptor" & "Harrier" as well. Come to think of it when I look at the JSF it reminds me of 3 ACs; F-22, F-16s & F-104 Star Fighter..Its wings remind of F-104.

Anyways stealth or no stealth JSF is a good AC. Compared to F-18s & F-16s it has better A2A capability hence it is good enough for to be bought.
All I wana knw is that is it going to become World's 2nd best AC after F-22 or it will take no.4 possition with EF-2000 no.2 & Rafale no.3.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The point I was trying to make Highsea, was that the performance data publicly available now shows that the JSF was not even comparable to advanced versions of the F-15 in service now. It does not approach the F-22 in any way and is highly debatable against Su-27/30 series fighters in pure A2A scenario's.

As a bomb truck it's fine, even good when compared to F-22 or any other fighter you'd care to choose, given that F-22's (in particular) can't carry 2000lbs class weapons internally, however most operators of the JSF will require it to perform equally well in both areas. It is unfortunate that Western Air forces haven't been significantly tested in the A2A arena in recent years and that the USAF has almost always been there to fill in whatever gaps there are in a "regional" air forces combat capability. If they had a more objective analysis of required combat capabilities might have been conducted...

Unfortunately purchasing a fighter aircraft with this sort of thinking in mind is foolhardy in the extreme in my view. In addition most air forces won't be able to afford a mixed fleet of combat aircraft. If the JSF does come up short, a lot of airforces could rue the decision...

 

[SABRE]

AD u make it sound like that JSF is not a fighter but a ground attack air craft like A-10, HArriers, Q5 etc (Not realy Q5 but u knw...u get the point).

My believe has been that JSF is a combinition of F-18, F-16, A-10 & Harriers.....but it will have a good A2A defence as well...if it doesnt than its no use for USNAvy. Remember F-14s were more of A2A AC & they are being replaced by F-18s so that USNavy can get both A2A & A2G capabilities in one AC...& JSF would replace these F-18s which probably means that JSF have better A2A than F-18s.

The kind of advance smart weapons JSF would be carrying in future I dnt think any of the current mulitrole ACs would be able to. By the time JSF comes out u may see some good A2A weapons on board it.

Right now there is not much of a public information available on JSF hence no one can judge it so quickly.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Sabre, the JSF is a strike fighter just like the F/A18 and F-16. It is designed as a multi-role aircraft, however it is optimized towards battlefield strike and interdiction rather than air to air combat. You have to remember the organisations this aircraft is being primarily designed for. USAF, USN, US Marine Corps and the UK. All of these organisations are acquiring this aircraft to improve their Strike capability. NOT their A2A capability.

The USAF has the F-22. How could it possibly require another A2A fighter? Nothing else in the world will even come close to the A2A capability of this aircraft for decades. The USN has the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the RAF has the Eurofighter Typhoon. The JSF is unlikely to greatly (if at all) exceed these aircraft in the A2A arena. This has been publicly admitted by no less an authority than Cheif Air Marshall Angus HOUSTON, the chief of the RAAF, (who recommended JSF to the Australian Government) and who wrote a publicly available paper detailing a comparison btw the F-22 and JSF. (I can email it to anyone who wants it)...

The JSF WILL however, have significant A2A capabilities. As I outlined above, analysts have shown that the JSF will exceed the capabilities of the "teen" series fighters, specifically F-16/18 fighters in both Strike and A2A arenas. Performance testing so far and theoretical analysis have shown that the JSF is unlikely to exceed the F-15 in A2A capability and there are significant doubts it will exceed Su-27/30 aircraft.

This is a rather large problem for Countries that intend to operate the JSF as their ONLY combat aircraft, wouldn't you agree?

As to the weapons for the JSF, there is nothing currently planned for the JSF (either for strike or A2A missions) that won't or couldn't also be carried by other modern fighter aircraft. In addition, the JSF's avionics are currently advanced, but people fail to remember that current gen fighters will be upgraded by 2015, (the likely date full capability JSF's will be in service). Their avionics at that point will equal or exceed the 1st gen JSF avionics...

I re-iterate. The JSF will due to it's planned capabilities, possess no significant airframe performance superiority to current gen fighters. It will not possess any advantage in the weapons it will employ and it's not likely to possess a significantly higher level of avionics (including Radar and targetting performance) capability over current 4th gen fighters and it's only real advantage will be it's (limited) stealth capability.

Hopefully nothing is able to nullify stealth capability within the next 40 years or all JSF operators are not going to be happy...

 

[highsea]

AD, you are right in that the JSF is not designed to be a pure A2A machine- no one would dispute that. As you already mentioned, it was primarily intended to be a very good bomb truck. And I agree that Aus could use another AC to compliment the F-35, F-22 or maybe Eurofighter would be great.

Correct me if I'm wrong, this will be an oversimplification, but Aus has basically two requirements- defense of the homeland, and expeditioniary operations- peacekeeping missions and the ability to operate within a coalition (either US or EU led) on International missions. In both cases, Australia would have the support of the US and UK, at the minimum, so if the need arose for air superiority fighters, they would be there. And there's no doubt that other AC would be offered to Aus if she wanted them- F-22 or EF for example.

I guess there's other requirements, ASEAN specific operations like East Timor, but I don't know much about how that affects Australia's defense posture,so you would have to educate me on that point. But I suspect such scenarios would fall under UN auspices, so Aus would have International support there also.

All other users of the JSF besides Aus already have a mix of AC available, AFAIK, so it is only Australia that is planning to field only F-35's. And I can't think of a scenario where the US wouldn't help out if we were asked to.

I know you are not being critical of the JSF, since it will be exactly what it is designed to be, but rather Aus's decision is putting all her eggs in the JSF basket. And I can only speak from a US perspective, but I see Australia kind of like I see Canada- the forces are more designed around fighting within a coalition and fulfilling a specific role. There will always be other supporting elements to manage other issues.

Canada has the benefit of being directly under the US defense umbrella, more so that Aus, simply due to geography, but if Aus was attacked, there would be 3 CVBG's there in a week, and USAF assets would already be pitching in wherever they were needed. Who out there is dumb enough to attack Australia?

It's too early in the life of the JSF to say how it will stack up against a SU-27/30, but you know that the US has some of these AC, and we know all about them. We are not going to field a new AC that is vulnerable to an old and well known threat. The Sukhoi has the RCS of a battleship- there's no way the JSF is not going to get first look, and the choice to engage will be up to the JSF driver.

To make a fair comparison, we have to compare the whole system, not just TW ratios and top speeds. The AC, radar, avionics, weapons, sensors, AWACS support, AAR, tactics, doctrine, supporting elements, pilot training, etc all combine to determine who will come out on top. The AF that is fielding F-35's will not be working in a vaccuum. But direct comparison of capabilities between teen-series fighters and JSF: the JSF is far ahead- better sensors, stealth, sensor fusion, EA and ECM, performance (limited supercruise, range, loadout)- The JSF driver will have a big advantage over someone in a legacy fighter in practically every scenario that I can think of, as far as his ability to perform his mission and RTB safely.

But having said all that, I still wish you guys would buy some F-22's. Maybe it's just because I worked on that program, but I don't want to see it fall to the congressional budget ax...

 

[adsH]

The Future

On the 28th February 2002, the Armed Forces Minster Adam Ingram announced that the Joint Harrier Force will become an all ground attack harrier force upgrading the Royal Air Force GR7s to GR9s and retiring the Royal Navy FA2s. This is to ‘ensure a credible expeditionary offensive capability is maintained until the aircraft leaves service. Supporting this decision the Ministry of Defence said:


"These days we don't fight the kind of wars where our ships need defending from enemy warplanes far out at sea. Aircraft Carriers are now mostly supporting shore operations by flying strike missions and it makes far better sense to spend our money on Harriers which can do that best. If necessary, we can rely on coalition forces to provide the outer air defence for surface ships."


An added level to the layered air defence will be provided by the new Type 45 Destroyer equipped with the sophisticated and lethal Principal Anti Air Missile System (PAAMS) which is capable of controlling several missiles in the air at any one time, each one of which could engage individual targets, preventing attackers from swamping the fleet's air defences.


It is intended that the Harrier force be completely replaced by the Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA) also referred to as the Joint Strike Fighter which is due to enter service in 2012 and be operated from the Royal Navy’s Future Aircraft Carriers (CVF).
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/172.html

A basic Requirement Summ up!! the Royal Navy relies on there Harriers, now i don't have to Spell out the Inadequacies Or shall i put as Short Comings in the Harrier is is our "Trucker" rather then A2A Air supremacy fighter. so i guess We would rely on US Navy to Protect us from exterior Air Threats. Having Said that we have the Ef2000 which is by the way a Royal Airforce thing. so its not as if we're trying to loose our NAVAL AIR ARM Tactical A2A Edge by Purchasing the JSF, we NEVER HAD ONE, the JSF is way better off in-terms of A2A capabilities when compared to the Harriers.

Im with AD here, i think its absolutely Unacceptable to Expect other Naval forces in the "Coalition" to defend your Billion dollar Assets(Skilled MEN and Machines) there Priority would be there Assets and then Ours(RN,/// RAN). its makes very little sense to me.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Quote: "These days we don't fight the kind of wars where our ships need defending from enemy warplanes far out at sea. Aircraft Carriers are now mostly supporting shore operations by flying strike missions and it makes far better sense to spend our money on Harriers which can do that best. If necessary, we can rely on coalition forces to provide the outer air defence for surface ships."

Was the Falklands really THAT long ago? I seem to remember the Royal Navy having a huge struggle on it's hands to defend itself from enemy warplanes far out to sea and it didn't even have the RAF to help it, let alone any coalition forces!!! This stupid bureaucratic type of decision allows no room for circumstances where "coalition" forces can't provide you with assistance.

Australia is making a similar one by choosing only the JSF. What if a fault with the fleet grounds the type, (as happened with the F-22 a couple of weeks ago and has happened to Australia's F-111 a couple of times in the last few years) the ENTIRE air combat capability of the RAAF will be nullified. The RAAF at that point will entirely lose it's capability to defend Australia's airspace.

As to our defence priority's, defence of Australia is obviously 1st, an ability to support "regional" coalitions is 2nd (this heavily implies Coalitions within the South East Asia area) 3rd is the ability to deploy forces to join Coalitions "further afield" and last (although ironically it occurs far more often than the other 3) is the ability to deploy forces to assist with humanitarian operations (the Asian Tsunami relief operation being the most recent example).

The ability to join a coalition is therefore far less important than it might seem to some. Besides, that argument is a non-sequitur anyway. Any modern Western fighter will provide you with "options" to join a Western Coalition...

 

[daisy_cutter]

Performance testing so far and theoretical analysis have shown that the JSF is unlikely to exceed the F-15 in A2A capability and there are significant doubts it will exceed Su-27/30 aircraft.

Against likely current-generation Russian built/designed opponents, the JSF's low-rcs is a deciding advantage. Until IR (or alternate radar technology) sensors and missiles advance to the stage where the Ruskies can get off the first shot, the JSF should be quite capable of dealing with opfor fighters.

I think it all depends on future developments (and which of these are adapted for the F/A-35), about which we can only speculate, as to whether the JSF will remain in this position for the next 40 years. I think though, that given the US's dominance, its safe to say that it will.

For example we don't know what sort of rcs-reducing features can be given to current and next-generation Russian fighters, or what capability future AAMs will have.

There are many other factors as mentioned by others in modern air combat, from EW to tactis and training, that all combine together to influence the outcome; the JSF's comparatively inferior agility is but one. Moreover while it is not as agile as the Flankers Kopp has nightmares about, its not exactly a slouch. It does have going for it a competitive TWR and a clean configuration to compensate for its strike-optimised wing sweep and design.

IMO for the RAAF, the F/A-22 is not good value , assuming that total cost will end up (optimistically) at over twice the price of an F/A-35.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Actually the thrust to weight ratio of the JSF is the single biggest problem with the entire project at present, hence the major "weight loss" program currently underway. This mainly refers to the STOVL version but also affects the CTOL and Carrier borne versions as well. As to it's clean configuration, well you've got me there, but I wonder how often it will actually be operated in this configuration, particularly by the RAAF, given the facts of the matter.

The facts are that the F-35A (the version the RAAF supposedly wants to buy) can carry 2x BVR AAM's and 2x WVR AAMS internally and that's it. Or alternatively it can carry 2x 1000lbs class weapons internally (weight reductions means that NO version of the JSF can carry 2000lbs weapons internally anymore) and 2x BVRAAM or WVRAAM. A mere 2 A2A weapons is hardly a high level self escort capability and 4 in total doesn't stack up very well against the 8 that current generation RAAF Hornets carried whilst on ops over Iraq!!!

This is particularly poignant when you realise the F-35 will carry exactly the same weapons (though probably in an upgraded form) as the Hornets do RIGHT now...

Given the extremely limited firepower should the "clean configuration" be used, you'd better hope that you're stealth capability is absolutely perfect. Otherwise you are going to be in severe trouble against SU-30 series fighters and the 8+ A2A weapons they WILL be carrying...

Basing your defence on the hope that your EW and tactics are better than your opponents, when your platform is not markedly superior is the height of foolishness in my view. This is also why the "networking" capabilities of the JSF are to a degree irrelevant.

There is not one single reason why regional SU-30 series fighters couldn't also be networked to a similar degree to F-35 fighters. Regional SU-30 series fighters are being equipped with French and Israeli avionics, which have demonstrably high levels of capability.

Regional air forces are equipping themselves (or have plans to do so) with modern AWACS platforms, advanced air search and track radars and modern datalinks. An AWACS backed, "networked force" of Su-30's would present real problems for a soley JSF equipped RAAF and their only response so far is basically to hope (and pray) that this scenario doesn't ever appear...

The real problem is that there are so many relatively simple problems with this aircraft, when operated as the SOLE air combat aircraft for the RAAF.

A small force of F-22's, combined with a predominant JSF force, would alleviate so many problems for the RAAF, that it deserves serious consideration...