Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

[Stryker001]

Britons first H-bomb was set of at Christmas Island as well as two others. The US held 15 Nuclear tests there. All were air bursts as I understand and very little irradiation of Christmas Island occurred.

The British test weapons were dropped from Valiant bombers staging off the island, so the island already has a substantial runway and facilities albeit they being dated to the early 1960's.

Suddenly turning Islands into to military bases is all the rage, don’t be cheap by a carrier, it is to close to Indonesia especially when they acquire Iskander Ballistic Missile and SA-80 batteries. You would need to designate a AWD or by S-400 or Patriot missiles, or divert air assets into a defense operations not offensive.


Besides a base there with air assets specifically the F-35, you lose its tactical advantage.However it does allow and interception into the Indian Ocean, but off the west coast of Australia you need a mobile base, a naval battle group. On the other flank New Caledonia is no good either as no one will becoming via the Coral Sea.



Just my opinion, on Island's

 

[thorpete1]

Howdy All

The RAND think tank has just released a report on the F-35 Air Combat Abilities According to ABC radio news.
The report discussed that the F-35s Climb rate, acceleration and turning abilities were lower then that of Russian and Chinese Su-27/30/35 and the one aircraft that could beat it was the F-22. The defense department responded that they see the F-35 as still being Australians best option but the minister hadn't released there own air combat capability report. This was the general gist of the article.

I couldn't find any confirmation for this article, neither at the RAND or ABC websites but that may be because the websites haven't been updated yet.

The Article was interesting as it forgot the EF-2000(?), Neglected the Technological, Electronic and LO abilities of the F-35 and really only applies to the pure knife fight combat that F-35 pilots would attempt to avoid because they would prefer to use there aircrafts advantages rather then playing on the enemies terms. It also applies to the ability for alert fighters to take off to respond to an air defense alert.

What do people think about this radio article, is it true and is there any more confirming sources for it?

Cheers.

 

[thorpete1]

Just to add to my last post, found the article on ABC's news website

New US-bought Air Force fighters 'inferior'

Posted 8 hours 22 minutes ago

A US think tank has declared the joint strike fighter aircraft that Australia is set to buy is inferior to the Russian made Flanker jets used by China and Indonesia.

The RAND Corporation's experts compared jets in a wargame and the ABC has obtained the results.

In bad news for the Air Force, which is set to buy 100 of the joint strike fighters, the results say the strike fighters have inferior acceleration, climb, turn capacity and a lower top speed than Russian and Chinese fighters.

In short it says the strike fighter can't turn, can't climb and can't run. It says the US fighter which could outdo the Russian made flankers is the F 22 raptor, which the United States bans from foreign sales.

The fighter's defenders argue it is not designed for close combat. But the RAND Corporation says a plan b is necessary and points out that if the strike fighter is seen or has to engage an enemy at close range then it will be no match for the Flankers.

A spokesman for the defence minister says he is convinced the strike fighter is the best aircraft available, but the minister has not released the air combat capability review which studied the options.

Whats your thoughts on this and how respected is RAND corporation?

Cheers

 

[old faithful]

bloody typical....what does it matter if an SU is faster, can turn tighter and climb quicker than a JSF? It just goes to show the lack of understanding of modern air combat that jurno,s have. If the SU cant see the JSF before the JSF see,s it, does the SU,s performance matter? if the SU,s AAM cant see the JSF, how will it shoot it down? The JSF will have a radar and EW set up second to no aircraft...includeing the F22.

 

[Navor86]

It will take the Chinese at least 10-15 Years to be able to deploy ist Fighters by CV near the Australian Waters.Till this date only Indonesian and eventually Malayan Sukhois could be able to target Australian Soil directly with Su. And thos 2 Nations will field below 50 Sukhois.The JSF in Conjunction with AWACS,Tankers and what matters most the very good trained RAAF Pilots will have no Problems to beat them (Beside that as long as no Military Junta or other crazy Wannabe Dictators will take other the Goverments in said Countries,they will not be so dump to even try.)
And at this point when the Chinese field enough Carriers either the JSF is long time replaced or this build up could be countered by buying add. JSF and or thinking of some kind land based SAM System to cover ADF Bases in the North

 

[Grand Danois]

The RAND Corporation's experts compared jets in a wargame and the ABC has obtained the results.[/B][/COLOR]

Did they have the actual results from Pacific Vision 2008 or was an interpretation relayed from APA and Dr Jensen?

They are experts at injecting unsubstantiated suggestions into the press...

 

[gf0012-aust]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...-29277,00.html

New fighter 'not a war games loser'
September 25, 2008 03:03pm
Article from: AAP

RECENT criticism of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is based on misrepresented data, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon says.

Australia is considering making its biggest-ever defence investment - $15bn - by acquiring up to 100 JSF aircraft, from US manufacturer Lockheed, as replacements for its ageing Hornet and F-111 fighter jets.

Critics of the JSF say it is an inferior aircraft to Russian-made fighters being used in the region. They have used the results of a computerised war game to back up their criticism.

Mr Fitzgibbon says he is one of the few people in Canberra to have seen the full classified briefing of the war game in which JSF was supposedly found wanting.

"On the basis of that briefing, I am absolutely satisfied that the data from that exercise was misrepresented,'' he said today.

"The exercise didn't compare particular platform. It was about something entirely different which I can't speak about.''

Mr Fitzgibbon said the media reports of the JSF's vulnerability were puzzling.

"It just bewilders me how anyone could come to that conclusion based on the information provided to me.''

JSF remains in development with just two aircraft flying so far.

It has been persistently criticised as likely to be inferior to Russian built aircraft now entering service across the region.

Lockheed says the Pacific Vision war game conducted last month was a tabletop exercise designed to assess basing and force structure vulnerabilities.

It featured no air-to-air combat exercises and no assessment of different aircraft platforms, the company said.

Claims the JSF is inferior to the Russian aircraft in visual range combat appear to stem from a powerpoint presentation prepared by thinktank the Rand Corporation.

It cites publicly-available data from defence publisher Janes as indicating JSF can't turn, climb, or accelerate as fast as Russian aircraft.

Mr Fitzgibbon was unswayed.

"I remain absolutely confident that if the JSF can produce the capability they have been promising, then we will have the right aircraft for Australia,'' he said.

"The outstanding questions then, of course, are when and at what cost.''

 

[Aussie Digger]

Just to add to my last post, found the article on ABC's news website

New US-bought Air Force fighters 'inferior'

Posted 8 hours 22 minutes ago

A US think tank has declared the joint strike fighter aircraft that Australia is set to buy is inferior to the Russian made Flanker jets used by China and Indonesia.

The RAND Corporation's experts compared jets in a wargame and the ABC has obtained the results.

In bad news for the Air Force, which is set to buy 100 of the joint strike fighters, the results say the strike fighters have inferior acceleration, climb, turn capacity and a lower top speed than Russian and Chinese fighters.

In short it says the strike fighter can't turn, can't climb and can't run. It says the US fighter which could outdo the Russian made flankers is the F 22 raptor, which the United States bans from foreign sales.

The fighter's defenders argue it is not designed for close combat. But the RAND Corporation says a plan b is necessary and points out that if the strike fighter is seen or has to engage an enemy at close range then it will be no match for the Flankers.

A spokesman for the defence minister says he is convinced the strike fighter is the best aircraft available, but the minister has not released the air combat capability review which studied the options.

Whats your thoughts on this and how respected is RAND corporation?

Cheers

It's a complete load of bollocks, just like everything produced by APA...

 

[irtusk]

http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/09/25/

Statement Regarding Media Coverage of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Andrew Hoehn, Director of RAND Project Air Force, made the following statement today:

“Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft.”

so did someone completely fabricate a RAND analysis and pass it around to all the Australian media?

 

[Grand Danois]

http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/09/25/



so did someone completely fabricate a RAND analysis and pass it around to all the Australian media?

Well, Dr Jensen "heard" from someone that the F-35 was "clubbed like a baby seal" and he was not unhappy to relay it.

ABC claimed to have obtained the results from the Pacific Vision 2008 wargame (apparently under the auspices of RAND).

Now RAND, Fitzgibbon and Lockheed Martin has put it in public record that the performance of the F-35 was not part of the table top exercise, just as the fighting qualities was not assessed.

Which leaves Dr Jensen and ABC in a very, very poor light.

It's potentially dismally poor reporting and amazing professional and intellectual dishonesty. So yeah, what analysis was ABC provided with - exactly what document???!!!

 

[thorpete1]

Sounds like ABC has been had. I wonder if they will retract the article and apologize to RAND corporation as the saga could amount to deformation of RAND corporation (not sure but the saga could be misconstrued i.e. RAND another APA or something like that?).

Even more interesting is that it appears that the ABC didn't do any cross-checking. What shoddy Journalism.

The ABC article is still up and has been substantially edited from the one posted earlier. It now has a big spiel in front of the supposed RAND analysis about how the Defense Minister Mr Fitzgibbon will not commit to buying the F-35 till he's convinced there effective etc. etc. etc.

This sound weird considering all the stuff above about how the Defense Minister thinks the F-35 suits us very well.

Whoever wrote this has been spending too much time on the APA website or other Anti F-35 website.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Sounds like ABC has been had. I wonder if they will retract the article and apologize to RAND corporation as the saga could amount to deformation of RAND corporation (not sure but the saga could be misconstrued i.e. RAND another APA or something like that?).

Even more interesting is that it appears that the ABC didn't do any cross-checking. What shoddy Journalism.

The ABC article is still up and has been substantially edited from the one posted earlier. It now has a big spiel in front of the supposed RAND analysis about how the Defense Minister Mr Fitzgibbon will not commit to buying the F-35 till he's convinced there effective etc. etc. etc.

This sound weird considering all the stuff above about how the Defense Minister thinks the F-35 suits us very well.

Whoever wrote this has been spending too much time on the APA website or other Anti F-35 website.

It's all come from Peter Goon. The "email" they read out during the ABC article, was another of his "rants"...

If anyone could be bothered, go to the APA website and read some of his "letters" to various ADF chiefs and Politicians.

His email from Lt General HURLEY (Head of Defence Capability development group at that time) is classic!

It can be viewed here:

http://www.ausairpower.net/XtC/E-Letter_Exchange with LtGen Hurley_18Jul05.pdf

 

[Grand Danois]

Here it is, the RAND pre-brief:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/09/download-infamous-rand-air-pow.html

It's 6 F-22A operating out of Anderson vs 72 Flankers over Taiwan. The Raptors only carry 48 missiles. Chinese win.

 

[Stryker001]

Well it will be interesting if the IDF sign on the dotted line for procurement of the F-35 early next year, I know they want to put the own avionic in it.

 

[thorpete1]

Would IDF avionics be able to be swaped into an RAAF or USAF plane because those where the only parts available?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Would IDF avionics be able to be swaped into an RAAF or USAF plane because those where the only parts available?

Possibly, Israeli avionics have found their way on to RoSAF's F-16 Block 52+. The real question is it worth it? The new avionics would have to be superior to those provided by LM, things aren't automatically better because they're made in Israel. Then the additional cost (Israeli stuff is usually more expensive because they do not enjoy the economies of scale larger US producers do, look at the cost of Python 5 vs AIM-9X) of purchase and maintenance (having identical kit to the USAF has logistical benefits), has to be justified by additional capability, which is by no means a givin.

 

[thorpete1]

Thanks ozzy.
I was proberly looking at it from a hot swappable point but your reply has already made me realize it proberly wouldn't be possible. The Israeli avionics would have to be better then LM stuff to put it on there F-35's in the first place and that would mean integration and testing time during installation and would make it an unattractive option in the field for other air forces.


cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Israeli avionics would have to be better then LM stuff to put it on there F-35's in the first place

Why is the Israeli gear automatically better? Our interoperability issues are with the US, NATO and active like minded allies (eg ANZUK)

At the logistics and support level alone, US/NATO interoperability alone trumps it.

The Israelis don't actually get the same degree of access to US technology as the UK and Oz.

 

[Stryker001]

I think it is the future munitions and upgrades that will be developed for the F-35 that has got the Israeli's interested, they are allowed to purchase the F-35 to keep a technological edge over the other who are part of the US military exports to the Mid East, Kingdom of Saud etc.

The Syrians and Iranians will be flying Russians aircraft, so the Israelis are not to concern about the Rand report. The are getting the F-35A and the F-35 B so they can disperse their air assets, similar to how the harrier was deployed during the cold war, the ability to operate from small independent bases yet be networked into a mush larger air defense strategy.

If I was Australia after the purchase of the 80 to 100, I would buy another 25 to 45 to be tasked to the Army Aviation Regiment.

Now the RAAF have the C-17 I would take at least for of the C-130's and have them converted to AC-130 Spooky gunships cost around 60 to 80 million for the conversion if the DOD gives approval.

I would also have them tasked to the Army Aviation Regiment, they last forever and earn their keep even in peace you can use them against FFV and pirates.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Here it is, the RAND pre-brief:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/09/download-infamous-rand-air-pow.html

It's 6 F-22A operating out of Anderson vs 72 Flankers over Taiwan. The Raptors only carry 48 missiles. Chinese win.

I find the scenarios presented, just a TAD unrealistic.

It assumes that the ONLY way to fight is to attack enemy aircraft in the air. China meanwhile is fighting assymetrically, targeting USAF airfields, but USAF is not doing the same to China. WTF?

They also base their information on, wait for it:

Air Power Australia's statistical information...

No wonder the JSF Program office was so upset....