I'd love to hear at what altitude, but i guess thats classified.
What kind of range are we talking about ?
Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?
- Thread starter Falstaff
- Start date
- Status
What kind of range are we talking about ?
Haavarla
Active Member
Dude, u're very much mistaken here.
We have many air fields with long runways up north. If u're refering to some of the small civillian air fields, it's not a requirement for the RNAF to have fighters land on these airfields.. Norway is a small contry, with a fair amount of airfields. This isn't a issue..
Last edited:
Besides, the F-35 is now on record with a 3000ft take-off run with 18000 punds of fuel and weapons.
Regards,
B. Bolsøy
Oslo
Haavarla
Active Member
Agreed. Drag shute is a requirement by RNAF i would think. It will be a small effort to innstall it on the f-35.
Keep in mind, the F-35 preproduction's is not the final version.
It's on the news here, Israel have moved to reconcider theire deal on the JSF due to the high costs per aircraft!
It could mean less aircraft or other aircraft for the Israeli.
Counting now Italy, UK and Israel...
Who's next?:unknown
Keep in mind, the F-35 preproduction's is not the final version.
It's on the news here, Israel have moved to reconcider theire deal on the JSF due to the high costs per aircraft!
It could mean less aircraft or other aircraft for the Israeli.
Counting now Italy, UK and Israel...
Who's next?:unknown
Israel does not have the fixed price negotiated rate that the original JSF partners have.
eg there is no impact on the australian price no matter what the exchange rate is - only if the US goes into recession for 4 years would there be an impact on price.
Israel never had access to the same negotiated rates. btw, UK and Italy have the same contract conditions.
Haavarla
Active Member
"eg there is no impact on the australian price no matter what the exchange rate is"
How can u be so sure?
Do you work in the Australian Defence department?
Last edited:
self delete.
Last edited:
Not all Israeli gear is US FMS. They pay for it as well. Don't confuse US Grant processes with "free or cheap gear". It's not
PeterCrisp
Member
I'm sorry if this is a little off topic but when do you guys expect the F-35B (I'd like to see the UK version) to be available to fly at Air shows? Given that at 33 and not in the Military I'm unlikely to get a seat in the test program I think this would be my best chance to see the thing up close.
Waterfestival93
New Member
gf0012-aust:
Seems like RAND had to apologize to LM. But was the slipped quote ("clubbed like baby seals...") inaqurate? The RAND presentation is official, I think you all have read it, but if not, here is the link: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf
The discussed war game concentrates around quantity, not so much quality. US-China engagement at Taiwan Strait in year 2020. F-35 (et al) vs. Chinese Flankers. In this scenario the F-35s AMRAAMs have a Pk 1.0, and the Flankers have a Pk 0.00. With a much larger number of Chinese Flankers, with many more AMRAAMs than the Blue forces, the result is that when all Blue forces AAMs are off, there will still be a number of Flankers in the air with remaining AAMs (and guns). Now what will that lead to? According to Power Point page #75-80, the Blue forces have closed in to WVR and with no more AAMs left, the (F-35s) "Can't (out)turn, can't (out)climb, can't (out)run" the Flankers... Maybe someone slipped the Clubbed like baby seals comment regarding to this scenario... Now if the F-35s would have had external weapons, the war game would have been tilted towards the blue forces since the F-35s still would have "seen first, shoot first" (as would have the Gripen NG, with smaller radar profile, at least equal AESA, and about equal number of METEORS, as compared to Flankers, and in the graph the Gripen NG would be positioned at the same area as the Typhoon, thus more probable to survive in WVR, and with missiles off, better than Typhoon in the graph, since the graph shows 50%fuel + full AA load). So the "clubbed like baby seals" was not fake, but it must be analyzed in the correct context. The wargame could have been very different with other parameters, but in this one they would be clubbed. I think Mr Burbage did not like how this were interpreted in the mainstream media. Even though, he was wrong in denying the result, in my opinion.
I think the quality through quantity will be viable even in the future(2020).
I think that one should not be to confident in the LO trump card in the future.
I think that the BVR missiles maybe might miss the target some times, no matter what the corporate PR statements says. Can you trust the BVR superiority if the missiles don't hit the target?
And I think I need another Singha Beer. Was at the Changi Air Base in Singapore a couple of weeks ago when in for the Formula1 race, unfortunately I had no time for bird watching.
Seems like RAND had to apologize to LM. But was the slipped quote ("clubbed like baby seals...") inaqurate? The RAND presentation is official, I think you all have read it, but if not, here is the link: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf
The discussed war game concentrates around quantity, not so much quality. US-China engagement at Taiwan Strait in year 2020. F-35 (et al) vs. Chinese Flankers. In this scenario the F-35s AMRAAMs have a Pk 1.0, and the Flankers have a Pk 0.00. With a much larger number of Chinese Flankers, with many more AMRAAMs than the Blue forces, the result is that when all Blue forces AAMs are off, there will still be a number of Flankers in the air with remaining AAMs (and guns). Now what will that lead to? According to Power Point page #75-80, the Blue forces have closed in to WVR and with no more AAMs left, the (F-35s) "Can't (out)turn, can't (out)climb, can't (out)run" the Flankers... Maybe someone slipped the Clubbed like baby seals comment regarding to this scenario... Now if the F-35s would have had external weapons, the war game would have been tilted towards the blue forces since the F-35s still would have "seen first, shoot first" (as would have the Gripen NG, with smaller radar profile, at least equal AESA, and about equal number of METEORS, as compared to Flankers, and in the graph the Gripen NG would be positioned at the same area as the Typhoon, thus more probable to survive in WVR, and with missiles off, better than Typhoon in the graph, since the graph shows 50%fuel + full AA load). So the "clubbed like baby seals" was not fake, but it must be analyzed in the correct context. The wargame could have been very different with other parameters, but in this one they would be clubbed. I think Mr Burbage did not like how this were interpreted in the mainstream media. Even though, he was wrong in denying the result, in my opinion.
I think the quality through quantity will be viable even in the future(2020).
I think that one should not be to confident in the LO trump card in the future.
I think that the BVR missiles maybe might miss the target some times, no matter what the corporate PR statements says. Can you trust the BVR superiority if the missiles don't hit the target?
And I think I need another Singha Beer. Was at the Changi Air Base in Singapore a couple of weeks ago when in for the Formula1 race, unfortunately I had no time for bird watching.
Last edited:
The slower aircraft don't have the option to disengage.
A stealthy, clean F-35, with a massive fuel fraction, most certainly does have the option to disengage.
Context is king.
Actually I do have access to the full report at work - and its rubbish. The scenario has been set to disadvantage the US across numerous vectors.
It assumes that the US is in a complete temporal flux and has none of its systems assets in the game except orphaned fighters.
Anyone with a scintilla of tac planning knows that its rubbish. RAND rejected it because they were used when they had no involvement - and they realise that the scenario as presented in completely unsupportable except for rabid anti-JSF pundits.
I expected that kind of scenario from enthusiastic teenagers - not from people who deceptively promote themselves as analysts.
RAND had every right to be miffed at idiots using their name to promote their own bias and technical ignorance.
The sad thing is that these muppets (who have NO access to the proper material) think that they are relevant against the professionals on the Teams.
Quite frankly, they're embarassing in their transparency.
Whys do you think that? Actually 5-6 of us have read it well before DID ran their article.
See previous. It's full of holes and deserves far better analysis. It also demonstrates that DID also did not bother to ask anyone in any of the 8 partner nations of their views.
Excellent for fanboys but sadly deficient in considered and reasonable debate.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
That report is NOT official, nor is it even a RAND analysis. Merely a document published by RAND.
The clue to understanding WHY it isn't is in the slides themselves.
Take a look at the slides to see where they get the information sources from.
Air Power Australia and Janes.
Both open sources of information with NO access whatsoever into the capabilities of the F-35, beyond what they (and you and I) can read on the Internet or in magazines.
If you think those sources of information are in any way official, perhaps you'd like this nice bottle of snake oil, I have handy...
For a reasonable sum of course...
Did it not occur to any of you, where the US Navy, USMC and where in fact Taiwan was for the duration of this battle?
What happened to the ground and ship based air defences?
DO you really think that PAC-3 Patriot and SM-2/ESSM would NOT have a field day, with 72x Flankers lined up in an extended line across the sky?
USA don't support Taiwan independence, that mean they are'nt going to fight for it, but instead provide political support to keep them separated for as long as can be done for access to cheap electronic components.
With that in mind, i think its better to focus on the more interesting summary of history, and technical/physical limitations/possibilities of this briefing.
Like for example
With that in mind, i think its better to focus on the more interesting summary of history, and technical/physical limitations/possibilities of this briefing.
Like for example
I think airbases will be very vulnerable to stealthy cruise missile attacks, i also think decoys will become a lot more abundant, basically an attrition of missiles
Last edited:
- Status